Why Not Go For Wilderness Lite: A Designation That Includes Mountain Bikes?

Wilderness or Wilderness LIte?

 

First of all, let me restate that I think that we don’t need mountain bikes in Wilderness. As others have said here, IMHO it’s not a battle worth fighting, nor one that is likely to be won in court.  I would propose a Wilderness Timeout for sides to reorganize.  Rather than arguing about what should go on in Wilderness, we should take another look at the idea of Wilderness, Roadless, and Backcountry and make up a new designation (or use an old one that fits)- because it seems to me that what we are really talking about is the need to realign based on our own needs and interests.

For those purposes, we all have to admit that mountain bikers are not part of the Wilderness deal.  So why should mountain bikers support land designations from which they are excluded? If bikes were never there, I could easily see that.  But we have crossed a line recently, in that areas are being recommended for Wilderness such that biking will not be allowed where it already is going on. If Wilderness advocates really believe that bikes are more environmentally destructive, then building trails for them elsewhere will potentially be equally environmentally destructive elsewhere. And there is the whole question of trust- if bikers do a deal with Wilderness advocates (Wa’s)- will Wa’s support the new trails financially? Or will at some future date, the area with the new trails will also be on the list to be designated? Is there ever an end to the “need” for more Wilderness? Can you imagine Wilderness Watch (just picking a name, I don’t know all the groups) saying “OK, we’re done, there are now x million acres, distributed throughout the US, we’re now going to work on removing OHVs from Roadless Areas, or on to some other target. ”  And have the large heavily funded groups such as Sierra Club and TWS staked out positions on this (where do bikes fit in what we are advocating?).

Mountain bikers may be entering the time (perhaps calling for a Wilderness Timeout while they think about it)  in which their interests diverge from other Wilderness advocates. I can understand that that would be frustrating, and bikers may be offended by feeling that you are now not quite as OK in terms of environmental purity as you were when you were on the same team. And I know that there are far smarter people than I in the Wilderness advocate world who have done the math, and think that it’s worth it to pursue more Wilderness and remove you (a strong network of possible supporters) from it.

Again my problem is not with Wilderness, but rather, if there were another land designation, say Wilderness Lite, that includes mountain bikers, why not switch to “Wilderness is fine, but where mountain bikers exist, it’s OK to have Wilderness Lite”  which has chain saws and mountain bikes, but not OHV’s (perhaps), and otherwise strictly recreation. I think there is grazing in some Wildernesses so that might be OK.  Like I said, I know someone, somewhere seems to have made that calculation, and decided to stick to advocating for more “pure” Wilderness, but I am not really clear why.  I am interested in understanding why someone would want Wilderness rather than Wilderness Lite in those situations.

47 thoughts on “Why Not Go For Wilderness Lite: A Designation That Includes Mountain Bikes?”

  1. We do have alternative designations already, such as National Scenic Area and National Recreation Area, that can accommodate and permanently protect and manage for backcountry biking, often with embedded wilderness cores. The places where these designations are moving forward in the legislative “pipeline” are the places where bikers are effectively working together with wilderness advocates rather than trying to undo the Wilderness Act itself.

    To answer your question (“why someone would want Wilderness rather than Wilderness Lite in those situations”), that’s such a local issue. Some places have a dedicated local base of support for wilderness, who’ve been advocating for decades, since before the first mountain biker rolled in. Compromise is hard work, and often you’re not going to break through on a contested area until something changes–a new threat, or an opportunity to work together on a bigger landscape (e.g., during forest planning or transportation planning).

    Reply
  2. I’m less concerned about the niceties of legal status than I am about the impacts of bikers on the habitat and other users. While not nearly as bad as motorized contraptions, bicycles can really chew up a trail (or meadow or stream crossing). Where’s the consideration for those impacts in this “designation status” calculus? Bikes don’t leave piles of poop, but the damage can be similar to that caused by horses.

    Are bike clubs going to go out and fix the messes they make, or better yet, agree that areas susceptible to damage (which is more likely the higher the elevation and the wetter the site) should be off limits?

