Electronic Newsletter and Discussion Board Poll

[Lockwood]

There is a strong push by environmental groups recently to designate new Wilderness areas in areas as diverse as California, New Hampshire, Vermont, Utah, Virginia, Oregon, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Washington, and other states. Since the current interpretation of the Wilderness Act prohibits bicycles, this is a critical issue for mountain bike access.

Wilderness is a very specific designation, considered "sacred" by some. The intent of the original Wilderness Act, framed in 1964, was to protect land from the development and "areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape." The Act further describes Wilderness as "undeveloped Federal land" containing "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation."

The Act originally prohibited "mechanical transport," and used motorized vehicles and heavy load-bearing equipment as examples. Bicycles were not officially banned from Wilderness until an administrative regulation 20 years after the original Act in response to the rapidly growing popularity of bikes on trails and lack of experience managing them. Unlike other muscle-powered recreation, such as horseback riding, skiing, paddling, and climbing, bicycling continues to be prohibited.

[Structure]

wilderness is a bit of a sham. Most of these places were once inhabited. The people were killed, removed to reservations, or relocated and "wilderness" created in their place.

The significance of that being that these places are not pristine or wild places. Instead they are human managed landscapes with a long history of human intervention.

Bicycles can create some erosion issues, but so do other trail users, and as long as bike riders are helping with trail repair and paying taxes, they deserve equal access.

As Bill Cronon puts it:

“The more one knows of its peculiar history, the more one realizes that wilderness is not quite what it seems. Far from being the one place on earth that stands apart from humanity, it is quite profoundly a human creation—indeed, the creation of very particular human cultures at very particular moments in human history. It is not a pristine sanctuary where the last remnant of an untouched, endangered, but still transcendent nature can for at least a little while longer be encountered without the contamination taint of civilization. Instead, it is a product of that civilization, and could hardly be contaminated by the very stuff of which it is made.”

Other users, especially those whose favored method of access is already allowed, will scream blood and murder at the thought that packs of testosterone juiced gear-heads will try to shred up and down the isles of their “church.” They will claim that somehow mountain bikes defile the land, that bikes rob it of its very quality as a wilderness.

However, it isn’t about wilderness. It’s about power and rhetoric. The groups with a vested interest in the status quo will do whatever they can to maintain their access while limiting the access of others. Since they can’t do so arguing directly they will—consciously or unconsciously—camouflage their reasons in the rhetoric of “science,” nature, and other ideologies that support their intended use.

[kennbenny667]

If El Presidente and his merry band of muchachos can log out wilderness areas, oh, excuse me, I meant, "thin" forests out to prevent future forest fires, I damn well have a right to ride my bike there. If you can snowmobile in the parks, I should be able to ride there. I can go on for days on this. I'm not saying I should be able to ride on permafrost or cryptobiotic? soil, but I wouldn't to anymore damage than a hiker, mule train, or snowmobiler.

[wooglin]

Originally posted by Structure
As Bill Cronon puts it:

“The more one knows of its peculiar history, the more one realizes that wilderness is not quite what it seems. Far from being the one place on earth that stands apart from humanity, it is quite profoundly a human creation—indeed, the creation of very particular human cultures at very particular moments in human history. It is not a pristine sanctuary where the last remnant of an untouched, endangered, but still transcendent nature can for at least a little while longer be encountered without the contamination taint of civilization. Instead, it is a product of that civilization, and could hardly be contaminated by the very stuff of which it is made.”
Wow. I didn't think anyone else read Cronon. Though I do disagree with the last sentence. Since "civilization" changes continuously, it behooves us to try and preserve something it may have created in the past, pristine or not.

I voted that some trails are appropriate, and we should be identifying them. About 90% of the bike/trail problems I see out there are not about bikes, but about numbers of bikes.

[jhl99]

The law prohibits "mechanical transport". This is the crux of the issue. For whatever reason, human powered mechanical transport falls into that category. The bike issue is not enviromental degradation or preceived intrusiveness or whatever, it is interpertation of the law.

I believe that the Forest Service has different land use designation. Wilderness is one of the most restrictive. In the Mongahelia National Forest (WV), there are areas designated as 'Backcountry' where regulations are somewhere between 'Wilderness' and normal forest lands. ATBs are permitted in backcountry areas and of course the undesignated forest lands.

From what I have read in the newsletter of the Highlands Voice (a publication of the the West Virgina Highlands Conservancy http://wvhc.drw.net ), the reason for the push for the 'Wilderness' designation is to lock-in lands to be protected--and ensure that the lands stay that way. The Backcountry designation allows the land manager some flexibility in the permitted activities.

The irony I have seen (in both the Mon. Nat. Forest, and the Allegheny National Forest {PA}) is that hikers flock to the wilderness areas and cause overuse issues--not the effect that some are looking for in a wilderness area.

I believe that bikes are not appropriate on all trails in all places. With that said, I believe that existing wilderness areas should remain free of bikes. I would like to see a new designation created that would be Wilderness + human power vehicles for new wilderness lands. This would maintain the stringent requirements of wilderness, but allow all human powered vehicles (I think hang gliders, and carts are also excluded from wilderness).

