I always like to see bipartisan bills.. Note the desire expressed by Senator Lujan, to make outdoor spaces more accessible to Americans, and to “boost the outdoor recreation economy.”
Here’s a link.
Sens. Cramer, Lujan Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Bolster Outdoor Recreation,
Promote Biking on Federal Lands
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) introduced the Biking On Long-Distance Trails (BOLT) Act to bolster outdoor recreation and promote biking on federal lands across the United States.
“The longest continuous single track mountain bike trail in the U.S. is lucky to call North Dakota home. As the former North Dakota Tourism Director, I know the Maah Daah Hey and other bike trails provide enriching recreational experiences and economic opportunities for our communities. Our bill identifies long-distance bike trails on public lands for all to enjoy,” said Senator Cramer.
“In New Mexico and across America, there are millions of acres of federal lands that have gone untapped for responsible outdoor recreation use. This bipartisan legislation will make bike trails more accessible and safer across America and will provide a much-needed boost to the growing outdoor recreation economy,” said Senator Luján. “I have always enjoyed getting out on my mountain bike to explore New Mexico’s beautiful landscapes, and this legislation will make those outdoor spaces more accessible to Americans across the country.”
The BOLT Act will make bike trails more accessible and direct the Department of the Interior (DOI) to:
- Identify not fewer than 10 long-distance bike trails;
- Identify not fewer than 10 areas in which there is an opportunity to develop or complete long-distance bike trials;
- Allow the DOI to publish and distribute maps, install signage, and issue promotional materials; and
- Publish a report that lists the trails developed under this legislation.
Biking stakeholder groups issued statements of support as well.
“Mountain biking has grown in popularity over the last decade, most notably during the pandemic, and we at the International Mountain Bicycling Association applaud Senator Ben Ray Luján from New Mexico and Senator Kevin Cramer from North Dakota for recognizing the importance of outdoor recreation and introducing the bipartisan Biking on Long Distance Trails (BOLT) Act. Now is the time to invest in our outdoor recreation infrastructure by providing pathways to positive physical and mental health and creating jobs in the outdoor economy,” said Dave Wiens, Executive Director of the International Mountain Bicycling Association.
Senators Cramer and Lujan are joined on the legislation by Senators Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and John Barrasso (R-WY).
Interesting, but this seems to be a pretty limited effort. Why only the Department of Interior? This would really only effect states that have large amounts of BLM land. Kind of odd the bill would not also include the Forest Service so that states where the Forest Service is the predominant federal land management agency could also benefit.
Another thought is if they really wanted to promote long distance bike trails, they would make an exception in the Wilderness Act to allow bikes to travel along designated corridors through Wilderness areas. I know Wilderness is the main obstacle to biking the entire Colorado Trail. Only hikers can travel the entire main trail. Bikers have to make long detours on roads around segments which cross several major Wilderness areas, which I’m sure is a huge pain for them.
I know there has long been a proposal to allow bikes in Wilderness that has never gotten any traction, but I wonder if anyone has thought of designating specific corridors around certain long-distance trails like the Colorado Trail or the Continental Divide Trail that would allow bikes to cross Wilderness areas.
Patrick, maybe they didn’t think of it.. you might want to contact the cosponsors’ staffs.
Actually, looks like the summary from the web link you posted is outdated. The actual text of the bill does apply to both the DOI and Forest Service. So it seems they’ve already changed the bill to address that concern.
Great minds and all that.. sorry for the outdated link…:)
Sharon, you can be sure that they are extremely well aware of this issue … and are afraid to touch it with the proverbial ten-foot pole. In hopes of getting this feeble legislation to pass, they’ve ensured that it doesn’t interfere with any sacred cows.
Patrick, bikers have always had full access to wilderness areas just like anyone else. The only prohibition is on machines, not on people.
A nice platitude that completely ignores the actual issue. Though at least bikers are physically capable of hiking into Wilderness areas. So the best that can be said is your statement is not quite as bad as when Wilderness advocates support closing roads and turning previously easily accessible areas into Wilderness that can only be accessed by a 14 mile one-way hike, and then have the audacity to claim that doesn’t deny access to people with disabilities since they can hike in like other people. That’s a whole other discussion however.