    Reply
    • I think that they may go and fix messes.. I know that some OHV organizations have been very active in teaching people a) to be polite b) not to be destructive c) help recover damage as well as general volunteering for trail maintenance. I expect MB organizations would do the same.

      Reply
  3. Let me respond to a question asked. Wilderness is not about recreation. Therefore, if you are concerned about protecting wildlands and wildlife, you would support wilderness designation.

    Wilderness is the “gold standard” for land protection. It’s been around for a long time and we know what we get with wilderness. All the other designations that have been tried from National REcreation Areas to Conservation Areas do not offer as solid protection for wildlands, wildlife and ecological processes as designated Wilderness.

    There is logging for instance at Steens Mountain Conservation Area. There is logging in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho and Rattlesnake NRA in Montana. There are ORVS permitted in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. The Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area was recently threatened by logging (which fortunately did not pass Congress). The important point is that none of these would be allowed in wilderness. I could list many other examples, but the point is that anything other than wilderness allows significant compromises of ecological integrity.

    That is why my organization, Mountain Bikers for Wilderness support protecting all qualified lands.

    As for mountain biking, there is far more land available for mountain biking (or any other mechanical use of our public lands) than the terrain that is in the wilderness system or could be added. Right now only 2.7% of the US land area is designated wilderness. Even if you added all the remaining lands that could conceivably be designated under the terms of the Wilderness Act, we might reach 5% of the US.

    Are mountain bikers so selfish that they can’t see sharing 5% of the land with wildlife that is sensitive to disturbance? With sharing the land with wildlands processes that are not “actively managed” like much of the rest of the public lands?

    Not to mention that all mountain bikers-which I am one–can walk, canoe, ski, or otherwise access wilderness areas. It’s just the bike one must leave behind.

    Reply
    • George, I think you are talking about the idea or ideal of Wilderness, not necessarily what happens.. as others have said, there are Wilderness areas next to cities (or even within hours) that are majorly trammeled just by regular human hiker use. There are Wilderness areas where motorboats are allowed, and some where grazing has always been an accepted use. If you think there should be areas completely left alone by humans (other than climate change or air pollution or non-native species) that is fine, but a) that isn’t necessarily how Wilderness works out in practice and b) even if it were, is there a rational reason for the total amount needed? If 100 million acres is larger than California, are we going for two California’s worth?

      If more is better, and it’s possible to kick existing users out to get more, then there is no potential end in sight.

      Reply
    • George wrote: “Wilderness is not about recreation.” You may want to read the Wilderness Act. Without recreational access (which involves a range of mechanical transport equipment and non-primitive technologies), we’d almost certainly have no designated Wilderness at all.

      Reply
    • When looking at the eagle caps wilderness. Opening this too mtn bikes would help to keep the trails open which have become almost unpassable with less people riding horses. And would open Wallowa County to more tourism. As the wilderness cuts off most of the county from recreation. I agree with your statement on many levels but bikes in some wilderness would improve everyone’s experience if managed correctly.

      Reply
  4. Wilderness is about preserving land for wildlife and quite solitude. It isn’t about “use” per se. I support wilderness, have enjoyed backpacking in it, but I’m glad to know it exists even if I don’t ‘use’ it. And I support as much wilderness as we can get. Mountain biking is becoming more and more advanced with technology and bikes cause damage that backpackers don’t. I will admit I no longer support mountain biking because of the attitude of so many mountain bikers. Three times I have been out hiking when a rider came up behind me suddenly and shouted at me to “MOVE!!!!”. The third time I refused; he went off the trail; and crashed. He was angry as a hornet and I explained that pedestrians always have the right of way. The arrogance this guy showed was not unusual. This is just one example of why mountain biking is incompatible with wilderness. Imagine hiking in wilderness when a throng of bikers come upon you yelling at you to move; riding through streams; scaring wildlife. I don’t understand why these people want be in pristine places to begin with. If you are throttling down a mountain at 40 MPH doing everything in your power to not crash – how are you enjoying nature, seeing wildlife, hearing the birds, and creeks? It seems to be more of an ego thing – and ego doesn’t belong in wilderness. We need as much wilderness as we can get – we don’t need wilderness-lite.

