Will Mountain Bikes Be Allowed in US Wilderness Areas Any Time Soon?
Remote places have a special, raw beauty.
Since the start, mountain bikes have lived in a certain gray zone in terms of definition. They’re not motorized; they are mechanized in that they provide a mechanical advantage, and they are human-powered. Their ambiguity puts them in an awkward spot when it comes to wilderness access. Opponents of bikes in wilderness argue that their presence detracts from the raw, simple experience of being in the wilderness. Advocates argue that mountain bikers want to visit the wilderness for the same reasons anyone else does: for that same raw, simple experience that mountain bikers would supposedly disrupt. The debate is a long way from reaching a peaceful homeostasis.
Legislators in the United States recently heard arguments in favor of Senate Bill 1695, the Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Act, the most recent unsuccessful bill to remove the ban on mountain biking in wilderness areas and give local authorities the power to ban or allow bikes on case-by-case bases. An advocacy nonprofit called the Sustainable Trails Coalition backed S.B. 1695 and continues to work on finding cooperative solutions between mountain bikers and other user groups. Now, with the 116th Congress over and no action taken on S.B. 1695, the bill has been archived and we’re back in the waiting game.
How Did We Get Here?
For decades, those who want to protect the wilderness have struggled to define and redefine the Wilderness Act of 1964, which designated a set of protections to protect precious areas of land and encourage appreciation for those areas. The text, written before mountain biking was around, banned mechanized transport without bikes in mind. It specified what tools could be used for trail work — no chainsaws — and has protected the wildest places by minimizing human impact. In 1984, as mountain biking emerged and riders started to explore off road, the term ‘mechanized transport’ was clarified by the Forest Service under increasing pressure from traditional environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society, and mountain bikes were deemed unwelcome.
It's been shown that bikes have a negligible impact on trails and biodiversity. Still, if visitation to wilderness areas increases, it will be important for riders and hikers alike to understand the importance of respecting local flora and fauna.
Idaho and Montana
The issue has become hotter over the last decade as Idaho and Montana gave the biking community specific examples of what it looks like to have trails taken away.
Idaho’s Boulder and White Cloud mountain ranges were almost incorporated in 2014 into what would have been a peaceful land protection agreement. It was almost the solution mountain bikers and declared conservationists alike had hoped for. Then politics intervened.
The plan was to turn the area into a national monument. Unlike wilderness areas and national parks, national monuments each have their own management plan, potentially allowing bikes, and only require presidential approval, unlike wilderness designations, which need to go through Congress. Up until the monument was proposed in 2014, Republican Congressman Mike Simpson of Idaho had introduced a bill every single year for the past decade to try to make the White Clouds a wilderness area. None of his bills had gone anywhere. Then, as the monument plan started to look like reality, the Idaho legislators decided they would rather approve Simpson’s bill than accept an Obama-approved national monument. The bill sped through Congress in just two weeks, and with the creation of the Boulder-White Cloud Wilderness, the mountain bike trails disappeared.
Things become more frustrating for mountain bikers, too, when bikes are banned from not only wilderness trails but trails in areas that might one day become wilderness. Montana has lost more than 700 miles of trail in the last decade, largely to ‘recommended wilderness areas’ (RWAs), which are essentially wilderness areas in dress rehearsal as they await Congress' approval, which can take decades. Most recently, Montana’s Bitterroot Valley lost 110 miles of singletrack to the Sapphire and Blue Joint wilderness study areas in a series of court battles that hinged on administrative technicalities and inflamed tempers on both sides of the issue. While that particular area is permanently closed to bikes, the conflict brought bike access into the spotlight, and groups on both sides of the issue are braced for future battles.
The question: Does the presence of bicycles disrupt the quiet feeling of distance from civilization?
What's the update?
The biggest update is that there is no real update.
The nationwide debate continued to evolve in November when the US Forest Service and the Department of Interior voiced their support of S.B. 1695 in the bill’s first hearing since its introduction in May 2019 by Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah. S.B. 1695 was the most recent of several House and Senate bills to be considered. However, legislators never got around to voting on it before the congressional session ended.
It's likely that an equivalent bill will be introduced in the next Congress. Although bills do not carry over between congressional terms, legislators often reintroduce their own bills over and over until one lasts long enough to make it to the vote.