ALL mountain bikers can walk. That’s not a “platitude”, it’s a FACT. If they couldn’t walk, a simple flat tire would strand them in the wilderness. Bikes have no rights, and don’t belong on trails. Mountain bikers don’t like to hear facts.
Not true, Mike- I’ve worked with a lot of people with disabilities and many of them are only able to access outdoor spaces on wheels or skis. The problem with absolute statements in science is that it only takes one counterexample to prove them wrong.
The disabled can use a wheelchair, per ADA. There is no reason for them to use a mountain bike – unless they want to become even MORE disabled! Mountain bikers would love for us to forget the reality of mountain biking. They claim that it’s a healthful sport. Tel that to all the mountain bikers who turned themselves into paraplegics, quadriplegics, or corpses!
The wilderness act wasn’t created as a way to create access for humans. Its mission is stewardship, not access. It allows for limited forms of access as an exception to its primary mission of preserving wild land for the sake of wildlife and natural areas.
You are correct its mission is preserving wild land, but not for wildlife. According to the actual text of the act, it is to preserve the land for the American people. Wildlife are only a secondary beneficiary, not the primary one. That is a fact that is lost on most wilderness advocates, who have long been trained to view animals as more important than their own species.
How attractive would Wilderness be without any living things (e.g. like a quarry)? DUH!
Then why does the Wilderness Act mention recreation three times?
To put it another way, Wilderness is OF wildlife, not FOR it; it is part of the “wilderness character.” Recreation is one of the purposes that is secondary to administering wilderness to “preserve its wilderness character.”
Yes, I think that’s a fair summary of the intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Why then are destructive, for-profit commercial pack trains ruining Wilderness areas (trails, meadows, streams, and flora and fauna generally) all over the western United States?
Because the ideals of the Wilderness Act are one thing, and decades of federal government mismanagement of it something quite different.
The foolish blanket ban on bicycles, not authorized by the Act itself, which the agencies stubbornly refuse to consider since their planning in 1977 didn’t and couldn’t take mountain biking into account, is just one of the agencies’ many blunders, though it is one of the less consequential ones, especially given the number of bicycle tracks one sees on some Wilderness trails.
You demonstrate the very ignorance that keeps that myth alive: the problem with bikes is that they increase the human footprint (the distance that one can travel) in wildlife habitat. They increase the human presence, which is what drives the wildlife out of their habitat. That’s just willful ignorance. Didn’t you ever study biology? Your ignorance is stunning!
Banning “mechanical transport” is authorized by the Wilderness Act (and we discussed this extensively here:
https://forestpolicypub.com/2019/02/25/mountain-bikes-in-existing-wilderness-redux/)
This has to be nothing short of ecologically and social “sick”; basically, it promotes more mechanization and more consumption.
The fact is, mtn bikers are the most notorious environmental predators now on the public landscape, and at a time in history when cumulative effects are nearing obscene, this kind of idiocy shows how mindless some elected people can be.
Brian, don’t you think you statements are a little over the top? What’s up with that? “notorious environmental predators?”
That’s just a FACT. Wild animals (and hikers and equestrians) see mountain bikers as predators, which is why they don’t like having them around, and why mountain bikers drive them out of their habitat.
I’m a hiker and sometime equestrian and I don’t see MBer’s as potential predators. Not like loose dogs, for example, or even some humans.
Can what you say be a FACT if all hikers don’t see them that way? Plus there are MBers who also hike.. do they seem themselves as predators? There are annoying things about some MBers… just like there are annoying things about some in any group.
“I don’t see MBer’s as potential predators”: then you aren’t paying attention! If they can injure, paralyze, and kill themselves, they can do the same to hikers, equestrians, and horses. You don;t seem to understand the obvious: if a hiker bumps into you, you aren’t likely to get hurt. But if a mountain biker runs into you, the momentum of the heavy bike is added to their momentum. And in regard to wildlife impacts, mountain bikers can easily travel several times as far as a hiker, and therefore have several times the impact on the wildlife – without even considering the erosion caused by their knobby tires. This is not a popularity contest. Mountain biking does enormous harm to our environment. Just look at all the trail-building they do – legal and ILLEGAL. That’s all HABITAT DESTRUCTION. Take your head out of the sand.