    Reply
  5. I agree with Sharon when she says that “we don’t need mountain bikes in Wilderness.”

    Sharon asks: “For those purposes, we all have to admit that mountain bikers are not part of the Wilderness deal. So why should mountain bikers support land designations from which they are excluded?”

    I think it’s best not to confuse people with their personal recreational pursuits. Most everyone who likes to mountain bike, or ride a bicycle – including myself – also like to walk and hike. “Mountain bikers” are not excluded from designated Wilderness. What’s excluded from designated Wilderness are their machines (mountain bikes) because they are a form of “mechanical transport,” which the Wilderness Act clearly banned.

    The issue of allowing mountain bikes and other wheeled contraptions, in officially designated Wilderness has been discussed and debated a bunch of this blog previously.

    Here’s a blog post from last month, which provided a detailed over-view about the 3 bills previously introduced in the U.S. Congress by Republicans. The over-view is based on the actual language of the bills.

    In the comments section of that previous blog post, I also exposed the lie spread by Rep Rob Bishop’s GOP majority on the House Resources Committee and the Sustainable Trails Coalition that mountain bikes were “congressionally authorized” in the bill that designated the Rattlesnake Wilderness and National Recreation Area. That’s not true in any way, shape or form.

    P.S. Over at the Facebook page for the Sustainable Trails Coalition (which just shared our original blog post here) Josh Taylor, a professional cyclist and Vice President of the Piedmont Area Singletrack Alliance, openly claims that he illegally rides his bicycle in Wilderness areas all the time. I’ve seen Mr. Taylor make this claim about illegally riding in designated Wilderness before.

    Here’s another post Mr. Taylor made on the Sustainable Trails Coalition’s FB page in October 2018:

    P.P.S. I hope I’m wrong about this, but I predict that some mountain bikers who want to ride their bicycles in Wilderness are about to flood this comment section with personal attacks, many of which will come from anonymous sources.

    Reply
  6. From my lengthy experience living in the back country, I have found that all user groups posses a number of “arrogant”, impolite and inconsiderate individuals. We are all human after all. These attributes, most likely be can be tied to age, testosterone, or more likely, upbringing.

    Reply
    • Pat, I too have observed some correlation between obnoxious behavior, youth (<50) and a certain gender. My problem is that as a hiker, I don't think I should be excluded because some are bad. And I suspect that if I were a biker or an OHV rider, I would feel the same way.

      Reply
  7. The bottom line for me is secure wildlife habitat. Here in Montana, we have areas immediately north of Yellowstone NP, where there are grizzly, wolverines, and elk calving grounds, and we have local mountain bike groups – with the backing of International Mountain Biking Association (industry-sponsored) who want to open these area to mountain bikes. Its proven that mountain bikes disturb/stress wildlife significantly more than hikers. NO WAY should we allow them … in fact, perhaps some of these area should even be closed to hikers (seasonally?) to accommodate the needs of wildlife.

    Reply
    • Glenn, could you please share the references on “disturbing wildlife more”? I’m just a simple person, but I think it would depend on the number (say 1 MB er per hour versus 25 hikers per hour on a section of trail), whether people camp overnight (possibly), presence of other animals (how do grizzlies think about horses and dogs?).

      I could see for an elk calving ground, for example, five dogs running around could be more disruptive than a bike running by on a trail.

      Anyway, my point is more about the power of inertia in land allocation disputes. In my experience “not opening” an area is easier than “kicking current users out.”

      Reply
  8. I always viewed the Wilderness as places for peacefulness and observation of nature. How can you contemplate the surroundings when you are screaming along, keeping a close eye on the trail, hell-bent for leather?
    If you mix hikers and bikers somebody could get slammed into.

    Reply
    • Sue, “Hell-bent for leather?” You know we’re talking about non-motorized bicycles, right? I would sincerely encourage you to get in touch with your local mountain bike advocacy organization and insist on being their guest for an introductory mountain bike ride. Hikers and bikers are mixing on thousands of miles of trails all over the country everyday, and they are generally getting along just fine. I’ll bet you could too. And I’ll bet you could even experience peace and nature while doing it.