S.B. 1695 didn’t include any subtext that would weaken wilderness protections, and rather than bringing about a blanket permit as some fear, it tried to move the power to ban bikes from federal to local authorities. It was written in specific, narrow language to avoid opening doors that might harm wilderness areas in the future. If the bill had passed, it would be up to land managers to determine whether biking is appropriate in any given area. Given that research has overwhelmingly shown that mountain biking has a negligible impact on trails (less impact than horses), the more significant effects would be social. Wilderness trail users go to wild places for the feelings they evoke, and many hikers and equestrians argue that the presence of mountain bikers would disrupt that primitive sense of distance from human civilization.
What’s Next?
If user groups can compromise on a solution, it would have to be a solution that doesn’t catastrophize or turn a nuanced situation into an all-or-nothing fiasco. Such a solution might include allowing mountain bikes access to certain wilderness areas through a permitting system to keep the traffic sparse, designating a few specific bike-friendly trails through certain wilderness areas, and working with a diverse set of interest groups to preserve the remote feel of those spaces.
Many hope the next Congress will introduce a similar bill. Many hope it won't.
If such a bill passes, some opponents may find unexpected help. Including mountain bikers in discussions around wilderness trails would add a huge workforce of recreationalists who tend to enjoy trail work, so it would likely spell good things for the maintenance of remote trails. After all, mountain bikers want access for the same primary reason that hikers argue against mountain bike access: the privilege of experiencing unique landscapes. Hikers and equestrians argue against mountain bike access because they treasure those places. Mountain bikers, as it turns out, treasure them too.
We all want to appreciate wild places. We just need to figure out how.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
I will await my downvotes...
www.patagonia.com/stories/why-wilderness-matters-more-than-you/story-90114.html
So lets make up an example to illustrate what I'm trying to say...if the trail in my region, or your region gets an average 100 people per day on it...60 hikers, 35 bikers, and 5 horseback riders...which user group does the most damage? I have no idea, but on the whole is the only way to look at this problem...the 1:1 comparison is obvious...but even my example above is nowhere near the real volume of bikes vs. horses that I see when I go out on multi-use trails. Perhaps that varies from region to region, but all teh places I've ridden that ratio generally holds up. So who does more damage on the whole...and as far as wilderness access goes, who has the potential to cause the most damage? That group needs to be governed and moderated IMO.
The goal of the wilderness act is to keep the land undisturbed as much as possible. Less people will be less damage, regardless of their means of travel.
Lottery would be great but there is no way to enforce it.
The current legislation is intended to do 1 thing - keep the land 'wild and undisturbed'. You seem to agree that people are making 'bad' decisions already in areas that don't even fall under that distinction...do you not think that those same people will not also make those same 'bad' choices in the wilderness?
And all that just because people are too f*cking lazy to pedal up hills. Disgraceful.
For instance, from the abstract of the warbler article (I don't have full access), the authors note no noticeable change in male or female behavior and note that mountain bike impacts are minimal.
The Marion/Wimpey article notes in its conclusion:
"The environmental degradation caused by mountain biking is generally equivalent or less than that caused by hiking, and both are substantially less impacting than horse or motorized activities. In the small number of studies that included direct comparisons of the environmental effects of different recreational activities, mountain biking was found to have an impact that is less than or comparable to hiking."
as well as:
"Trail design and management are much larger factors in environmental degradation than the type or amount of use."
Finally, the Burgin and Hardiman article notes that "They concluded that the major ecological impacts were habitat alteration; constriction of the paths of animal movement; barriers to the movement of fauna; potentially isolating populations and communities; collision; and a source of biotic and abiotic effects. It was their view that, ‘often to a lesser degree’ these impacts were equivalent for recreational tracks used by bushwalkers."
All of that pretty much lines up with other literature that I've seen that analyzes mountain bikes and their impact on the natural world. I don't think anyone is arguing that our recreation doesn't have impact - just that it has no more impact than other human powered activities currently permitted and that the continued exclusion of cyclists is not justified by science or the language and legislative history of the Wilderness Act.
To a lay person I can see how this can be taken to mean that we don't have to worry at all about the impact of mtb. However, and this is just one case, often times these sensitive species are subject to a number of anthropogenic stressors that together compound into much more significant disturbance.
The issue in areas like the Boulder-White Clouds, WSAs, etc... is that cyclists have been excluded from existing trails when the vast majority of literature (including the one's you have posted) show that their impact is largely comparable to a hiker.