Don’t worry, Sharon … Mr. Horejsi speaks for a relative handful of people in all of North America, whereas mountain biking’s popularity extends into the millions.
Mr. Horejsi might consider celebrating the economic benefits that mountain biking has brought to British Columbia, where I gather he lives. I suspect that thousands of jobs throughout the province have been created by this environmentally benign form of nonmotorized quiet recreation.
That’s right: Dr. Horejsi speaks for all conservation biologists, whereas the rest of you speak for the biologically ignorant. who care only about money and selfish, destructive forms of recreation..
What were you thinking??? Mountain biking and trail-building destroy wildlife habitat! Mountain biking is environmentally, socially, and medically destructive! There is no good reason to allow bicycles on any unpaved trail!
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: https://mjvande.info/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 https://mjvande.info/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.
Mountain bikers also love to build new trails – legally or illegally. Of course, trail-building destroys wildlife habitat – not just in the trail bed, but in a wide swath to both sides of the trail! E.g. grizzlies can hear a human from one mile away, and smell us from 5 miles away. Thus, a 10-mile trail represents 100 square miles of destroyed or degraded habitat, that animals are inhibited from using. Mountain biking, trail building, and trail maintenance all increase the number of people in the park, thereby preventing the animals’ full use of their habitat. See https://mjvande.info/scb9.htm for details.
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:
In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: https://mjvande.info/mtb_dangerous.htm .
The latest craze among mountain bikers is the creation of “pump tracks” (bike parks). They are alleged to teach bicycling skills, but what they actually teach are “skills” (skidding, jumping (“getting air”), racing, etc.) that are appropriate nowhere! If you believe that these “skills” won’t be practiced throughout the rest of the park and in all other parks, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you! …
For more information: https://mjvande.info/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.
Mike, you state that parks are WILDLIFE HABITAT. I don’t know where you live but in Colorado we have state wildlife areas that are managed to be WILDLIFE HABITAT, (as well as federal wildlife refuges). Now if people want to change the purpose for their federal, state and county parks and open spaces, that would be fine but that’s not the case right now.
I think humans and wildlife both matter. You are arguing for “people-free” places, and that might be a good thing. All I’m saying is that the current parks are not designed that way.
What is wildlife habitat is determined by the wildlife, NOT by humans. The wildlife can’t read the signs, and wouldn’t care if they could. Duh!
Interesting!
Looks like this post has certainly brought out the mountain biking haters. Apparently among some crowds mountain biking brings out the same irrational hatred that motorized recreation does. Brian and Mike’s posts certainly illustrate the poisonous anti-humanist ideology I’ve called out previously among the environmentalist movement. What else would cause someone to brand people enjoying a harmless hobby as “environmental predators?”
I am not personally a mountain biker so I won’t bother discussing the specific impacts of mountain biking. But I do think Mike’s post perfectly illustrates the fundamental philosophical and policy question at the heart of most public land use debates. What is the purpose of American public lands? Do public lands exist for the use and enjoyment of the American people, or should they be set aside solely for the benefit of wildlife with humans excluded as much as possible?
While Brian and Mike clearly hold the latter view, the actual law supports the former. Even the Wilderness Act itself directs that Wilderness areas “shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness” [by people]. Granted the Wilderness Act as currently written prohibits bicycles, but it makes it very clear that the purpose of Wilderness is to preserve areas in a natural state to be enjoyed by the American people. If that is true of Wilderness areas, which are the most restrictive of human activities, it would be even more true of non-wilderness public lands which allow a far greater variety of recreational activities.
So the idea that public lands are first and foremost intended to be wildlife habitat is completely ridiculous and has no legal support. While there are laws requiring the protection of wildlife habitat on public lands and requiring other uses to minimize impacts on wildlife where practical, nothing has ever changed the fact that at the most fundamental level, public lands exist for human use and enjoyment. I will give props to Mike for being unusually transparent about environmentalists’ goal of fundamentally altering the purpose of public lands. While he apparently still falls into the typical trap of ignoring the impacts of hikers, most won’t even admit that much.