      Reply
      • Sue is right. A mountain bike doesn’t have to be motorized to come screaming down a trail, around blind corners, forcing anyone who wants to use the trail for quiet observation or enjoyment of the natural world to be ever-alert if they don’t want to get hit. I experience this all the time, on trails that a few decades ago were bike-free. It completely changes the nature of the experience for the non-bikers to “share” a trail with bikes. It isn’t necessary to explain that bikes aren’t motorized.

        Reply
        • A hiker or horsemen doesn’t have to be motorized to camp illegally, build an illegal fire, travel without a permit, travel on muddy trails, start a devastating wildfire, hunt illegally, fish illegally, damage delicate ecology, etc. So shall we ban all hiking and horse travel from the public lands?

          Reply
        • “A man on foot, on horseback or on a bicycle will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one mile than the motorized tourists can in a hundred miles.”

          ― Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire

          Reply
  9. Here we go … the “greatest hits” from the anti-mountain bike faction ….mountain bikes cause more damage than hiking or equestrian use (False – research does not support this); mountain biking is so incompatible with hiking that user conflict is inevitable (False – user conflict is heavily influenced by trail design and use patterns); mountain biking is doiminated by rule breakers who ride and build trail wherever they want (False – every user group has scofflaws- there is no evidence that the percentage is higher in the mountain biking community).
    Really, this topic is becoming so boring. The demographics for wilderness advocates speak volumes for the future of this movement …it’s a shame really; most mountain bikers and most wilderness advocates share common values. The wilderness purists are alienating a natural ally that has some of the demographics that the movement desperately needs. Wilderness groups are dominated by old white men. At this rate, the movement will be irrelevant in 20-30 years.

    Reply
  10. Sharon your idea of Wilderness Lite, changing the designation rather than changing what uses are allowed, already exists, and is part of the reason Monument designations are so popular. The Recreation Industry loves Monuments, Wilderness not so much.

    Personally if the entire Bears Ears and Escalante had been designated Wilderness I’d of been a lot more supportive, as it was a lot of impetuous for Monument designation came from the mountain biking and associated tourism industries. It’s also a class thing, OHVs bad/bikes good.

    Instead of “Lite” I’d rather see a new designation Wilderness Extreme, no commercial activity at all, (pack trains of tourists or hunting outfitters), no signage, no bridges, no maintained trails. The act reads that the Wildernesses should be preserved so as to maintain their wilderness character, it goes on to define Wilderness as a place of with “opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation”. Trails and bikes destroy solitude, and bikes are certainly not a primitive type of recreation.

    I get what you are saying about over used Wilderness next to cities, domestic canines, etc. We should always opt for the least disturbance rather than needing to quantify via studies. Besides actual disturbance there’s the issue of habituation. Habituated wildlife robs wilderness of some of it’s wild.

    Reply
    • Som.. you are the first person to ever (as far as I know) mention the potential class aspects of OHVs bad/bikes good. I looked around in the literature and couldn’t find anything on this. I found some on class and wilderness use, but not on OHVs and class.

      Reply
  11. Why are mountain bikers singled out for trail damage and habitat disruption without mention of horses and other pack animals? Responsible mountain bikers, like responsible packers, are lumped together those who skid down trails, disturb wildlife, leave scorched earth camps with broken glass, cans and shells, and introduce animal and plant pathogens into the wilderness. Is one worse than the other, or has one just been around longer? If MTBs are excluded from Wilderness, isn’t there an equally strong argument to exclude domestic animals and fire arms?

    Reply
  12. The original question in this post is whether an alternate designation should be considered for lands that are not currently Wilderness. The topic is not whether existing Wilderness should be open to bicycles – a topic found in many other posts.

    I have observed that many areas these days that are considered as possible candidates for new Wilderness by advocates do not comply with the original criteria that was used to create the pool of roadless lands from which recommended Wilderness areas (RWA) were selected. While much of our nation doesn’t have Wilderness, the focus of many advocacy groups is aimed at those areas that do (probably because of where the membership and culture is). It becomes a matter of expanding designations into areas that have had both roads and logging in the past. Skeptics refer to this as manufacturing wilderness.