Like Mike, my opinion on this is based on facts. The losses in Montana alone this decade are almost unfathomable. I get in and out in a day leaving nothing but faint tracks on routes a backpacker would have to spend multiple nights. I don't cook or clean back there, nor do I sleep or shit.
The battle we're losing is one of perception. How many videos are linked to this site everyday of guys lazily steering around corners with the rear brake? Like it or not a "mountain biker" to a non mountain biker is a guy in a full face crushing red bulls hell bent on maximizing his impact on whatever trail he's "shredding". The mtb media, social media, the bike companies etc... all bare some blame. But aren't they just giving us what we want?
Is that what we want? I guarantee you that's how the politically active hiking pole Sierra Club activists view us. How many hits do the stories of alpine XC sufferfests get compared to the latest enduro shred edit on this very site? Those of us who want limited case by case basis W access (as provided by STC's bill) are really only asking for the privilege of suffering like a dog at a walking pace up steep, alpine trails with the promise of a few epics views and the mechanical advantage that affords us the ability to be home for dinner.
The point is somethings are bigger than our need to ride somewhere. Again, referring back to my opening point, I'm sure there are places you already could ride without the need to have access to everything.
MTB used to be about going anywhere with your bike, the do it all bike, it aids adventure, I get that, who doesn't? The, 'I wonder what's over the next hill?' is strong in all of us. What isn't so strong is the adherence to rules and whether or not it's ok to ride down the other side. Regardless of what you might say from a keyboard to push your profile (not you personally), MTBrs rarely care (in my experience) about biodiversity, they only care about the ride, their spot, only its NOT your spot.
In the UK where we have legislation to protect areas, National Parks, SSSi (sites of special scientific interest) SPAs (Special Protection Area) all of which are ignored, partly because our rights of way access is all over the place in some places, not that we're beyond riding down footpaths, but in some of these sites MTBrs vociferously argue their rights to co-exist in these biodiverse areas by building jumps and their own trails. Nowadays, if you're not a builder, you know someone who is and he's your hero, cherished by your community, media and brands. That's the culture we have become and I'm the first to admit I've benefited I'm not holier than thou.
I also appreciate where we are in terms of users. We all get bored of riding the same places, word spreads online of cool new spots, the fact that it's unofficial or unsanctioned makes it cooler still, we are are consumers, this is a consumer driven sport in a consumer driven society, the landscape is there to be consumed...right? I've just spent thousands on this bike, a T5, a pick up, boarded out my van, now some bureaucrat in an office (who probably doesn't ride and therefore understand my needs to ride and create new lines) says I can't WTAF?
Ebikes only add to to it. In the UK and europe it's the fastest growing sector. I'll hold my hands up I have an ebike and a regular bike, I don't make any distinction as to where one should be ridden over the other, I love'em both. The ebike means I can ride more, faster and with ranger extender further, I get to to the top of that hill, down the other side and back up again. But its not about ebikes, it's about us and our choices.
Why should hikers and horses be allowed in? That's tough to argue, they both bring with them litter and are transported to the site with a vehicle, maybe because on the evolutionary scale they belong there, humans and animals, non mechanised once they are there.
This for me, even though it seems obviously the case, is not about personal freedoms, its about preserving something as close to pristine as we can possibly keep it. The biodiversity, wildlife etc. needs us to do it for it, those bureaucrats are probably thinking longer term, beyond the post ride beer for example. It isn't just our playground. It's not about personal freedoms, because there are already areas we can go, we just need to appreciate those more, put time in to those, support your local trail association etc in maintaining those trails.
The bottom line for me is that MTB is not sustainable, on any level, on any interpretation of the word unless we start looking at where we riding, why we are riding and what impact that has for future generations.
I rode a few days ago on unofficial rural trails in forestry. Middle of nowhere (from my house - lockdown!). Surprise surprise. Carrier bag, empty Monster can, empty sarnie pack, crisp packet and a Twirl wrapper. What do I do? Middle of nowhere, no pack....bagged it and hid it was the only option.
Point being we are represented by the fact we always build new stuff. Its in a bikers DNA, and then there are a consistent scruffy scummy minority. Its no different to motorbikes. I greenlane. Only when its dry. Only on legal county roads/byways and at sensible speed etc. Many don’t and the trail is heavily rutted for it ruining it for everyone. The Trail Rider Fellowship recently argued a case in the Lake District on an access mater that off road motorbikes cause LESS damage that mtb [insert many laughing emojis]. Everyone is against each other.
