It appears a fight is brewing over efforts to open designated wilderness areas to mountain bikes. A group of over 100 conservation organizations, including the Great Old Broads for Wilderness have co-signed a letter urging Congress to keep wilderness areas free of bicycles and other types of mechanized travel.
A group called the Sustainable Trails Coalition, a mountain biking group, is seeking to amend the Wilderness Act of 1964 to allow for such travel. Its website states: “Our simple objective is to modify existing legislation and give land managers more flexibility in how they manage the trails that humans are invariably using to visit our 762 wilderness areas.”
The Executive Director of Wilderness Watch, George Nicklas, counters with this statement: “At a time when wilderness and wildlife are under increasing pressures from increasing populations, growing mechanization, and a rapidly changing climate, the last thing Wilderness needs is to be invaded by mountain bikes and other machines.”
This article appears in Mar 23-30, 2016.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
These people are alienating all of us mountain bikers, who must now choose between more Wilderness, an idea I think a lot of us love, and fewer places to ride, which isn’t good.
Mountain bikes do less damage than horses, without even considering that hunting is legitimate in Wilderness areas. I’m not opposed to hunting, but I certainly think leaving a boot track or tire track is far less impactful than killing an animal. Indeed, not just mountain bikes are banned, but baby strollers are too! The current policies just don’t seem rational.
Allowing bikes on a case-by-case basis, with the decision made by local managers, makes a lot of sense to me.
Rather than being upset about other people going to “our” Wilderness, we should realize it belongs to all of us, and concentrate on enjoying it rather than being bothered by the “wrong” sorts of people being present.
Yes David, wilderness does belong to all of us and you can get off your bike to walk into it anytime, just like everyone else. The current policy is time tested and has worked to protect these lands from the damage, both physical and spiritual, that comes with motorized and mechanized uses. You have full use of the front-country. Use it and enjoy, but do not infringe on those who want the tranquility gained from the existing wilderness environment. This is far more important for the public good than your selfish jollies racing down a trail in full moto-cross gear. As a mountain biker I am disgusted by those bikers who think they need to ride over every square inch of land and I see this as the same self-serving stance echoed by motorized recreationalist. Some mountain bikers are unfortunately becoming an undesirably confrontational group that does not have respect, or “Trail Love”, for the other users of our public lands. Learn to share and keep your bikes out of the wilderness, you have thousands of miles to ride on.
In terms of “time tested”, actually, banning bikes from Wilderness areas was a later addition, not part of the original rules and regulations for Wilderness areas.
In terms of physical damage, that’s simply not true: horses, which are allowed in Wilderness areas, do far more damage. In terms of “spiritual damage”, you can make up any old thing you want – you could say that people trail running in bright neon outfits do “spiritual damage”. But that’s more a reflection of yourself than other people, isn’t it?
You seem to be projecting things that simply bear no relationship to reality. I don’t ride my bike in “full moto-cross gear”. I’m fine with sharing, and practice good trail etiquette. I always slow down and let hikers and horseback riders by, with a hello and a smile. Perhaps not everyone does, but I’ve met hikers who were jerks too – that’s more about who a person is rather than what kind of transportation they use.
And while we’re on the subject… baby strollers – are those in the physical, or spiritual damage category?
What’s silly is that in terms of actual environmental damage, neither hikers, nor horses, nor bikes do 1/100,000th of the damage a logging or mining operation does, and by needlessly dividing ourselves, we’re getting distracted from what actually impacts the environment the most.
David
Research before you speak (write). The Wilderness Act clearly banned bikes.
The original language of the 1964 Wilderness Act says in
section 4(c)
“Prohibition of Certain Uses
… no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.”
I don’t know about you, but I consider a mountain bike a form of “mechanical transport.”
Furthermore, I would argue that Wilderness and other reserves do not exist purely for people–and this is one of the most important thing that too many mountain bikers don’t seem to get. These lands are among the few places in our country where native species, natural processes, and the very essence of self-willed lands can exist.
As been suggested, get off your bike, slow down and walk. You might actually start to understand that wild places exist for more than people’s recreational choices.
Mechanized, hmm. Are stoves used on camping trips mechanized, are ski bindings mechanized, are boots mechanized? Their is a lot of hi tech equipment being used in Wilderness areas that is mechanized? Horse riders use saddles, are those not mechanized. It becomes obvious when reading The original language of the 1964 Wilderness Act that they were trying to ban motorized vehicles. Is not a boat oar mechanized? The intent of the law was to ban motorized vehicles. Read it again.
“Prohibition of Certain Uses
… no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.”
Bill
Your point about mechanical is misplaced. It’s not about high tech vs low tech–though obviously there is something to that.
The quote is “mechanical transport” after naming motorboats, airplanes, etc. so the message is clear we are talking about transportation methods.
The reason is that the faster you go, the more wildlands shrink. But again it goes beyond recreation. And that is the important point. The original Act was not established just to provide for recreation. It had many other purposes which includes providing for wildlife, ecological processes, and so forth. That, at least is the goal.