    If it is okay to loosely interpret what lands should be converted to Wilderness on the peripheral (the Wilderness-Rural interface) without meeting the original requirements, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that there are existing users in these areas that suddenly find themselves at risk of being kicked out. I grew up a hiker and am now a horseman. If mountain bikes as accepted legitimate recreation have been used on trails in an area, then their use should continue to be allowed. It isn’t a matter of who is better than whom. Each group has it’s own issues and problem users. We are the visitors and should all work together to respect the land and wildlife. I feel that an alternate roadless designation such as Backcountry would be appropriate. I also encourage Region 6 National Forests to continue to allow mountain bikes, chainsaws, and wheelbarrows to be used in RWAs and not get involved in the questionable ideological approach in Region 1 that is so controversial. I welcome all who respect and love our public lands.

    Thank you.

    Reply
  13. The one argument in favor of mountain bikers are that they are good advocates and well organized. I know the Virginia Wilderness Coalition was able to get substantial wilderness acreage passed I believe in 2009 by cutting a deal with the mountain bike community for a large segment of loop trails out of wilderness in a Shenandoah Mountain Scenic Area. So there is a possible non-wilderness protected designation that can work in some cases and allows for collaboration with the mountain bike community.

    However, we don’t think mountain bikes are compatible with wilderness. Mountain bikes are nice way to more quickly access wilderness and provide more wilderness experience for these users. But wilderness is not for users, it only allows visitors. Therefore to “use” wilderness for benefit of mountain bikers violates a basic premise of wilderness. There are already too many “special use” wilderness activities grandfathered into various wilderness bills and these are creating enough problems, we do not need to add more. Bottom line mountain biking would be “use” of wilderness with mechanical device. Plus the huge problem of trail maintenance with mountain bikes; there are simply too few wilderness trails constructed to accommodate mountain bikes without resulting damage, and too many wilderness trails are rapidly declining throughout the U.S. because agencies have stopped maintaining most legacy transportation routes—and in many cases these trails are in escalating disrepair due to recent wildfires.

    One might argue that mountain bikes are no worse than horses—perhaps bikes are less damaging to trails and bikes don’t leave excrement—but horses were initially part of wilderness as a historic use (although as mentioned, we don’t need any more “use” in wilderness). Furthermore, as an avid wilderness user, stock use—particularly professional outfitter use—is going to need to be more closely regulated and/or excluded in future to preserve wilderness character in some places.

    Regarding “grandfathering uses” in to wilderness, perhaps one could make the argument that mountain bikers (and motorcycles) were kicked out of previously used areas like the newly designated Ceil D. Andrus-White Clouds Wilderness in Idaho (where they were indeed kicked out) but in this case the wilderness boundary was a compromise where some boundary trails were left outside of wilderness for access loops bordering wilderness and short day hike access to lake basins. Furthermore, there are many other older wilderness areas with similar boundary trails (like Ramsey’s Draft in VA) or miles of cherry-stemmed back roads (like the Fish and Wildife Service managed Kofa Wilderness, second largest wilderness in AZ that has dozens of miles of unmaintained 4WD road open in heart of wilderness). So there is quite a bit of wilderness “access” for bikes in certain areas but takes some research to find them.

    Lastly, swift moving “kamikaze” mountain bikers can be dangerous to other visitors and they would create more unnecessary management problems for already over-whelmed and underfunded wilderness managers.

    Reply
  14. Comments about wilderness being only for ecological protection, not recreation, are ignorant at best. Read the act as was suggested-opportunities for primitive and unconfined……..(fill in blank). Comments about wilderness increasingly serving only old white male backpackers are spot on. And the trend in backpack sales says it all. Many young, urban, minority forest visitors want cell phone reception, and don’t care to hike more than a few hours. Look at how TWS has trumpeted the ecology excuse for more wilderness – they know darn well wilderness is increasingly underused and unpopular, especially if you educate people on the restrictions and what they really mean for visitor options. So they shift the goal posts. The way quantity of acres is a priority over quality of lands is pathetic, Zahniser is rolling in his grave. Since today’s mainstream environmental groups have already trashed his legacy, I say let bikers in – they contribute big time to sustainable trails and do more to further appreciation of nature and conservation than adding more marginal acres forever and ever. We have enough wilderness.

