Time for a new backcountry coalition of MPVs: muscle-powered vehicles
Outdoor-recreation constituents who oppose motorized vehicles need to consider the concept of 'Wilderness Lite' instead of full wilderness designations for federal lands. It means allowing traditionally banned mountain bikes but would bring more political clout to the preservation cause.
Two weeks ago on the Web site New West, I wrote a quiet-trails proposal for the central Continental Divide of Montana. I left the ensuing debate with two thoughts. First, local mountain-biking clubs and the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) are getting very sensitive about being called anti-wilderness, which is a great sign. IMBA seems to have moved away from opposing efforts to protect wild lands to working collaboratively with wilderness advocates.
Second, for wilderness advocates, it might finally be time to suck it up and push for Wilderness Lite. This new strategy could allow us to move forward and truly protect the last roadless lands in the New West.
Regrettably, wilderness is still the "W word" to many people – except to wolf haters, I suppose, who might argue with me on that one. For a myriad of reasons, we've gone more than 20 years without a new designated wilderness in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. One of those reasons, if not the major one, is that natural allies for wild land protection can't work together for their common good.
The recent debate over the Montana High Divide Trails proposal nicely illustrates the dilemma. I went to one of the collaborative sessions for this proposal, and it was like seeing the movie Ground Hog Day for the 10th time. Almost all mountain bikers want roadless lands protected from road building and motorized abuse, but they don't want wilderness because agencies have made administrative decisions to prohibit bicycles in designated wilderness. Instead, they want a new designation that only allows MPVs – muscle-powered vehicles like bicycles, horses, hikers, and climbers – but bans roads and motorized recreation, or wreckreation, as it's been called. (If agencies can create new terms and acronyms like OHVs or PFDs, I figure I can do it, too. So bring on the MPV zones.)
The rub is, Congress really hasn't given us an alternative to designated wilderness that allows all MPVs. We have several administrative alternatives, but these can change with the political winds of any administration and don't offer lasting protection.
Wilderness advocates aren't really pushing for Wilderness Lite or a "little w" alternative designation that prohibits road-building and allows only non-motorized use, because they know that once we get it, the political reality is there will be no more "Big W" wilderness. Their fears are well founded, but it might be time for them to give up and support the creation of new congressionally mandated MPV zones. If they don't change course, we could easily be looking at another 20 years or more before getting any lasting protection for roadless lands, and during that time our roadless land base will continue to shrink.
There would still be opposition, of course, but I have to believe that if all non-motorized constituencies could form a united front, we could protect a lot of our roadless lands in a hurry.
Politicians like this type of "bottom-up" collaboration among user groups, so we might actually get one of them to introduce a bill, perhaps even a Republican.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the Bush administration might actually sign a few wilderness bills next year, especially bills with local Republican co-sponsors. And there are several such bills in the hopper right now, but none for Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming, where no Republican or Democrat in Congress is championing roadless land protection, a far-too-common theme that needs to change.
It would be even better, I suppose, to have the motorized users involved in these bottom-up collaborations, but the goals are so polarized instead of so similar that it makes compromise so difficult. Instead, we probably need designated motorized areas.
The other way out of the debate with mountain bikers is to allow them in wilderness. Whenever I say this, my wilderness-advocate friends almost have coronaries, but there is at least a valid argument that the Wilderness Act doesn't really ban mountain bikes. The modern mountain bike barely existed and certainly wasn't widely used when Congress passed the Wilderness Act in 1964. Even though the Wilderness Act doesn't even contain the word, bicycle, government agencies wrote administrative rules banning bicycling in wilderness and steadfastly refuse to reconsider this administrative policy.
Some hikers worsen the problem with their attitude toward mountain biking on single-track trails. Most if not all hiking and wilderness groups oppose any change in the Wilderness Act or related administrative rules to allow mountain biking, and some are blatantly anti-mountain biking, even in non-wilderness hiking areas.
A few years ago, I did a stint on the Board of Directors of the American Hiking Society, and I was surprised by the attitude of key staffers and fellow board members. Basically, the feeling is that mountain bikers are dangerous and obtrusive to the hiking experience when riding on single-track trails shared with hikers.
