Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?

[Christophe Noel]

I agree that bicyclists are clever enough to take the communitarian/collectivist approach to influencing govt. To influence govt policy requires some critical mass of people and money. That is a lesson other users of public lands have yet to learn.

I'm a pretty typical mountain bike advocate so I think my experience can be extrapolated to include strategies used by many, particularly with those connected to the International Mountain Bike Association.

Before we get approval to built or even reroute a trail, it has to go through NEPA studies, sometimes for years on end to ensure it doesn't impact watershed, animal habitat, or even disturb cultural sites. It has to be established that the trail is a benefit to the community, can be maintained with available resources, and here is the most critical thing - it has to be a benefit and useful to all users on foot, bike, and horse.

With regard to trail design and user impact, we build an reinforce trails to endure damage from all users, horses are the worst. It's almost impossible to build to defend against a 2,000lb beast on pokey feet, but we try. Different surfaces require different methods, so yes, there are trails which have not been well made to defend agains wheels, and you will see wheel damage to those trails in the form of "brake bumps, push-outs, apex-clips" and all sorts of things most trail advocates try to mitigate. Keep in mind, some of those trails were built decades before the mountain bike was invented.

Also with regard to other users, if there is a trail with an elevated risk of hikers, equestrians, and bikers surprising each other on the trail, we go to those sections and with approval, trim brush back as far as we can to improve sight-lines.

I think ultimately what you have to do is put yourself in the mindset of the mountain biker. We LOVE our trails. The best way to lose access is to damage them or present a negative interaction with other user groups. We have to be the good guys, doing the trail work, saying "hello" with a smile to every other user, and generally being good stewards.

One last note: I work with our local NFS trails coordinator from time to time to help repair trails which have been heavily damaged by hikers or horses on muddy days. Guess how we do it - we ride bikes on it. It rolls out the surface and flattens deep foot and hoof prints. Try to repair a trail with a horse. Can't do it.

 

[Christophe Noel]

With regard to user impact studies, there are literally dozens of them if not more. If I had a buck for every earth science major who did an impact study....

The short answer to them is - impact is not just as simple as assessing a footprint vs a bike tire. Soil composition, weather impact, and other variables are hard to measure if the trail is not built well to endure use by some groups. The volume of users also has to be taken into consideration.

As a trail builder myself, I know how to easily mitigate some elements of damage being caused by wheels. If you see trail damage from wheels, don't blame the wheels, the fault might be with the trail and trail builder.

 

[calicamper]

I grew up with big cutting horses no doubt that horses tear up trails. Try hiking in the cascades after a pack outfit has gone up the trail. Large rocks are turned over and loose, trail steps are tore up and thats dry trail damage. Wet trails as you pointed out suffer excessive damage from horses. And I like riding horses. 99.99% of all my riding was done on a big cattle ranch and rarely ever on an actual trail.

 

[danasince1979]

Man, what a bunch of baseless drivel. Where to begin?

- A huge portion of mountain bikers, myself included, are avid riders with over 100,000 miles of riding under our tires, and wholly support keeping mountain bikes OUT of designated wilderness areas. We may support very select easements to allow for access - through - some wilderness areas, but only if it doesn't upset the original application of that wilderness designation.

- It's also worth pointing out that this tiresome misrepresentation that mountain bikers are predominantly 20-40 year old hell-raising dudes is just bull****. Women and teens make up a massive section of the growing demographic. I forget how many thousands of high school riders, of both genders, ride and race on scholastic teams in the US.

- The notion that mountain bikers are not advocates of multi-use trails is also - crap-o-la. I have donated thousands of dollars of my own money to multi-use trails for mountain bikers, AND, hikers and even equestrians who do terrible things to some trail systems. I also formed an entity that raised tens of thousands of dollars for multi-use trails, as a mountain bike organization.