    Reply
  15. I sounds like George Wuerthner has abandoned supporting traditional Wilderness organizations for accepting what is essentially “Wilderness Lite”:

    “It’s especially disturbing that The Wilderness Society, Montana Wilderness Association, and Greater Yellowstone Coalition are throwing their full weight behind the GFP when we would expect these conservation groups to, first and foremost, protect wildlife habitat.”

    He has been very clear that Wilderness designation is the one and only “gold standard” of protection. I’m not sure I’ve read anywhere where he writes that he is willing to keep himself out of these lands, especially when he is hunting the animals he says would be harmed by bicycles.

    https://mtstandard.com/opinion/columnists/guest-view-group-risks-gallatin-forest-ecosystem-s-future/article_560cca76-3437-5346-b1e7-4e437d7e23f3.html?

    Reply
    • Do YOU improve the 186 miles of Eagle Caps that you’ve hiked? All visitors have negative impacts on the land and the trail. Simultaneously, visitors also have positive impacts by growing awareness and support for land preservation. It’s a balancing act and it’s not always a precise science. But singling out some user groups for absolute exclusion (bicycles or equestrians) while favoring another for absolute inclusion (hiking) is potentially bad policy if visitors have been shifting the manner in which they would like to visit the land. While equestrian use may be generally in decline(?), bicycle use has been generally on the increase. Using the horse or the bicycle as a convenient cheat for reducing visitation across all of federal Wilderness no matter what the local circumstances may be is, at best, a lazy substitute for proper management.

      Reply
      • I think there are two issues here: (1) mountain bikes in wilderness and (2) trails management in wilderness. First issue is Wilderness Act interpretation, which at present is used to exclude bikes within wilderness according to the four agencies that manage National Wilderness Preservation System. Changing this will take some work, perhaps even Congressional amendment to Act. Second issue seemed emphasis of your comment. First, all visitor-use of trails not equal–horses and mountain bikes are much more damaging use, particularly if trails not designed for these uses (e.g. limiting grade, avoiding boggy areas, etc.). Second, trails management currently a huge problem in wilderness today because not enough funding to do work, while fires and other climate change events increasing damage to legacy trails. Therefore, adding mountain bikes to wilderness trails would not only require some policy revision but would require additional management effort on wilderness trails–many of which already in poor shape. A better solution seems something like that done in Virginia with a recent wilderness bill: wilderness and nearby wilderness were brokered in same effort where “nearby wilderness” was managed for mountain bikes (even a wilderness boundary trail was shared by both bikes & hikers, which actually worked fairly well in my experience).

        Reply
        • Yes, with land agencies reluctant to re-visit the regulations that explicitly exclude bicycles, a potential amendment to the Wilderness Act is exactly what has been circulating in the form of Senate Bill 1695. It’s unfortunate that the agencies (arguable all simply following USFS lead) won’t revisit the regulations because there is no indication that those regulations were established with any kind of public review in the first place, let alone a fact-based assessment of impacts.

          Speaking of impacts, your assertion that horses and bicycles are far more damaging than boots is generally contradicted by the existing science on this topic. I would encourage you to further research the issue. There are many examples of boot-only trails that suffer severe impacts and there are many examples of trails that receive heavy bicycle use that are in excellent condition. Some of those trails were built with bicycles in mind while most were not. Local environmental conditions, as well as trail design, construction, and maintenance practices vary, but since the major land agencies generally have adopted their trail building practices from standards developed by the bicycling community, those variations are less of an issue.

          Yes, restoring bicycle access to some fraction of Wilderness trails would, as you say, require some changes to policy and management. That’s what you do when conditions evolve – in this case, changing patterns of use among visitors. Thankfully, there is not only a wealth of shared use trails management experience from millions of acres of land outside of Wilderness, but there is also a ready supply of highly motivated and expert trail stewards in the form of the bicycle community.