Jeff

[FishMan]

The Wilderness Act has a lot of issues and should really be rewritten for better protection and equitable access. A few examples:

No mechanized travel is allowed. Yet every time I canoe in the Boundary Waters I use a wedge to cut the water before me (the bow of the boat) and a lever to propel myself (the paddle). Obviously, these simple machines don’t diminish the wilderness experience. Yet, mechanically, they are not much less complicated then a bicycle with it’s levers and pulleys and so forth. And yet we can’t ride bikes in the wilderness.

Horse travel is allowed in Wilderness areas. At first, this seems to make sense as horseback is a traditional way to travel in wild areas. However, if the goal is to keep wilderness pristine, then horses make no sense at all. It’s been a while since I researched the subject, but I believe the figure I heard is that horse travel causes four times as much trail damage as travel by foot or bike. Additionally, horses shit all over the place. Their manure is full of seeds of nonnative species such as brome, fescue, clover and thistle. These exotic weeds can spread and push out native plant species, especially along the disturbed trail sides. As far as preserving the pristine nature of wilderness, horses aren’t much better then motorcycles. And yet we can’t ride bikes in the wilderness.

Cattle are allowed to graze in many wilderness areas. Cattle are responsible for the most widespread and intense environmental damage in the west, royally screwing up forests, shrubland, grassland, riparian areas, wetlands and desert alike. The effects of cattle on our public lands were apparent to Aldo Leopold in 1924. Yet to this day very little has been done to protect wild lands, including wilderness from, the ravages of cattle grazing. And yet we can’t ride bikes in the wilderness.

Currently, the idea behind wilderness is to manage it such that visitors can have a pristine wilderness experience. The idea of any pristine wild lands remaining in the lower 48 states is false. Modern society has impacted every inch of wild lands, whether it be actively by logging, grazing and road building or passively by fire suppression and hydrological alterations. Management of wilderness areas needs to include restoration work with a focus towards an reestablishment of biodiversity. Otherwise, the wound we have inflicted may never heal, or at best we’ll be left with a nasty scare of a wilderness. If managing a wilderness for diversity and a pre-settlement condition requires a reduction in trail numbers and a limit in trail uses then I’m all for it. Otherwise, give me a good reason why we can’t ride bikes in the wilderness.

I suggest we get around to improving our Wilderness Act, perhaps even take it back to the drawing board for a rewrite. Currently, mountain biking advocates around the country are working against wilderness advocates. This is an emotional battle, both sides have a just cause. Mountain bikers want continued access to the trails they love, while wilderness advocates want protection for the wild lands and the plants and animals that live there. Mountain bike organizations such as IMBA should be working WITH organizations like the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club towards improvements in the Wilderness Act which will provide fair access to trails and better protection of wilderness lands to boot. The current head-butting is draining the resources of several fine organizations.

Perhaps we should have two classes of wilderness. Pristine wilderness would allow only hiking and human powered boats. Recreational Wilderness will still protect the land from development of any kind, but will allow use by other recreational users such as mountain bikers and equestrians (as long as those horses are wearing some of those horsey diapers).

In the mean time, it is interesting to note that there is a clause in the wilderness act allowing “the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable. ” (http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct#6). It seems reasonable that such a provision could be justly applied to mountain bike access. Such a use of this provision could quickly resolve conflicts like the current California Wilderness debacle. Or perhaps it would expose those who are trying to use wilderness designation expressly as a means of barring mountain bikers from the trails as many conspiracy theory mountain bikers suggest is the case.

[Blurred Vision]

I recently asked a backcountry ranger in the wilderness area at Mt Rogers why they couldn't rewrite the regulations in light of the equestrian damage and downright refusal to follow the rules,i.e.,they water their horses in the springs and streams instead of adjacent areas that are provided,discard thousands of beer cans and other trash and of course go on trails they are not supposed to be on. He said that since horses are classified as grazing livestock and that livestock were included from the beginning to appease ranchers using public lands Congress would have to reopen the Act to make changes and the consensus is that with the current administration the Wilderness areas would be raped beyond recognition. I guess that barring an administrative rule change reclassifying either bikes or horses then we will probably see the status quo maintained in the current Wilderness areas. Perhaps the best solution would be a new classification that gives protection but does not bar bikes.