If your a land owner its easier to say no than put infrastructure in place.
Except....the biggest thing to ever happen to UK mountain biking was the Forestry Commission creating trail centres. As a government agency they have Crown Indemnity so insurance is not an issue. They opened up forests all over the UK. In exchange they saw a huge influx of bikers who paid for parking and went to the cafe. They got rent income from bike shops. They created local jobs where there were none around accommodation, etc. All this allowed for infrastructure for other users such as disabled access trails, pram trials, running trails, GoApes, etc. My local trail centre developed so much that mtb is now a minority user!
There is a point to note here for our American friends. Your forests are often ancient beautiful things. In the above context we are talking about managed farmed pine forests in remote areas. Good luck....
I would say we're at a crossroads in the FC (this is my opinion not the official one) the Public Forest Estate is for everyone but is also the nations supply of timber and within areas that have sensitive ecological value, such as National Parks, AONBs, SSSIs, SPAs or just a nice place outside your front door that is home to wildlife as common as birds.
The lockdowns in this country has brought into sharp focus the need for these sites but the abuse of these sites. My site closed for 6 weeks during the first lockdown, March to Mid May, from that point we've since double the number of vistors by car than we did in the previous year, even in the supposed quiet months numbers were off the charts as people flocked to sites like ours for the RDA of exercise, for example for the 7 days from Boxing Day to New Years day we had 8000 cars visit site with an average of more than 2 people per car. Many with bikes, many on foot. As a result the the trail networks is worn out, play areas around the visitor hub have been worn out to the extent it looks like we've been corralling horses in there. WE have counters on our bike trails, the red graded trail record over 87,000 riders from May to December, the Blue graded trail 93,000. That's based on riders passing a specific point, so doesn't include riders sessioning or missing out certain sections.
The biggest factor though is litter and its everywhere. Everywhere we go and everywhere the wildlife goes, it's in watercourses such as rivers and ponds, left there by the public who can't immediately see a bin and baulk at the idea of taking it home with them. The thought of leaving the spot as you found it over ridden by
mild inconvenience. Their most immediate thought is to complain on social media about the lack of bins.
These aren't wilderness areas, but do represent how we view the countryside in the context of our sport, it serves one purpose, self interest. And if it doesn';t measure up we complain.
FC sites ARE initially funded by the tax payer. We get approx £20m year on year from the government nationwide, that is split across the sites funds everything at every site, forest centre or satellite woodland. Car parks, play equipment, bike trails, walking trails, buildings, research, staff pay, vehicles and buildings. And decisions are made as to what is the priority. And yet the FC makes £80m (approx) from car parking, timber production and corporate partnerships that goes back into the economy. Each site has to make back its allocated budget which is why you see corporate partnerships. So you could say the Forestry sites fund the tax payer, not the other way around.
The budget and priorities for 2020 were set in 2019, pre-covid when visitor numbers were predictable, now in 2021 we have a massive issue just down to the impact of visitors. I used to think the old guard were crazy when they longed for the days when the public weren't allowed in...
I dont envy the position your in managing this especially at the moment and in the bigger context of this article, it very much says what no one wants to hear.
Keep up the good work.
I've ridden in the US a lot, in local woods and state parks, and see no reason why the rules over there shouldn't be the same. There's just so much space.
Also, In Scotland there's a whole tourism economy built around the outdoors, which also might not be possible elsewhere. The work done by Developing MTB in Scotland/Forestry Scotland etc. has been amazing in getting together support and laying down the infrastructure. You can be pleased you've found a way to get it right.
That being said, with a reliance to some degree on tourism, perhaps in Scotland you're affected by lockdowns in other ways, maybe your trails and unspoilt countryside areas whilst being relatively quiet due to travel restrictions may a negative effect on the local economies and long term investments?
Even in Edinburgh during lockdown there are enough trails in the Pentland Hills right at the edge of the city that once you're away from the car parks you see very few people because everyone can go everywhere so spread out.
Public Land isn’t for everyone!!!! It is only for the few people whose voices actually matter: the rich!!!!!!!!!
That this is only a smaller percentage of the MTB crowd is not well known to the public. So, in a sense, we all as mountain bikers are responsible for being shut out - by hyping the wrong stuff.
