This image taken from the trailer for the film National Park Adventures might be inferred by some to mean off-trail mountain biking is permitted in national parks, which it is not.
America's national parks will be gorgeously portrayed in an IMAX® production coming to theaters next year, but the trailer could be construed as misleading in that it shows mountain bikers cavorting in a red-rock landscape that is not located within a park. Indeed, the activity as portrayed is actually banned in national parks.
Certainly, the National Park Service's centennial next year is drawing amazing amounts of attention, and visitation to the parks this year. But some park managers are wondering why the producers of National Parks Adventure had to drop the adrenalin-pumping mountain bike sequence into their promotions, their trailer...and most likely their movie.
"When that group was here filming, we told them very clearly, because we were aware that they were filming bicycling on (U.S. Bureau of Land Management Land) land, that that activity was not allowed in Canyonlands and we were adamant that it not be shown in a way that might suggest it was legal in the park," Kate Cannon, superintendent of Canyonlands and Arches national parks, said Thursday. “I just find it disingenuous to show that activity in a film that purports, I believe, to be about national parks. I think what that’s doing is trying to sell the film with that dramatic footage, which I found peculiar."
Here's a segment taken from a promotion of the film earlier this year:
On Thursday a trailer for the film was promoted on social media channels by USAToday. It ended with an aerial view of mountain bikers.
Superintendent Cannon was frustrated by inclusion of mountain biking in the trailer, because riding off-trail in the parks is not permitted and this footage might encourage some riders to seek it out.
“It’s a real frustration," she said. "I think what we have to do is redouble our effort on our own social media and all of our information to our visitors to make it clear up-front that mountain biking is allowed in parks, but only on the same roads that vehicles are allowed to go on, and we’ll be doing that.”
Though a stunning image, this type of off-trail mountain biking is not allowed in national parks yet appears in a film promoting national parks.
After USAToday promoted the trailer on its social media channels, the National Park Service's social media team in Washington, D.C., retweeted USAToday's tweet to its nearly 200,000 followers.
Park Service officials in Washington said the film is to make it clear that the mountain biking segments were not filmed in a national park.
"The National Park Service worked with the producers to provide the necessary permits for the film project and offered recommendations and input on the film's content. The final decision about what footage was included in the film was made by the producers," the agency's chief spokesperson, April Slayton, said in an email Thursday. "The National Park Service strongly recommended to the producers that they clearly indicate that the mountain biking featured in the film was not filmed in a national park."
During inquiries to the producer's public relations firm last month, the Traveler was told that, "the film narration specifically says that our characters are outside a park. The film makes it very clear that this activity is not happening inside a national park."
The trailer, however, does not.
Comments
Who was the producer?
This sounds similar to IMAX productions shown in Springdale and West Yellowstone that supposedly portray Yellowstone and Zion but contain large amounts of footage shot nowhere near either park and containing story lines about "historical events" that although based on some actual person or local legend are pure fantasy. They also portray activities that are obviously intended to catch the interest of vicarious thrill seekers. They are horrible examples of pure schlock.
Both of those were produced by the same people. I wonder if they produced this one, too.
There will be a Ranger lurking behind a rock to give you a ticket!
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?
To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/48784297.
In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm .
For more information: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtbfaq.htm .
The common thread among those who want more recreation in our parks is total ignorance about and disinterest in the wildlife whose homes these parks are. Yes, if humans are the only beings that matter, it is simply a conflict among humans (but even then, allowing bikes on trails harms the MAJORITY of park users -- hikers and equestrians -- who can no longer safely and peacefully enjoy their parks).
The parks aren't gymnasiums or racetracks or even human playgrounds. They are WILDLIFE HABITAT, which is precisely why they are attractive to humans. Activities such as mountain biking, that destroy habitat, violate the charter of the parks.
Even kayaking and rafting, which give humans access to the entirety of a water body, prevent the wildlife that live there from making full use of their habitat, and should not be allowed. Of course those who think that only humans matter won't understand what I am talking about -- an indication of the sad state of our culture and educational system.
"Mountain bikers cavorting." That sounds seriously worrisome!
But, being serious in turn, what's the harm? And what's the benefit?
The harm is, of course, zero. What's being shown has no environmental impact, even if one accepts the premise (which we shouldn't) that humans should have zero environmental impact where they travel in our nation's wildlands. The impact should be low, of course--low enough that it's offset by the benefits of having people see these places. Mountain biking off-trail, or on trails, in Canyonlands would fall well within that category.
As a line employee, Superintendent Cannon is of course bound by the barnacle-encrusted NPS section of the Code of Federal Regulations, and one CFR rule prohibits mountain biking almost anywhere in a national park, except alongside lines of exhaust-belching Winnebagos.