[xcaliber]

Like most mt. bikers, I have very mixed feelings and thoughts concerning wilderness. Here in the East, most wildernesses are areas that don't produce marketable timber. Barburs Creek and Shaver's Creek Wildernesses in Virginia are in NO WAY scenic or special. St. Mary's Wilderness on the George Washington National Forest was a mine, with roads, structures, spoils piles and other manmade features, for god's sake! Mining contaminants are quite visibly flowing into the St. Mary's River. But mt. bikes are environmentally detrimental?
Additionally, there is a move to expand wilderness in this area, taking out some PRIMO, awesome mt. bike trails. The expansion is called Kelly Mountain Wilderness and it SHOULD NOT HAPPEN!!!!!! If it becomes a reality we will no longer be allowed on tghe Mill Creek Trail, Kelly Ridge Trail or Forest Road 162. Personally, I'll still ride there.
Another reality is I are forced to side with interests that I personally oppose to fight this designation. I'm no fan of clear cutting on national forests, but I find I'm in bed with timber interests to stop the expansion of Wilderness in its present incarnation.
There are other designations besides Wilderness that offer protections similar to Widlerness but allow us to ride (and firefighters to use chain saws to protect themselves). National Scenic Areas and remote highlands are examples.
As for horses, don't get me started. I have ridden the Iron Mountain Trail on the Mt. Rogers after a horse enduro and they TOTALLY trashed the trail. I would STOP MT. BIKING if I did as much damage as these horses did.
The other side of the coin is, I support 99% of what wilderness stands for, and I feel like a WHORE cause except for this one (extremely important) issue, I'm right there. But if you take away mt. biking, you take away the only expression of my soul I have, and I'll fight that anyway I can, and if I lose, I'll still ride, and suffer the consequences.

[Blurred Vision]

I see I hit a raw nerve when I brought up horses in the Mt.Rogers area. That really is the most extreme example of misuse of a piece of dirt by the equestrians that I have seen. I backpacked a loop that included part of the Iron Mountain(original route of the AT) and it was almost impassable on foot from horse damage. Biking would be even tougher I think. I agree that there are lots of areas that need protection but as long as they allow resource extraction or horses in there then bikes fall way below those on the impact-o-meter.

[unclefuzzy]

I'm torn. I think that MOST wilderness trails could easily handle more use, but certainly not all. Some areas simply need to be protected. Most of the posts here so far focus on the east coast(big surprise!), and all of my wilderness experience is from the Rockies(Colorado actually).

Now, you folks out east have this high population density thing going for your selves. When you put that many people in one place, of course teh pressure on your resources(in this case 'wilderness') is going to be heavy. Except for more remote areas, I can see why MTB use is not allowed. Now, go somewhere more remote, and I see no reason why bikes shouldn't be allowed. Trail use is good, no matter if its foot traffic or wheeled traffic(I won't touch hooves).

Conversely, out west, the population density is much thinner, and the wilderness areas are much more numerous. The strain on these trails is negilgable. In fact some of the trails have been reclaimed by the land becouse of the lack of use. I'm the first one to admit it here, but I have poached wilderness trails. Am I ashamed? Not in the least. The trails I rode were in fact easier to traverse than the trail/road we took to get into the wilderness. We did leave traces(tire tracks) of our passage, but that was it. We didn't see any other users. In fact, I don't recall seeing any recent evedience of traffic on the trail. I guess my point here is that most of the wilderness areas('cept the most sensitive) could be opened up to MTB's and see very little impact. Now some may think what I did is irresponsible. It may very well be. If the push for Wilderness continues, and more trails used mainly by mtb's are shut down, I fully advocate poaching as a means of protest. The wilderness areas I've encountered were not patroled(this may be different in other parts of the country, especailly in relation to Pop. density), and could easily be ridden with out coming into contact with any individuals.

I remember Gary Sprung's essay from a few years ago that set up three designations of wilderness. W1 was no human activity at all. W2 foot traffic only. W3 was Foot/horse/bike. I like that set up and would love to see it enacted.

I could go on longer, but for brevity, I'll end here. Final point:

BIKES SHOULD BE ALLOWED!

Marty

[xcaliber]

In general, I agree with your statements. (Although I think California has perhaps more trail access issues than any place in the East.) We may have more people, but I am not sure if the ratio between number of people and number of mt. bikers is equal all across the nation (I tend to believe more westerners are more outdoor recreationsists than in the East, at least HERE that seems to be the case). But my observations are based on personal expereince, not facts. Anyway, the most important point you hint at is the fact that we paint all Wildernesses with the same broad brush, and that simply does not work. Certainly there are areas we should not ride in (or ride horses in or even HIKE in!). Specifically areas that have fragile endangered species, cultural resources, or other legitimate reasons. In these cases, impact is impact, the vehicle (bike, horse, even hiking or camping) is secondary. But to have a universal exclusion policy for bikes is, well, discriminatory. There simply is no data that proves bikes are any more detrimental to resources than horses or hikers for that matter. And, (again, at least where I live) mt. bikers have often taken the lead in volunteer trail work that EVERY user group benefits from.
as for poaching trails...... that's a personal act of civil disobedience, yes, and also an act of frustration. In the long run it may harm the CAUSE, but then again, maybe not. I won't pass judgement on riding on exisitng trails. I certainly WOULD pass judegement on anyone who constructs illegal trails, they may not know what they are destroying (endangered species, the integrity of an archaeological site, whatever. )But that's another post.
Ride on .

[Raymo853]

For those areas that are truely sensitive wilderness areas, bicycles, hikers, horses and all other than land mangers should be banned. This is something many groups on the anti-bike side never seem to think about here in the US.