One other point regarding this argument: “They [bikers] 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….”
Do you realize you are making the exact same kind of argument as opponents of gay marriage who said gay people have the exact same access to marriage as straight people, since they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else? An argument can be technically true and yet completely fail to address the actual point.
“at the most fundamental level, public lands exist for human use and enjoyment”: and I’ll bet that you think that the Bible gives humans the right – and even duty – to manage the entire Earth. The trouble with these arguments is that they are biased toward humans, since humans wrote the Bible and the laws. The wildlife would disagree! By your logic, I could simply write a law giving me your house, and you would no longer have a right to live there. The wildlife lived here for millions of years before humans were even invented. The Earth belongs to them. We are trespassers (an invasive non-native species), everywhere but Africa. See https://mjvande.info/scb4.htm.
As to hiking, I obviously agree that it is harmful – just not nearly as harmful as mountain biking. Why do you think that I advocate designating human-free habitat.
As to gay marriage, that’s an interesting point, but sexual orientation isn’t as flexible as choice of recreation. It makes sense to allow gay marriage, but there is NO good reason to allow bikes on any unpaved trail. And you can’t come up with one. No one ever has.
The reason is simple. People enjoy mountain biking and it gives them personal fulfillment. The same reason for all forms of outdoor recreation. No other reason is needed. As with all forms of recreation, the personal fulfillment of the recreator must be balanced against the impacts of their activity on wildlife and the environment, but most people would not question the validity of the activity itself or its motivation.
You appear to be an exception, and apparently don’t consider human fulfillment to be a legitimate reason for anything. There is no argument I could make that would cause you to accept that, because you and I are clearly operating from completely different value systems. This is fundamentally a clash of world views as you acknowledge in your post. While someone doesn’t necessarily have to believe in the Bible to believe that humans are exceptional and that sentient beings have greater value than non-sentient life, that is the central conflict here.
Denying that humans have any greater value than non-sentient animals is the essence of anti-humanism, and I thank you though for openly acknowledging your anti-humanist ideology. I’ve brought that up many times before on this site, only for people like Matthew to deny that environmentalists are motivated by anti-humanism and challenge me to provide an example. In the future I will simply need to link to this comment thread.
While I highly doubt there’s any point in reasoning with you, the more open people like you are about your true beliefs, it at least gives the American people a clear choice whether they really want our public lands to be managed by people who view humanity as simply an invasive species to be eradicated and who deny that human enjoyment of nature has any value. I suspect most reasonable people would say no.
“The reason is simple. People enjoy mountain biking and it gives them personal fulfillment.”: you didn’t answer the question: provide a good reason to allow BICYCLES on trails. Hiking provides enjoyment and “personal fulfillment” – whatever that is. None of that requires bringing a bike with you.
“I thank you though for openly acknowledging your anti-humanist ideology”: it’s predictable that mountain bikers and mountain bike apologists will lie. It;s the only technique they know. To admit that humans drive other species to extinction is called “HONESTY”. You should try it. You might get more respect. Do you really think that it’s “anti-human” to tell the truth? Pretty sick!
Wow, Mike you are not very tolerant of others’ recreational choices. I don’t think it’s kind or compassionate to call people with whom you disagree liars. What’s up with that?
#Recreationistsfortoleranceofotherusers
I was starting to think this guy is just a troll, but then I looked at his website. It says he has a PhD and has given a bunch of lectures at environmental conferences advocating basically banning humans from all natural areas. Apparently it’s possible to make a career out of being a professional misanthrope.
I can only imagine the amount of hatred and self-loathing that motivates a person to dedicate his entire career to denying other people the right to enjoy nature. This kind of obsession with taking away the greatest source of joy in many people’s lives can’t be healthy. I can’t imagine that dedicating one’s life to destroying other people’s hobbies makes for a very pleasant or fulfilling life either. Kind of fits with my impression of many environmentalists as being generally miserable people trying to make everyone else as miserable as they are. “Merchants of Despair”, Robert Zubrin calls them: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/books/merchants-of-despair
“I was starting to think this guy is just a troll, but then I looked at his website. It says he has a PhD and has given a bunch of lectures at environmental conferences advocating basically banning humans from all natural areas”: I understand your method: you create a “straw man” by LYING. Then you criticize the straw man. Are you sure you aren’t a mountain biker? You certainly LIE like one. I never said anything close to what you claimed. I said that there should be some areas off-limits to all humans. Can’t you read? Ask your mommie to help you.