But at the policy-making level, one senses that the NPS is worried about its budgetary future and wisely is now recognizing that the park-as-museum model is a budgetary dead end. Over the objections of groups like PEER, whose skin in the game is ideological but not practical, NPS is moving, cautiously, toward allowing mountain biking on trails.
Meanwhile, I'm happy to look at Canyonlands from above, namely on the incredible multiuse trails in the Abajo (Blue) Mountains of the Manti-La Sal National Forest west of Monticello, Utah. From 11,000 feet you get to see most of the park and the Henry Mountains beyond. And, whether on your mountain bike like me or hiking, you'll likely be the only one there. Highly recommended. (I should not be revealing this.)
I'll let the mountain bikers respond in detail but two observations. First, if you endorse equestrian use, then concern for trail conditions can't be a legitimate objection to bikers. Horeses do far more damage to the trails than do bikes. Second, the parks are wildlife habitat, but not exclusively wildlife habitat. If they were, there would be no human intrusion at all. Which perhaps you would endorse but the vast majority of American's wouldn't. Not because they believe only humans matter but because they don't believe only nature matters. Some people understand the concept of balance. There is no reason we can't have a reasonable balance of hiker only, biker only and shared use trails in our parks.
You're probably right, imtnbke. What's the harm?
While most riders probably stay on slickrock, those who veer off onto cryptobiotic soils aren't doing that much damage. Heck, in some cases it only takes cryptobiotic soils five to seven years to start rebuilding their veneers, and after that only about five more decades for the underlying soils and nutrients to return.
Mountain bike tire tracks ground into the slickrock of the Sand Flats Recreation Area./Google Earth
And there's so much slickrock out there that mountain bikers probably wouldn't grind tire tracks into the slickrock as they have done nearby at the Sand Flats Recreation Area.
It might, however, take rangers a while to respond to backcountry accidents...the park staff, like many park staff across the country, is a bit short due to budget cuts, and they might be involved elsewhere in the park with law enforcement, search and rescue, traffic control, or even interpretation programs.
Still, it shouldn't take too many years to develop a backcountry mountain bike plan...if the park has the resources and priority to do so. Probably no more than five or 10 years, and that money and staff resource time isn't needed anywhere else.
Although, it perhaps could be better spent on completing an archaeological resource study of Canyonlands. I think only about five percent of the park has been studied for its archaeological resources.
But in all seriousness, with the Sand Flats Recreation Area just south of Moab, and the trails in the LaSals you enjoy, is it really necessary to open up Canyonlands' backcountry, and no doubt frontcountry, slickrock to mountain biking?
Kurt, you ask, "is it really necessary to open up Canyonlands' backcountry, and no doubt frontcountry, slickrock to mountain biking?"
Not really. I'm only trying to help the National Park Service stay relevant. How's it going to help the NPS budget if in 20 years it asks for an increase and meets with a big yawn from the public and Congress, because the only people going to the national parks are retirees in their giant RVs who never venture off a paved road? The rest of the country will probably be asking for a National Video Game Museum and the money will go there, not Canyonlands.
Speaking of Canyonlands, I drove to the Needles entrance last year. It was supposed to be staffed until 6:00. I got there at 5:00. No one there. There's a $10 entry charge. I stopped to pay $10. There were a few fee envelopes lying about, but no pen to fill out the information. I had no pen. I waited about 20 minutes until someone drove out and borrowed his pen.
In 20 years it can only be worse, the way things are going. The support of a minority of Caucasian senior citizens will not be enough to sustain everything you'd like the NPS to do. Keeping mountain bikers at bay is part of a losing strategy. Which, again, I think wise people at NPS headquarters realize.
As for the cryptobiotic soil, I accidentally stepped on some in Utah a few years ago. With my feet. While walking. If we ban walking, we can end that threat.
Since you mention demographics, imtnbke, let's look at those of the mountain biking community:
Does that mean that in another 15-20 years the demographics will be a bunch of old white men? I don't think so, and I also don't think the demographic of national park visitors will be as you describe it either. When I visit parks -- and I was in Grand Teton just last weekend, and Canyonlands the week before -- I see a lot of millennials and GenXers as well as Boomers.
As for overall relevancy, visits to the national parks last year reached an all-time record; this year's visitation, by all indications, will be even greater.
Will relevancy be enhanced by making national park landscapes identical to those of the BLM and Forest Service if you allow similar uses and access? Or will they become just another worn-down landscape and pressures on wilderness access by means other than muscle-power grow?
Do you just go to parks where you can mountain bike, or are there other draws for you?
As for the Needles entrance station staffing, that indeed is one of the problems. I don't think expanding mountain bike access into the park will solve it, though.