- The assertion that mountain bikers are dangerous to other users is folly, as the number of reported incidents of run-ins with other users is so low, in many regions, the actual run-ins (few) are less than the number of false claims made to make mountain bikers out to be the bad guys. There were 4 proven false reports of rider/hiker crashes in 2015 alone in just AZ. No actual such accidents occurred.

- There is also proven evidence that wheels are often better for some trail systems than feet. Much of this depends on the trail surface, the proper build of the trail itself, and other variables, but scientifically, there is nothing to suggest that wheels are more damaging than feet overall. Lately there have been a few studies (regionalized) which stated that feet are actually worse.

- Good riders also practice the same tread lightly methods as you probably do in your truck. Skidding is no more ideal than riding wet terrain. We avoid things that cause unnecessary trail damage, because many of us built those trails legally using NEPA approved methods and sanctioned by the appropriate land managers.

Those are my knee jerk defenses of my fellow users.

Here are some other things to consider:

In 2014 the low estimates for mountain bikers volunteering trail building and maintenance hours within NF and BLM land tipped more than 1.2 million man hours. I know for a fact that number is low. In 2011 I was a trail crew leader and oversaw more than 4,200 volunteer hours on just 4 miles of our 16 miles of new trails built/maintained that year. Trails built mostly by mountain bikers AND hikers side by side.

These ramblings by the anti-mountain bike people are getting fewer and easier to discount because the mountain bike community is - smart. We know how to advocate, police our own, and generally get what ever we want, because we have common sense. We know we don't need access to everything. It's not an all or nothing war.

Most of all, overall, we absolutely respect our fellow trail users however they use the trails. Maybe not the horsey people. LOL

Thanks for this response. I also didn't even know where to start w/the OP.

 

[BrianV]

It is so ridiculous they that can just invent new wilderness. Next up is beach front in Kansas.
All the real wilderness has been protect, finding new ones is laughable. All these new proposed wilderness or study areas is just restricting access.

 

[Christophe Noel]

All these new proposed wilderness or study areas is just restricting access.

Not necessarily.

 

[Clawhammer]

Lulz....

Chicken Little strikes again!

 

[2025 deleted member]

Mid week trail use is highest by local Mt biking families than any other user. Its very easy to take the kids "away from traffic on a hour long 5 mile ride after dinner during the summer than a 5 mile 2hr hike.

Were not shredding were enjoying a ride away from traffic and crowds. Stopping to check out Bannana slugs. Name plants and see some natives.

That is the typical Mt biker only a very small percent are extreme down hill types.

I agree. No way I'm going into a corner hot, I like my wrists, arms, and collar bone the way it is.

 

[BrianV]

Not necessarily.

Very compelling argument.

That is what I have observed in California. Small amount of roads through an area, it must be closed to protect the "wilderness", what that even means anymore.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Very compelling argument.

That is what I have observed in California. Small amount of roads through an area, it must be closed to protect the "wilderness", what that even means anymore.

Sorry, didn't feel like diving headlong into this rabbit hole. Simply put, the access outcome of newly designated wilderness areas has to be assessed on a one-by-one basis. In many cases the new destinations don't alter access at all. In a few cases, it can even improve some facets of access, albeit not for wheels, obviously.

I think it's when everyone works in generalities this topic goes wonky. Just because the application of wilderness protections is detrimental in one area, that doesn't mean it's been a negative elsewhere and visa-versa. I've seen a few roads which really were best closed off, but others I was sad to see go. I'm part of a growing number of people that don't have a general pro/con view of designated wilderness or monuments, but rather want to see better individual management of those areas based on what best serves - the land first, the public second. That will invariably be different from one parcel to the next.

 

[slowtwitch]

Everything in George Wuerthner's quote in post #1 is true.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Everything in George Wuerthner's quote in post #1 is true.

I very respectfully disagree. I've read it several times, and while I concede there might be isolated examples to vaguely support some of his points, overall, I think it's grossly inaccurate.