Patrick: I think Mike has demonstrated that it is possible to have a PhD and be a Troll, both. He definitely seems to dislike people — and particularly those that ride bikes, apparently — and seems to be under the delusion that he can channel and speak for all of wildlife. If it wasn’t for the miracle of Internet communications he would likely be limited to carrying a signboard and shouting from street corners. In my opinion. Not a serious person, and probably very valuable to the mountain biking community as an “opponent.” Like the Washington Generals to basketball.
It’s great that the mountain bikers continue to exhibit their character in front of the whole world! They can’t defend mountain biking, so they personally ATTACK (ad hominem) anyone who tells the TRUTH about mountain biking. PATHETIC!
Mike: FYI, I’ve never ridden a mountain bike and have rarely ever encountered bikes on the trails I am still able to hike. Also, according to this string, it is you making these attacks and the rest of us are merely responding to being called “pathetic liars,” etc. Guessing it is too late in your life to expect in positive changes in your perspective. Good luck!
Thanks again for demonstrating what mountain bikers & mountain biking apologists are like: “it is you making these attacks and the rest of us are merely responding to being called “pathetic liars,” etc. “: that is another LIE. If you don’t like being called a “liar”, WHY DO YOU LIE???
What would YOU call someone who lies? And how would you rate his “compassion”? Why should anyone be “tolerant” of environmental, social, and medical destructiveness? You should THINK before you write.
Mike: That sounds like excellent advice that you routinely hand out and fail to observe on your own. Reactively calling people you disagree with “liars” is one example. This made me curious about your PHD, so I Googled your name and came up with this:
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/trial-mike-vandeman/
Apparently you have been publicly and vehemently opposed to mountain biking for many years and that is the principal reason this topic is so important to you and may be the primary reason you exist. Is that close?
If you could READ, you could answer your own question. I and all rational humans oppose mountain biking because of the enormous harm it is doing to wildlife and the environment. DUH!
It’s not just anti-humanist, it’s racist! The whole idea of a wilderness free of humans is based on the fallacy that there was nobody (when the parks were created that meant nobody white…) living in the areas we consider to be wilderness. Unless you want to dial back the benchmark clock to pre-colonization of the continent (by humans, not Europeans) there’s really no such thing as a natural landscape free of humans and their influences on ecology. Every reasonable person in this thread will admit that humans are capable of driving species to extinction, but citing mountain bikes as a primary driver of that impact is… not super compelling. And as we so often see in the quest for environmental policy, your arguments are only serving to undercut what I assume your end goals are (to prevent species extinction) by divisively and unscientifically ranting against user groups who would otherwise be your natural allies. Cheers?
Jimmy, I think another problem with dialing back the clock to pre-colonization by humans is that the landscapes were under glaciers. This seems difficult and undesirable to replicate.
Well the last glacial maximum still left most of the western US ice free, at least at elevations below a mile or so. But the point that it’s a bit tricky to pin down what we are managing towards is well taken and relevant. I think it’s especially relevant to critique the wilderness fortress model of conservation- because if we’re picking any time between the last glacial maximum and the early 1900s as our management target we should be talking about giving our various national parks and public lands back to native tribes to inhabit and manage… probably also not totally feasible, but a basic history lesson essentially invalidates the idea that modern ecosystems are somehow better off without humans, which seems to be Mr. Vandeman’s fantasy. And since we can work from that point the much more interesting questions are HOW to interact with the ecosystems we inhabit.
All of your rationalizing is irrelevant. Humans are driving thousands of species extinct, and you still want the wildlife to put up with our presence? Humans are unbelievably selfish! Wildlife can only thrive if their habitat isn’t overrun with MACHINERY, such as mountain bikes, and humans. And, by the way, the wildlife can’t distinguish between native Americans, biologists, and other humans. None of them belong in protected areas, if we are serious about conserving the wildlife.
