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!!
Comments
The mountain bikers are just mad because his article and its humor was so effective. They ridicule hikers and equestrians all the time. They just don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot....
Lee - respectfully, you're off base. Cyclists don't make fun or hikers, nor is there hatred among cyclists towards the hiking group. Wish the same could be said of the reverse. What we feel is sadness (and no small amount of disbelief) that the parallels between our two clearly likeminded backcountry stewardship groups are so casually dismissed by a vocal segment of the hiking community.
Moving forward, it's not going to get any easier to protect public land and fund our park system's eroding infrastructure. Together we could change that because the unification of the MTB and hiking communities could raise quite a din...but unless we're willing to continually cede access you guys won't allow that to happen.
So be it. Regrettably (at least from our end) at odds.
This comment has been edited to remove a gratuitous comment. -- Ed.
Mike
Lee - I owe you an apology. I attributed Mike Vandeman's "they ridicule hikers and equestrians all the time" comment to you.
And Mike? You're actually right - or at least half right. We don't ridicule hikers or equestrians (although we do frequently point out holes in some of the commonly held misconceptions about trial impact.) We do, however, find it hard to take you seriously. And if there were anyone spouting venom as vehemently as you from our end we'd expect the same disregard.
MM
Lee, the "tidbits" in this article are nothing more than hyperbole, and useless anecdotes. The author inspires no thought or real discussion, he just presents his groundless knee-jerk opinion. His "humor" is not really enlightening, it only serves to spread a baseless fear.
I am an avid mountain-biker/hiker/backcountry camper/environmentalist, and there is no good reason mountain biking should be completely banned from all national parks. Mountain bikers understand not all trails would be appropriate for bikes, but certainly coexistence would work in more than a few cases, as it does on countless other trails around the world. I just don't get why some closed-minded hikers(again, I love me some hiking) don't see how mountain biking opens up so many more people to the wonders of the great outdoors. It inspires more people to be connected with nature and realize the importance of protecting the environment. It is senseless to try and close off your ranks from slightly different, although like-minded people when the bigger this tent gets, the better it will be for everyone.
In reference to your incident with the teenagers, I am very sorry to hear about that, and those kids represent a very minute percentage of the community. All the bikers I know or see slow down or stop when necessary when crossing paths with other trail users. Usually with a quick friendly greeting.
This comment was edited to remove some gratuitous comments. -- Ed.
Actually, the normal state of hikers and mountain bikers on the same narrow trail is rancor, not harmony. It is ALWAYS caused by the mountain biker who believes that all pedestrians should LEAP out of their way so they need not slow down and spoil their fun.
It saddens me to learn that so many readers have zero sense of humor. I look forward to every new posting of the Thunderbear and am really happy to see him as a frequent contributor to this forum.
lets just end the ceaseless heartfelt hiker vs biker debate and get to the real issue: equal access. the national parks are supposed to represent the best america has to offer and if hikers want to have their own trail network all to themselves but still funded and maintained by taxpayer $$, well they already have it in perpetuity as the vast majority of parklands have permanent wilderness designation. I believe trail users known as mtn bikers deserve equal access with our own specifically maintained trail system, and if we are just beginning the discussion in fair terms, we have a very very long ways to go to even get one trail considered sometime in this lifetime. and as the national parks have found to their alarm the younger generation is less and less interested in nature. Our sport can bridge the gap with the videogame generation while bringing health back to those in the most need of it. So to say that we are desparately determined to develop new trails is borderline hateful. We are looking for a fair shake after decades of anti-biker everything. All that the hiker "its for us not them mentality" of the sierra club and the like has brought is: decades of suppressing the positive growth of one of the best possible outdoor sports for our younger generation (and the current generation of the young at heart).
Thanks PJ - as Tilden tauht us all - provocation is better than just information!