Comments:
Posted Sat, Oct 13, 5:16 a.m. inappropriate
W: Stands for wilderness. Keep the bikes out. And don't tell me how courteous, careful, and *incident free* they are - I feel endangered every time I try to walk on the Burke -Gilman, in fact, I've stopped because I'm sick of dealing with rude, speeding, careless bikers. most of them don't know, or care about, the simple basic rules of biking that I learned as a child. They drive as if their are NO RULES for bikers.
Keep bikes out of the wilderness. We go there for the silence, the birds, the sound of, well, nothing, and the smell of forest. One rubber toe in and before you know it, we'll be waking up to the whine and scream of ATVs and motorcycles and NASCAR will be wanting to open a track.
Posted Sat, Oct 13, 6:15 a.m. inappropriate
It would be a challenge. Let us test this first?: There are so many times I've been wilderness trail hiking that I wish I could be on my mountain bike. The distance I could cover to reach deeper would be wonderful. Then I could ditch the bike and carry on even further.
On the other hand, just as not crossing switchbacks are a challenge to some selfish people, the tempting call of off trail riding screams, even to my very conservative eye. Ignoring the lure of an almost infinite number of groovy lines would be very hard for a hormonally poisoned youth on a very capable machine. How could this be policed, and how could the damage be tolerated?
I abhor offtrail bootprints in the wilderness when "no trace" routes are obviously nearby. Can this be viewed as an equivalent? Is this, too, just as bad as seeing a continuous bike track across an evaporated muddy pond? Will we be able to tolerate bike tracks just as we have to accept these bootprints?
It would most certainly be a tempest to begin with. Everybody would have to be tolerant (a challenge for this society overall). Maybe some testing? Use the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie trail as the dual use model, designate a few alpine testing areas and let's see what happens.
Posted Sat, Oct 13, 11:59 a.m. inappropriate
RE: W: One rubber toe, you're right of course, boots have to go!
Nothing like a bootprint in the mud to remind you that you aren't really in unspoiled wilderness. Plus boots make it so much easier to go off trail in fragile alpine meadows or other sensitive terrain. And boots are so much noisier than bare feet.
I mean, hiking is fine, it's the equipment, you know, being able to carry stuff in wrappers that get thrown along the trail. Guess backpacks should be banned, too. And those people gabbing on cell phones, the crinkling of paper, the smell of cooked food.....
Maybe Wilderness really needs to be restricted to people in a state of nature. That will keep it pure enough, won't it?
I realize it will make it worthless for most voters so they'll see no reason to create any Wildnerness, but who cares about that?
Posted Sat, Oct 13, 12:31 p.m. inappropriate
Remembering When it was Legal: I remember when bicycling in Wilderness was legal, and it was a truly beautiful experience to roll smoothly along a trail far from anything motorized.
It was only in the mid-80s that the Forest Service reinterpreted the Wilderness Act to ban bicycles from places that people had been bicycling in for generations, since long before the Wilderness Act was passed. (And it took an Act of Congress in the 1990s to rein in restrictions on wheelchair access.)
Unfortunately for advocates of restoring the meaning of the Act as Congress passed it, "Extreme Sports" types are the most visible and disliked segment of the much larger mountain biking community. Most mountain bikers are not testosterone-crazed teenagers screaming down trails and rampaging through wetlands. But that's what bike bigots can point to when they justify banning all bicycles. It's not true, but it works well, as long as they don't try the same thing with horses -- too many well-off politicians and campaign contributors own horses.
Posted Sat, Oct 13, 8:32 p.m. inappropriate
Let us test this first? Indeed yes.: I have no issue in principle with some limited use by mountain bikes as they are human powered and non-motorized and to me are consistent with the purpose of wilderness. So I like Bob's suggestion that we experiment in some limited areas to see if it can be made to work.
Cuts in Forest Service road maintenance budgets offer another reason to rethink use of bikes as access to extremely remote areas.
•••
Btw, very thoughtful essay by Schneider.
Posted Mon, Oct 15, 10:35 a.m. inappropriate
Forest Management: At my core I am sympathetic to arguments related to wise management of forest land. However the doing of it is more problematic - and I think a great example of the problems we face in our society - our Cities, if you will.
I am a bit off topic here, but I think one of the most important things we need to learn is how to 'zone' rural land near wilderness areas. The Wild, Scenic, and Recreational rivers hierarchy is a good example of attempts to do this through a 3 tier 'zoning' system. But has it really been well implemented.? Heck, even on Highway 2 there is no overlook of Sunset Falls, nearly as beautiful, and powerful, as Snoqualmie Falls.