“Humans are unbelievably selfish! ”
Do not forget arrogant. We as humans are incredibly arrogant, making it our duty to not only be responsible for eradicating species… but to try and protect them as well. I guess that would also make us all hypocrites.
Wildlife is certainly impacted by humanity but to even suggest that there is going to be a time when that isn’t true is preposterous. Unless of course you’re all for eradicating humanity, which might just do the trick… A temporary solution until the next asteroid shows up or the sun goes supernova and ends it all.
Irrelevant. Just more excuses for what we all know is INEXCUSABLE.
People who mountain bike or support mountain biking are NOT “natural allies”. Their only goal is access for their bikes. They always oppose Wilderness designation, because it excludes bikes (but not bikers). By supporting human-free habitat, I am simply supporting the wildlife: that’s what THEY want! It has nothing to do with me. There is no good reason for allowing humans access to the entire Earth, ESPECIALLY because we do so much harm. Apparently you never read my papers, because I explained EXACTLY why mountain biking is harmful: it greatly expands the human footprint (the distance one can travel). And the presence of humans is harmful to the wildlife. They also accelerate erosion, create V-shaped ruts, destroying the trails, injure hikers and equestrians, and injure, paralyze, and kill the mountain bikers themselves. It’s not rocket science!
Doesn’t really sound like science at all. That’s a pretty simplistic and undoubtedly false understanding of a giant group of people, who are not a monolith. To be honest I think you’d be better off waging war on the cattle industry, which has far greater detrimental impacts to public lands in terms of soil damage, deforestation, and wildlife displacement. I’m always happy to read good papers, but I find it unlikely that you have much to offer in the way of cogent analysis based on your limited ability to infer the motives of user groups and the potential for those motives to contribute to conservation efforts. You’re also totally missing my point that there has never been a time in human history where any piece of the globe was “off limits” to people. Most of the ecosystems that offer realistic mountain biking terrain have also been historically inhabited by people, many of whom made it their goal to kill and eat as much of the wildlife as possible. In my recent elk hunt that straddles ranch land, USFS land, and designated wilderness, I found (and left) dozens of stone projectile points. I wasn’t the first to hunt that area by a long shot. I’ve actually always thought that hunting deer and elk on a mountain bike with a spear would be a lot more sporting than with a high powered rifle.
Wildlife in North America has evolved to tolerate a reasonable amount of depredation by humans, and the relative effect of mountain biking versus grazing or road building or housing development or dam building or water diversion for agriculture, etc. is negligible. Even by your own logic, it seems like a problem that would solve itself, if bikers are just paralyzing and killing themselves all the time. Seems like you just hate bikes. Hard to respect that.
By your logic, since murder is worse than robbery, then robbery should be legal. You make no sense at all. Humans have already destroyed far too much wildlife habitat. That’s why we are in the midst of the Sixth Extinction crisis. That’s why the Half Earth and 30×30 projects were created. Instead of destroying even MORE habitat, we should be protecting much more habitat (1/2 of the Earth, per Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson.). Mountain biking is a habitat-destroying activity, and has no legitimate place in a sane society.
“Seems like you just hate bikes”: then why do I own three of them? Why can’t I remember the last time I drove a motor vehicle? Go ahead, tell some more lies. It teaches the entire world what mountain bikers are like: DISHONEST TO THE CORE!
True, Mike does provide a unique – if a touch unhinged – perspective on the antihumanism that is normally left to more implicit suggestion.
Though seriously, “medically destructive”? being alive is medically destructive by some definitions, the screed-posters that add little to civil or serious dialogue on a normally informative forum are wasting everyone else’s time
It’s easy to prove: https://mjvande.info/mtb_dangerous.htm. Is it really a waste of your time to learn about the risks involved in mountain biking??? It seems like good sense to me.
Mike Vandeman is a deranged and dangerous individual who has been arrested more than once for violence against bikers: https://web.archive.org/web/20100605043621/https://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-052810-37NC.htm
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/trial-mike-vandeman/
An article written by a mountain biker, and hence totally predictable. The mountain bikers were simply trying to punish me for reporting their ILLEGAL MOUNTAIN BIKING. DUH!