"So lets make up an example to illustrate what I'm trying to say"
How about no.
I do think that there should be section of forest that should remain completely wild as in no human is allowed, & some that should be protected to the extent of foot traffic only. I think the sticking point for many of us here is that horses are allowed (talk about barrier to entry for a sport). I've seen some real entitlement among some of those folks. It is definitely a problematic topic with different trail users & we would all be better off if there was more respect between us. It's also particularly difficult with the Sierra Club's blatant hate towards MTBers. Credit where credit is due; they did save the Grand Canyon from being flooded decades ago & do seem to be involved in fighting the good fight sometimes.
Anyways that was a lot of rambling to say that those are some decent points overall & things that we should consider instead of the constant march of progress that we humans have lost ourselves in for generations.
A lottery situation might be an interesting route to take. It is definitely a solution the hunting community accept in the same area.
If I could ride a horse everywhere I'd ditch the biking today. Bikes don't have souls. But they have something electro-motor bikes don't have, like katana compared to a electro-teaser gun. "E-bikes" are not bycicles and will never be. MHO.
Maybe it just comes down to: Horse people tend to have money and get the rules they want. There's really no other way to explain how they could possibly be such an entitled group and not get in trouble.
I think you also hit the nail on the head with regards to money. In theory, lobbying is free, but effective lobbying is expensive. User groups with the most money will eventually get the rules they want.
Dentist bike money got nothin' on horse money.
I, for one, welcome our new equine overlords.
“Dentist bike money got nothin' on horse money.”
Yeti: “Hold my beer”
There are popular trails in the middle of nowhere that see tons of traffic everyday. All it takes is a little internet notoriety. A guy on a bike can easily cover 20 miles in a few hrs even with significant elevation. That is an entire day of hiking for your average person and a good effort. For those who don’t hike you often go slower downhill even if it is easier just because we are cumbersome on uneven terrain naturally. Horseback riders have gotten around this because many of them were the ones who wrote the rules and did the initial lobbying.
So I think the issue is deciding where wilderness areas should be and where natural monuments and similiar types of recreational areas should be. These lands still conserve nature but are intended to be used more routinely by mankind. I’d argue wilderness areas should be much rarer. I think Oregon is a pretty good example of having a lot of conservation, well placed wilderness areas where I genuinely believe bikes do not belong, and a lot of opportunity for recreation in the outdoors in every part of the state.
That or create a similiar system to the peak mt. Saint helens and limit the number of passes you give out any given day and year for any given wilderness area. If I am the issue and not my bike, who cares if my bike comes along with me.
The Wilderness Act is way past due for an update.
Covid-19: "On it!"
Its definitely let me see what the impact is of mtb with minimal maintenance.
@MikeyMT hit it spot on - our current trails could use a little work. Maybe we start there.
Humans just f&%# everything up.
Make the things we already have better, instead of just opening up more land to be poorly managed and inevitably destroyed.
I know I'm gonna get hate for that dog one.
It was Ed Abbey who said Wilderness needs no defense, only defenders. How many more defenders would Wilderness have if we could update/modernize the law to grandfather in bike access in a meaningful and reasonable way?
I hunt. I understand the idea to keep nature wild. The deer still use it regularly use the trails. Birds still seem to be prevalent. , but what do I know? I’m just. 26 year old who has lived in Idaho their entire life.
But, laws/legislation is written in order to prevent stupid and enforce penalties for stupid because human nature is that most people will do stupid.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” - George Carlin
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_(Scotland)_Act_2003Scotland
We got enough biking options, wilderness areas should be left alone. I’d like to access limited.
We’re at risk of living our world to death, let’s keep the wild in wilderness.
But who am I to talk. Over here you can consider yourself lucky if you live within 30 minutes riding distance of a single officially sanctioned mountainbike trail - wilderness preservation area or not. So on second thought, you guys still have it relatively good.
singletracker.dk/da/mtb-spor-i-danmark
Wilderness is not intended to be a public playground for outdoor recreation. It's a slippery slope, wilderness opens to bikes and a few years pass then people start talking about user conflicts on those trails and how more, user specific trails should be built in wilderness. Before you know it people are asking for new access points to the wilderness and that wilderness is not so wild anymore.
Too often we take our trails for granted. You don't realize what you've got till it's gone. A lot of mountain bikes (and other outdoor recreatora) take our access to trails for granted. Thanks again for the reminder.