A specific, timely, suggestion, and a bit closer to topic. How about creating parkways accessing the SUPERB wild areas near Pugetopolis that improve the tourist viability (maybe starting with Hwy 7 in Tacoma?) and also serve the residents along those approach routes? Shoot, even charging tolls in these tourist loving sprawl encouraging roads might well make sense, dollars wise.
Heck, even include bike trails as a part of the corridor!
Oh, and IMO, allowing bikes on wilderness trails on a case by case basis, as with horses, is a good idea.
-Douglas Tooley
Tacoma, WA
(a few blocks from Hwy 7)
Posted Mon, Oct 15, 10:53 a.m. inappropriate
Case in point: I ran into exactly one of those road maintenance issues this weekend.
The Bumping Lake area of the William O. Douglas Wilderness is perhaps the closest remote spot to Pugetopolis - when Chinook pass is open. It is not widely used, which is a good thing.
I was planning on a hike off the end of the Deep Creek road above Goose Prairie, but the road was closed due to wash outs, at an unknown distance from the end.
A minor point - it would've been quite usefull to have posted the distances to the trailheads above from the closure point. The alternative trail Mt. Aix is a lifetime must do for a local, and I was not disappointed overly by doing it a second time.
That road from the Aix trailhead up would be great for bikes, as would other trails in the area - also popular with horses.
BTW, a picture, looking east from Nelson Ridge.
-Doug
Posted Mon, Oct 15, 11:56 a.m. inappropriate
Critical thinking needed: Opening "W" to mountain bikes doesn't necessarily mean that llambo and friends won't be able to enjoy "the silence, the birds, the sound of, well, nothing, and the smell of forest." Let's widen the debate and ensure that trails are appropriately used. There are definitely trails that are unsuitable for mountain bikes, just as certain trails shouldn't be used by equestrians - this critical evaluation is also going to close certain trails to pedestrians occasionally (i.e. wet periods). Mountain bikers don't need unfettered access to every trail, but there's a lot of room out there for everyone. If llambo wants to hike without sharing the trail with bikes, I propose that there will be ample hiker-only trails available from which to choose.
Comparing the Burke-Gilman Trail with single-track mountain biking is a red herring. The average speed of a cross country mountain biker is vastly less than a bike commuter / racer on the BGT. As for me, when I want to ride my road bikes, I choose the hazard of traffic over the hazard of weaving walkers, rollerbladers, dogs on leashes on the BGT.
Thanks for the article, let's ramp up the debate-
Schlem
Posted Mon, Oct 15, 5:59 p.m. inappropriate
Mountain Biking in Wilderness: Where have you been? Environmentalists have explained countless times exactly why we don't want bikes off of pavement! Mountain biking is one of the most destructive activities ever allowed in natural areas. It 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? Nor is mountain biking acceptable on dirt roads: the laws of physics and biology are IDENTICAL on dirt roads and trails. For the science on mountain biking impacts, see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
Maybe you would get farther if you would tell the truth. Mountain bikers ARE allowed in Wilderness! Only BICYCLES are banned. Why aren't mountain bikers willing to enjoy Wilderness the same way everyone else does: ON FOOT? I have never heard an explanation for that mystery. Obviously, mountain bikers are capable of walking. . . .
And the environmental impact of mountain biking is MUCH GREATER than that of hiking. The difference is easy to see. Besides travelling at much greater speed, and thereby causing much greater erosion, mountain bikers also travel several times as FAR as hikers. Just listen to their ride announcements. How many people can HIKE 25-50 miles in a day?!
Posted Tue, Oct 16, 11:09 a.m. inappropriate
The Original Intent of the Wilderness Act...: ...so far in this debate (which i've followed for the past several years) i have seen and or heard few people that look at the original intent of the Wilderness Act. The way we interpret laws to benefit small special interest groups (with large amounts of cash behind them) these days is like your terrible high school english teacher reading into some dead poets writings and creating meaning where there was none. The Wilderness Act was created to PROMOTE recreation and to PROHIBIT the destruction of land for commercial and financial gain. The wording of "mechanized equipment" was to deny carts, vehicles, etc access to the wilderness for resource extraction.