Like Sen. Ron Wyden’s silly Recreation Not Red Tape Act, this legislation is a waste of time. I predict it will go nowhere, as it deserves. If it does pass, it will be forgotten except on the desk of an employee buried deep in the DOI’s offices.
If Sen. Cramer wants to improve the 144-mile-long Maah Daah Hey Trail, he would work for legislation to exempt a tiny (I think maybe a half-mile- or mile-long) piece of it that runs along the boundary of Theodore Roosevelt National Park’s north unit from the NPS’s foolish ban on mountain biking in almost all national parks. Or just relocate the segment slightly to the south, a few feet outside the park boundary.
The presence of this smidgen of trail barely inside the national park boundary forces mountain bikers (at least those on tours for which a federal permit is required) to detour tens of miles out of the way, onto dangerous U.S. highway 85 and a succession of dusty dirt roads to rejoin the Maah Daah Hey Trail south of the needless Theodore Roosevelt cutout. I imagine that other mountain bikers simply ignore the prohibition. Bad rules encourage the flouting of them.
When legislators accomplish this, they’ll have actually done something. This legislation is a waste of the paper it’s printed on.
I’d be more supportive of mountain bikes, if they in turn were supportive of multi use, as in ATVs, 4 wheelers, electric bikes, etc., but of course they aren’t. Also a ton more enforcement. For every mile of bike trail there are 20 miles of illegal trail.
Even though mountain bikes are supposed to yield to hikers, doing so is impractical, the hiker always has to step off the trail, and bikes never have, nor use, bells, so they approach silently from behind, and wait for the hiker to get out of the way without a “how dee doo”. Where bikes use hiking trails eventually they drive hikers off, the two uses conflict.
Horses one can hear coming, and in theory everyone knows to step off to the downhill side. Cowboys don’t wear futuristic helmets with face shields, usually they’re freindly.
I walk mostly off trail, animal tracks that are everywhere seem to disappear within 200 or 300 feet of trails. All trails that are frequently used by humans deny habitat for 1/8 of a mile X however long the trail is. Forest and Wilderness is for people too, but maybe we should put a little forethought into it. (Of course I’d be ok if they got rid of all trails)
In the planning of these trails have they also planned for ATVs or e bikes? Closures for sensitive times of year and above everything else, funding for enforcement, because as we’ve learned in Colorado, closures without enforcement are only for 80% of the people.
For big W Wilderness I align more with Mike, only more so. Get rid of the signage and mapped trails. There are always old pack trails in the west going most places, it’s only a matter of finding them and using them. Lately the impetus has been towards permits, a lack of trails would be better at keeping Wilderness wildernessy, and keep the riff raff out.
Interesting that so much time and energy is devoted to someone with stories such as this attached to them. Meanwhile, the real world moves on and disregards such individuals.
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/trial-mike-vandeman/
It”s even more interesting that mountain bikers ALWAYS LIE! You CONVENIENTLY FORGOT to mention that all charges were dismissed, Not that any of that is relevant to the harm that mountain biking does….
No, you were found guilty on 3 of 6 counts, and sentenced to community service and parole and banned from those trails for 1 year. Why are you so angry?
The assault charge was DISMISSED, as you well know. And ALL charges were dismissed in 2013. No wonder you are afraid to give your real name. Mountain bikers’ favorite tactic is ad hominem. Ask your mommie to explain it to you.
When you rely on articles written by mountain bikers, you can be sure of only one thing: THEY WILL BE LYING. That’s because there are no good reasons for allowing bikes on trails, so the only way you can promote that is to LIE. DUH! The article illustrates (but conve4niently fails to admit) that the mountain bikers were simply trying to punish me for reporting their IL:LEGAL MOUNTAIN BIKING. But they shot themselves in the foot, since due to all the publicity, they can no longer ride illegally!