"Horses can be bad especially when there is a lot of commercial ride volume, but cattle are *WAY* worse. Allowing widespread commercial grazing in "wilderness" doesn't just damage the trails, but entire drainages. It's an outdated holdover from the a bygone era where ranchers ruled the west. Unfortunately I don't see it changing in my lifetime.
IMO any arguments about "protecting the pristine wild experience" in designated Wilderness areas are completely empty as long as cattle are allowed to completely trash entire valleys.
If it's a close to town trail and will see lots of bikes that either damage the trail to hit people/horses, then they won't open it up. But for the trail thats very much backcountry/bikepacking type trails where you literally are seeing only a couple of people when you go for a 50 mile overnighter in there ... it should be opened up for human powered bikes.
Some trails are too fast on bikes, some trails are too muddy (in some seasons), some trails are too used by bikes/horses. But many trails are not fast, are gravely/rocky, and have almost nobody on them.
I donated a few times to Sustainable Trails, and will again. IMBA will never get another dollar from me, and I avoid any companies that donate to IMBA when I find out about it. Sustainable trails will get more money from me if they push the bill again.
Thanks mr bunghole Donald Malloy.
www.mtd.uscourts.gov/hon-donald-w-molloy-chambers
General rule in the us is replicans don’t care if u want to ride your bike in the woods, Democrats don’t want anybody in the woods except themselves.
I think there is room for compromise with regard to both bikes and horses, but it should be limited for both and PROTECTING Wilderness designated areas should be our main concern.
One would think that a group/foundation such as themselves (and their basic philosophy), would be fully behind MTB-ing in the 'wilderness', one would think.
It would be critical for bikers to only ride bikes in wildnernese and not go building trails and jumps.
So...clickbait.
How about we focus attention more in developing safe bike trails in the places that we can, National Forest, BLM, state and local public lands. It would probably earn many more allies than trying to push for some pipe dream of allowing bikes in wilderness protected areas. The idea is to keep that land in as pristine a state as possible, not be a playground for outdoor recreation. I actually like that my family and I can go backpacking in wilderness and not worry about bikes, especially ebikes, on the trails.
Asking for a friend.
The Boulder Whiteclouds Wilderness was proposed by Mike Simpson. I personally would hate to be some guy named Bill Simpson and get blamed for Mike Simpson's actions.
A 2 inch bike tire can cause zero damage to a forest of acres, let alone thousands or millions of acres. Erosion, silt, whatever from bikes is absolutely negligible compared to logging for example. And logging does cause impact but forests can heal and regenerate again and again after responsible logging
Second the wildlife study utilized in this article seems the least pertinent, or picked as a weak example on purpose. I don't think we are bad because we have impact, but pointing the finger at other users, especially ones the average American loves the stereotype of "horse riders" is not going to be a winning strategy. I think saying this scientific study is BS, or doesn't apply to us is going to be the climate change deny/believe of the outdoor recreation community. And land managers are going to start using this science more as we expand our footprint. There are studies on MTB and other uses on antelope island in Utah, elk herd decline in Colorado that warrant seasonal closures no one will follow, and Tetons research with backcountry skiers that have gps units and watching radio collared bighorn sheep react.
If the MTB community wants to continue it's we want more access message, while also embracing the "f*ck you I'll build any trail I want" attitude" that I've encountered why would land managers give them more access to a more ecologically sensitive space? As a park ranger I had a guy cuss me out building an illegal trail in endangered species habitat when I asked him to at least build a sustainable trail, to which he replied I've been building trail X number of years F off.... Lots of things to sort out.
Wilderness is the least "convenient" set of regulations, but most of us live in the easiest time ever. We have more money, lighter bikes, go farther, work remotely, drive fancy sprinter vans. I do think there is value in a place that is further back in time where we have to work harder to be there and be more careful with our footprint. I've been blasted off the trail with pack stock by the MTB dude with a bluetooth raging, not sure that works in wilderness, and I think many MTBers would need better manners to operate there without confrontation, so few people know who has right of way over bikers. Many people hike wilderness to avoid bikers and have asked me to direct them to trails for that reason.