          Reply
          • I’m not pro-mountain bikes in Wilderness (I’m for using designations instead that allow both AKA Wilderness Lite), but I wonder if it is legal to use regulations that have had no public review, as you state.

            Reply
            • The 1964 Wilderness Act doesn’t mention bicycles specifically, but the current USFS regulation that keeps bikes out was adopted in 1984 and points to the “no other form of mechanical transport” clause in the Act. There’s plenty of evidence that “mechanical transport” meant motorized transport when the Act was being discussed, including the fact that when USFS first published regulations for the implementation of the Act in 1966 the definition of “mechanical transport” was “propelled by a non-living power source.” To your point, it’s unclear to me if USFS engaged in the required level of analysis and public input when making the 1984 decision. There’s more detail here: http://www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org/resources#history

              It seems similar to the case with the Pacific Crest Trail, which also excludes bicycles despite the fact that they are not specifically excluded in the 1968 National Trails System Act that established the trail. Instead, USFS issued a Closure Order in 1989 with apparently no public process at all. There’s more of that discussion here: http://www.sharingthepct.org/history

              The problem is that the last thing the cash-strapped, slow-moving, regulatory agencies want to do is start up a process to review – or simply validate – those previous decisions. It’s essentially a “sue us” strategy intended to make the problem go away. In the case of Wilderness access, it seems it might be cheaper/easier to try to amend the Wilderness Act to establish clearly that the intent of the act was to encourage exactly the type of rugged, self-reliant, non-motorized visitation that the framers of the act had in mind.

              Reply
            • By the way, I too might be pretty pleased with “Wilderness Lite” but that has not been seriously entertained by the Wilderness purists who are generally fixated on Wilderness or nothing. And as long as they have been able to push through new Wilderness designations while doing little to nothing to recognize the interests of backcountry cyclists, they will continue to do so. In the process, they will continue to alienate cyclists not simply by locking them out of future trails but also by kicking them off of existing bike trails as they are swallowed up in new Wilderness.

              Reply
              • “Speaking of impacts, your assertion that horses and bicycles are far more damaging than boots is generally contradicted by the existing science on this topic.”

                Common sense, supported by my personal experience with trails I use regularly (and that get all of these uses), says that 4 hooves or 2 tires has a greater impact than a pair of boots on a given trail under the same conditions. So I’d be interested in research that says otherwise.

                Reply
                • Jon, it’s not just the impact on the trail. Horses may munch grass, hikers may have dogs running after wildlife (which bikers generally don’t), hikers hang around longer and might annoy wildlife more than someone zooming past, OTOH wildife might get startled by someone zooming past more than talking hikers. I think the science issue could be yet another deep hole of science-slinging and not help resolve the disagreements at all.

                  Reply
                • Anecdotally, I can point to local hiking trails destroyed by boots and local mountain bike trails in excellent condition, but I don’t doubt your personal observations either. So I try not to rely on such examples to make broad conclusions. There are lots of links to info out there, but here’s one that may be useful because it is fairly recent and it contains lots of further links to various sources and citations. Perhaps it’s useful. https://mbosc.org/mtb-impact-faq_about/

                  Reply
                  • Thanks for that info, Court. Here’s the key point I would pick out to address trail damage: “On properly-built and well-maintained trails there is little to no measurable difference between the relative impacts caused by mountain bikes vs. hikers.” I assume that means bikes are worse on poor trails. The next question would be what proportion of trails are properly-built and well-maintained, and if it’s not many, then yes overall bikes are worse for trails. It also mentions that riding on wet trails is worse, and while I see signs discouraging riding on wet trails, I don’t see signs that anyone pays attention to them.

                    The report also addresses the wildlife question. It generally sounds like effects of different kinds of users are about the same, but anything that gets more people into more habitat is going to be worse for wildlife, and bikes do that.

                    Reply
              • Well, I just see that as folks with certain views having coalitions which may or may not come to an end… and it all has to do with tolerance and the Pyramid of Pristinity. For example, grazing permitees are good if they are against oil and gas, enemies of ecosystems otherwise. I agree that it would be awkward to participate in a Coalitional Divorce, but otherwise your voices may be unheard/taken for granted.