By route of reason used in excluding bikes from wilderness... kayaks, skiers and paragliders are also excluded. I have said for many years that we need to all work together... or we are all going to lose. This is the first article i have read where someone agrees with me. Hikers, cyclists, climbers, paddlers. paragliders, skiers, runners... we are all in this same boat together! We need to start working together or we are all going to lose! I often wonder if bikes were excluded as our numbers exploded in a brilliant method of fracturing the solidarity of the outdoor community to make the taking of wilderness lands easier... it has worked perfectly. We are losing every year because cyclists are so divided on this issue (and honestly a lot of us who hike and climb, etc... are also mountain bikers!).
for some actual scientific findings on bike impact:
(granted these studies are being published by a bike organization... but i have yet to see a single scientific study who's findings were counter these)
- IMBA Impact Summary
- IMBA Comparative Study in Different Ecological Regions of the US
(and Mr. Vandeman (if i may give you enough credit to add a Mr. to your name), if the speed of cyclists is so bad on the trails.... maybe YOU should stop RUNNING (as stated in your linked diatribe of manufactured statements about trail use/abuse). You should ONLY walk. It is the ONLY way to enjoy being outside. Don't even walk too fast... you could kill small wildlife and plants with your careless pace).
Posted Tue, Oct 16, 2:10 p.m. inappropriate
Some Perspective on Mt Biking: As one elder liberal Seattle politician once commented to me: "we don't need to worry about the right wing opposing our plans, we'll just do it ourselves….."
A couple things about mt biking might add to this debate. Much of backcountry mt biking involves driving (shuttling) up logging roads and riding down trails. On a trip two weeks ago to ride the Devil's Gulch/Mission Ridge trail, most of the bikers on the trail we going down only after having been driven to the top. I think I only counted 7 of us who were cycling up the trail as well as down. This is on one of the premier mt bike trails near Seattle. It is really really really hard work cycling up a trial. So unless a trail is VERY close to the Seattle metro area, it will not get that much bike use unless it is flat or people can drive to the top. Also, the heavy-duty "downhill" mt bikes that can be aggressively ridden down very steep slopes are way too heavy to cycle uphill. They weight 40-45 lbs. In a wilderness location without a road to the top, no one will ride them.
I also do a lot of hiking. I can only think of 2 or 3 times in 25 years I have run into a mt biker on a trail that is more than an hour from Seattle. There are just not that many people who mt bike if there is a lot of uphill on the trail or if the trail is not close to Seattle. Mt bikes are permitted in much of the Teanaway Valley, but when was the last time you saw them there? The number of mt bikers who will actually ride backcountry trails (as opposed to taking a road to the top) is very small. Much smaller than the number of folks who ride horses, the number who ride motorcycles and snowmobiles, and much much smaller than the number who hike.
Bob mentioned the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie trail a few posts earlier. A friend rode that on a sunny sept weekend last month and didn't see ANY other mt bikers.
The northwest mt bike community is also very good at taking care of "their" trails. The Seattle and Olympia clubs do lots of trail maintenance.
As for cutting switch backs, most mt bikes can't do it. Going off the trail in the NW is usually too soft and the wheel will dig in and you will go right over the handlebars. People take the path of least resistance, and in this case it's following the trail.
People impact their environment, period. Jainism is a great religion, but its lousy public policy. Hiking in reality has impacted much of the Cascade Range. Just look at the trails in the I-90 corridor. Some are as wide as jeep roads. On a per user per trip basis, I would argue horses do much greater damage to trails and alpine meadows that mt bikes. But I'm not taking on the horse crowd here. They're great folks. I would rather see someone on a horse than a SUV or ATV.
Steve
Posted Tue, Oct 16, 2:22 p.m. inappropriate
Tolerance and Ideas: Excellent discourse, rabid and insightful and ALL relevant. Tolerance is the key; understanding through empathy and active give and take. Some trails are prohibited to stock. Most trails are not seriously bike-able and could be posted closed. What about emerging new technology such as artificial articulated powered limbs designed for the handicapped and war vets? This would enable access to all and greatly extend ranges while espousing muscle "assistance". These (and others not yet imagined) will certainly be proposed to enable greater access so increased user experience can support preservation awareness.
Possibilities: Regulation? Privatization? Certification? Licensing? Policing? Education?
There are probably more similarities between most MTB bikers and hikers perceived wilderness experience than either side realizes. We can only find our similarities by both sides taking a chance to trust each other during some serious testing and honest evaluation. Again, the Middle Fork is a great model (I encourage a visit to this trail) with alternating use days and closure during the winter.