If people are interested read these, you might hate them that's fine, but know the information the other people know that are in the debate, then you aren't just repeating second hand knowledge that is scientific weak sauce.
www.wyofile.com/bighorn-sheep-survive-migration-loss-now-pressed-skiers
www.vvmta.org/seasonaltrailclosures
www.thewildlifenews.com/2019/06/18/impacts-of-mountain-biking
― Edward Abbey, The Monkey Wrench Gang
But hey, MTB and metal are still here so I’m happy. \m/
If you owned the property jointly with others it makes sense to say that the group must all be in agreement on how the property is used, but I still think it makes the most sense to say, the land is owned by the government and not the citizens
You have heated and sometimes violent discussions that you should be allowed to carry guns in a library, but you stop short at cycling in the wild? To someone from the outside these contradictions seem so arbitrary that it all has nothing to do with freedom, but who has the bigger lobbying group and therefore can shout louder that THEIR freedoms are being attacked, not realising or caring that others might be affected.
Take a gander at the folks pushing for gun rights and you’ll find the same folks pushing for outlawing abortion.
Do as I say, not as I do.
and possibly encounter lower prey abundance (Jokimaki et al. 1998, Kilgo 2005). Conservation efforts that curtail construction of new mountain biking trails in Golden-cheeked Warbler habitat and reduce the amount of forest open edge habitat created by existing mountain biking trails should promote recovery objectives." The section you cited earlier is not from the conclusions section but the abstract. Its helps to read the whole study.
This ^^^ is why trail construction and advocacy organizations suggest a ratio of miles of trails to a location's ecological healthiness, including existing impacts and the type of impacts. So, for instance, the recommended trail density (note, since 2007, for a design/construction standpoint there are not hiking trails or mountain biking trails) for already compromised urban sites is 1:10, that is 1 mile of trail to acres. Urban preserves and other less compromised urban properties, 1:20. You get the idea.
My point is, just throwing in links to studies isn't helpful. An and advocate for mountain biking trails and trails access (and a civil engineer) I can tell you a lot of these studies are great to understand a situation. But they don't provide solutions. The thing is, there are solutions to most of these issues. Including the Wilderness issue (and no The STC is wrong here).
As an example, in a previous comment you mention erosion as a consequence of mountain biking. Erosion is movement on soil. Its a natural process. When erosion becomes an issue is when the amount of erosion surpasses the rate of natural occurrence. Before a trail is constructed or even proposed, there are ways you can reduce the amount of possible erosion from the usage of the trails: doing soil research, layout choices, understanding where armoring would be helpful, etc. Post-construction, there are management choices that can be made: trail closures for environmental conditions (rain), regular trail maintenance, refreshing the trail every 7-10 years, etc. The point of this exercise to show that its just not that simple. Saying "mountain biking does impact nature" is like saying, "kissing can lead to pregnancy". Both are true, but boy is there a lot more to it.
Providing research without the context helps no one. Especially not to mountain biking as sport. Did you know that the Midwest's own Mike Vandeman (Google if you don't know who that is), Todd McMahon, linked to this very article and specifically called out the comments: "This is really encouraging to hear from mountain bikers who post at Pinkbike." So thanks, I guess, for all of us advocates in the Midwest that now have to deal with Todd quoting studies he doesn't understand to try and stop mountain biking projects.
We all want the same thing - trails to ride and to do it in a way that doesn't harm the ecology. But to get that we have to talk about how to achieve that thing with full understanding of and description of the context behind it, not just link vomiting to slap fight some 16yr old shred bro from California.
Re: erosion - yes lol obviously erosion is natural but unnatural rates can be bad. You just illustrated a point I made earlier that sustainable mtb requires research, which requires time and money. New trails cannot just be built haphazardly.
I did provide context albeit in separate comments. I could've been more effective with my communication, sure.
All the articles I shared are to illustrate a general point which I don't think I need to reiterate lol. They were all on the first page of a google scholar search, so I'm sorry but it is not my fault that Todd McMahon is using them to bolster his argument. And if you can't counter then you might just not have a strong case. Could be that you don't have enough remaining natural land or sufficient data to build new trails. I looked up Mike Vandeman. All I see is that he advocates for wildlife habitat that's off limits to people and I 100% agree, as any ecologist would. Nature always needs to come first.
Lets better manage the land we have access to already. I see trash out on the trails more than ever; humans have already proven we cannot be good stewards of what we have let alone what is left 'untainted'.
Legislators need to build bike specific zones to lower conflict - this has proven to work in so many places - be better stewards of the land we have access to and leave the tiny bit of wilderness we do have left to the animals that rely on it.