                A new coalition, Recreationists for Good Behavior and Tolerance, may never have the funding of TWS and so on.. but may need to be created, and take our place in the discussion.

                Reply
          • You likely have some valid points for some specific areas but wilderness management (from my experience in over 60 wilderness areas visited since 2015) is very fragmented, inconsistent and difficult to generalize even within an agency like Forest Service–not to mention the extreme environmental diversity among wilderness across the U.S. Perhaps you could name the exact wilderness areas you have in mind for mountain bike access; that seems a better way to dialog about this issue.

            Reply
  16. Agreeing with David, I might clarify that trails on the popular northeast side of Eagle Caps going into lake basins are already heavily over-used with many many groups doing loops on river trails as well as outfitters with heavy stock (horses & mules). The trails are steep and slidy from over use and although the Forest Service staffs Lakes Basin with one wilderness guard, it doesn’t appear any heavy trail maintenance or restoration is done (e.g. to replace steep sections with mellower switchbacks or improve eroded sideslope trail with pick &shovel work). Mountain bikes will cause more erosion like any other mechanical device/ vehicle. A good mountain bike trail is almost a mini-road and usually built with a small caterpillar. That kind of construction is illegal in wilderness & further is far beyond capacity of underfunded Forest Service recreation budgets.

    Reply
    • “A good mountain bike trail is almost a mini-road and usually built with a small caterpillar.” Ummm, no. The type of trail experience sought by backcountry cyclists is essentially indistinguishable from existing backcountry trails. Over the years, trail building practices (outside of Wilderness) for any type of use have increasingly involved motorized equipment like the “small caterpillar” you mention, but that is entirely unnecessary in many situations and hand-built trails are still the norm and well within the capability of land agencies and volunteers.

      Reply
  17. This topic has been addressed on New West, an online magazine from about 10 years ago. Written by a wilderness advocate, Bill Schneider, his opening remarks were as thoughtful and well-balanced as anything Sharon brings up. Sadly we can’t go back to read the copious comments, as New West seems permanently closed. At the time, another wilderness advocate, Ralph Maughan, started a parallel discussion on the topic. This discussion and comments can still be read. http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2007/10/17/wild-bill-should-new-wilderness-areas-allow-mountain-bikes-as-a-way-of-gathering-political-support/

    Reply
  18. Many commenters make good points to ponder. What I see as missing here is acknowledgement of the dynamicism of the entire topic. As more bike accessible trails are removed from legal access through planning processes, or by passing of more wilderness area legislation, the sense of urgency for a solution becomes more critical for those losing bicycling access. Wilderness lite may have been an appropriate tool 20 years ago, had it been available. Now, with the closing of many thousands of miles of bicycle access, the STC’s push for bicycle consideration in some wilderness areas makes more sense. I think wilderness lite and bicycle access on some wilderness trails may yet have it’s day. As more families raise their kids on bicycles, this activity will become ever more mainstream. People will increasingly question the ever expanding wilderness goals and continue to look for ways to legally and ethically enjoy the outdoors.

    I believe wilderness lite has never gained traction as a concept is because of the strong and passionate resistance from wilderness advocates. They have many reasons to resist it, the strongest could possibly be that wilderness lite would likely overtake the wilderness act in popularity. Professional and volunteer wilderness advocates dislike the concept of a larger land management toolbox that likely could put them on the same negotiating level as bicyclists. Currently they have a legal and ethical upper hand and resist surrendering that influence.

    Reply
  19. We already basically have ‘Wilderness Lite’. It’s called Inventoried Roadless Areas. These are basically just Wilderness Areas that differ only in that mechanized and some motorized trails are allowed. Other than that, the things that are cited as “roadless values” are the same as “wilderness values,” and their management is virtually identical.

    Note however that environmentalists are not satisfied with Roadless status and insist on viewing each of these areas as basically candidate Wilderness areas in waiting. It doesn’t matter that they are already protected against almost all forms of development. They are still considered not good enough to qualify as ‘protected’ under the new 30 By 30 initiative. Only full Wilderness will satisfy them.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Allie Cancel reply