Always fun when the infamous Mike Vandeman shows up to comment! He’s spent a lifetime trolling all on-line content about mountain biking. He’s extra infamous for slashing a mountain biker with a knife in the Berkeley, CA hills.
https://bermstyle.com/the-trial-of-mike-vandeman/
Oh my! And here I assumed I was just arguing with a grumpy old academic, not the California Slasher. Real eco warrior right there. Where’s Matthew when you need him? WildEarth GUARDIANS should make this guy their mascot. He even comes with a sword!
Thanks for continuing to LIE. It demonstrates exactly what mountain bikers are like. They lie continually. You know, of course, that the charge was DISMISSED, because it never happened.
It”s even more interesting that mountain bikers ALWAYS LIE! You CONVENIENTLY FORGOT to mention that all charges were dismissed, Not that any of that is relevant to the harm that mountain biking does….
Mr. Vandeman – you expunged your record after the normal 2 years of being a criminal. 100% legal to do that. Your Order For Dismissal in March of 2013 doesn’t change the fact that you slashed a human being with your knife.
Thanks for demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like: DISHONEST TO THE CORE! I didn’t even have a knife, and the assault charge was DISMISSED, because it never happened! I guess you conveniently “forgot” that, huh?
Mike, I don’t think you belong on The Smokey Wire. Attacking people happens sometimes (sadly) here, but it’s not our raison d’etre, as it appears to be yours. In fact our purpose is to share information and perspectives and disagree respectfully. So please add something along those lines to the conversation or leave us. We can also delete your comments.. that’s the next step.
Interesting: you complain when I tell the TRUTH, but you are silent when the mountain bikers LIE. What’s up with that? That’s called “hypocrisy”. I don’t “attack people”. I attack BAD BEHAVIOR. Your threat of censorship is typical of mountain bikers. They HATE for anyone to tell the truth about mountain biking.
You never answer questions! What kind of “information sharing” is that?
Sure,I answer questions if they are posed to me in a civil manner. And what was your question?
Reread my replies. You answer NO questions. For example, you criticize me for calling someone a “liar” when they lie. What would YOU call a liar? Aren’t we allowed to tell the truth???
Never happened, as you well know. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like: DISHONEST TO THE CORE.
Wow! One of the more entertaining threads. You would think that a PhD in psychology would lead one to be more introspective about their own behavior. Obviously not the case here.
What nonsense! The lack of details proves you have no idea what you are talking about. You just want to change the subject from the harm that mountain biking does to Mike Vandeman. Mountain bikers’ motives are transparent! Being afraid to use your real name is another clue that your statements are unreliable.
“We’re having some fun NOW, eh kids?!?!?!!!” *Over-the-top Pop Music Radio DJ voice*
Join us again, next week, as one of the Internet’s oldest trolls continues to fight for his opinions, closely followed by hordes of mountain bike mercenaries, providing counterpoint and compromise. After 20 years, you’d think they’d have it all settled.
Maybe bring some appetizers?
Hi Sharon: My thought is that it is probably time to part ways with Mike Vandeman, as you have suggested. This has been an entertaining thread in some places and informative in others, but I think one collection of Mike’s rants on the Smokey Wire is probably sufficient to hear what he has to say. Repeatedly, and not very respectful or polite. Not sure if anyone has ever been banned from this blog before, but Mike might be a good test. Other thoughts?
But the mountain bikers and mountain bike apologists keep providing very enlightening posts like this, demonstrating that (1) they HATE to hear the truth about mountain biking; (2) it’s MUCH easier to personally attack the people who tell the truth about mountain biking, than to address the harm that mountain biking does; (3) whenever you can’t answer a question, SHUT UP; (4) CENSORSHIP is the mountain bikers’ best friend. You guys are disgusting!
Mike,
Your hypocrisy and stubborn-headed dis-attachment from reality are not welcome here, or anywhere. Either you can only exist in your little Bay Area world, or perhaps you need to put your money where your mouth is, and leave to somewhere where you walk the talk you do. Everything you have said here, is 100% incompatible with 21st century life in California. And anywhere in the continental US.
“Your hypocrisy and stubborn-headed dis-attachment from reality”: look up “projection” in a dictionary of psychology. Your comment says nothing specific, so it’s meaningless. No wonder it’s anonymous. Try to stick to the topic, which is the harm that mountain biking does. That’s the only issue.