To go one further, I think it even manipulates the truth for a self-served messaging. Much of what he says is patently wrong, or worded in such a way to imply something that just isn't there.

 

[seeNik48]

I am not a mountain biker but I know many due to owning a business that caters to this group. Before the mountain biking community began to build trails behind our place, dirt bikers and 4x4 riders were using the area plus locals dumped garbage. Slowly the ridership increased, the gates went in and the area is now non-motorized access only. Most of the former user groups were good people but tended to be more destructive.

Now, the area is the best trail system in the state and one of the best in the country. It is cleaner now than it has ever been. The mountain biking community are good stewards of the private parcel. The demographics range from wee ones to 70+ plus many ladies who ride in groups or singly.

I am relating this because I am an ardent supporter of wilderness. They aren't making any more of it and I would like to leave what was once a major part of our country to future generations. The mountain bikers who I know are good stewards and realize that they need to take care of what is open. Even the motorized crowd is policing its own because if they don't, they will lose more access. This is to be commended and we go off road so are especially careful to camp and drive where permitted.

I would like to see wilderness protected. If there needs to be access through a wilderness area to reach trails, then those trails need to have the least impact possible. My position is that the more people we get outside, the better for our planet. To love nature is to know it and vice versa.

 

[BrianV]

Sorry, didn't feel like diving headlong into this rabbit hole. Simply put, the access outcome of newly designated wilderness areas has to be assessed on a one-by-one basis. In many cases the new destinations don't alter access at all. In a few cases, it can even improve some facets of access, albeit not for wheels, obviously.

I think it's when everyone works in generalities this topic goes wonky. Just because the application of wilderness protections is detrimental in one area, that doesn't mean it's been a negative elsewhere and visa-versa. I've seen a few roads which really were best closed off, but others I was sad to see go. I'm part of a growing number of people that don't have a general pro/con view of designated wilderness or monuments, but rather want to see better individual management of those areas based on what best serves - the land first, the public second. That will invariably be different from one parcel to the next.

Agree that it is never one-size fits all. I just wish the alphabet groups in charge would more often take that approach.

I just hate hearing about 'new wilderness' because, in my mind that means for a weekend warrior with a handful of long weekends a year it probably makes getting out there and seeing a lot more variety of terrain more difficult. As we just lots some access roads.

 

[BrianV]

I am not a mountain biker but I know many due to owning a business that caters to this group. Before the mountain biking community began to build trails behind our place, dirt bikers and 4x4 riders were using the area plus locals dumped garbage. Slowly the ridership increased, the gates went in and the area is now non-motorized access only. Most of the former user groups were good people but tended to be more destructive.

Now, the area is the best trail system in the state and one of the best in the country. It is cleaner now than it has ever been. The mountain biking community are good stewards of the private parcel. The demographics range from wee ones to 70+ plus many ladies who ride in groups or singly.

I am relating this because I am an ardent supporter of wilderness. They aren't making any more of it and I would like to leave what was once a major part of our country to future generations. The mountain bikers who I know are good stewards and realize that they need to take care of what is open. Even the motorized crowd is policing its own because if they don't, they will lose more access. This is to be commended and we go off road so are especially careful to camp and drive where permitted.

I would like to see wilderness protected. If there needs to be access through a wilderness area to reach trails, then those trails need to have the least impact possible. My position is that the more people we get outside, the better for our planet. To love nature is to know it and vice versa.

I don't think it is the mode of transportation. What happened is you found a passionate user group, they come in all varieties. I've seen and met both good and bad mountain bike groups.

Disagree we don't need more people out in the wilderness. We don't need to more people thinking every blade of grass is sacred by them visiting the interpretative center at the whatever park or forest they visited. They need to stay in city.
Education doesn't seem to work with poverty, as it is both a cultural and education one. I believe it is the same issue with land access, ever blade of grass is sacred vs tear everything up and litter people.