Bush to open national parks to mountain bikes and other Public Lands

[SassyWindsor]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration is taking steps to make it easier for mountain bikers to gain access to national parks and other public lands before the president — an avid cyclist himself — leaves office.

The National Park Service confirmed Tuesday that it is preparing a rule to allow park managers in some cases to decide which trails to open to mountain bikers.
Once it's finalized, the rule would take this authority away from federal regulators in Washington, who sometimes take years to decide whether to allow bicycles on individual trails.
A park service spokesman said the rule would be proposed no later than Nov. 15 in order for it to be finalized before Bush leaves office.

[Lone Wolf]

good. nothing wrong with multi-use

[take-a-knee]

good. nothing wrong with multi-use

I agree, mountain bikers are cool.

[taildragger]

Cool, it will help with numbers in parks as well.

[BlackCloud]

The parks don't need help with #s. The fewer the better I say.

As for the imminent Federal Rule, the NPS probably means to allow mtn biking in multi use parks like National Rec. Areas, not wilderness areas, crown jewels, etc.

The less control DC has the better....

[Jim Adams]

The parks don't need help with #s. The fewer the better I say.

Fewer numbers mean closures!
This new change may be the shot in the arm that the National Parks need.
I think it is a good thing.

geek

[Tipi Walter]

Thank god all wilderness areas ban them. The never-ending human love affair with rolling seemingly knows no bounds. With thousands of miles of forest service dirt roads in the country available for riding, bicyclists yet demand access to foot trails. It's the slow encroachment of more development and sprawl within areas surrounded by yet more cities, highways and sprawl. Syphilization and the Syphilites cannot bear to see a wild place left alone and so in a frenzy they institute the "multi-use access policy", with the eager backing of the mountain bike lobby, the ATV lobby, the horseback riding lobby, the snowmobile lobby, the auto tourism lobby(can anyone say "The Cades Cove Loop"?). When and where does it end?

It ends with the Wilderness Act of 1964, when a group of people(Congress)figured it was and is important to save tracts of national forest land from all forms of human impact, including chainsaws, bicycles, ATVs, logging, and all the rest of the foul cleverness some humans regard as so-called progress.

[Homer&Marje]

I wouldn't enjoy riding my bike on a lot of back country trails with other hikers. I find most of the back country trails in new england at least I don't even want to ride my bike on because they are too rocky. There is a small number of more "Extreme" bike riders But if I am not mistaken, wider trails for that type of activity, like steep and rocky ski slopes is much better suited.

They can do whatever they want in DC, I don't think it will affect too much out on the trail. If it increases numbers in the parks with bikers occupying some blue blaze trails it will definitely help the NPS.

Seen plenty of bikers on the trail and the only time I have found it a conflict is if I was almost run down by someone, who refuses a little trail etiquette. Just my opinion.

[take-a-knee]

Thank god all wilderness areas ban them. The never-ending human love affair with rolling seemingly knows no bounds. With thousands of miles of forest service dirt roads in the country available for riding, bicyclists yet demand access to foot trails. It's the slow encroachment of more development and sprawl within areas surrounded by yet more cities, highways and sprawl. Syphilization and the Syphilites cannot bear to see a wild place left alone and so in a frenzy they institute the "multi-use access policy", with the eager backing of the mountain bike lobby, the ATV lobby, the horseback riding lobby, the snowmobile lobby, the auto tourism lobby(can anyone say "The Cades Cove Loop"?). When and where does it end?

It ends with the Wilderness Act of 1964, when a group of people(Congress)figured it was and is important to save tracts of national forest land from all forms of human impact, including chainsaws, bicycles, ATVs, logging, and all the rest of the foul cleverness some humans regard as so-called progress.

Whatever Tipi, most WB'ers should take up mountain biking. They might start to look like hikers then instead of metabolic syndrome poster kids.

[Mrs Baggins]

We like to bike once in awhile but here in Aiken SC there is nowhere to go. The streets are extremely biker UNfriendly. We had to cart our bikes 30+ miles to a path in Augusta GA. When we lived here in the early 90's bikes were allowed on the trails in Hitchcock Woods.Iwhich my house backs to) Not anymore. I don't know why they were banned but I'm guessing they were either scaring the horses (who have top priority here over people) or were thought to be damaging to the trails. I don't see how they're any more "damaging" than horses and horses pulling carts and carriages - - all allowed in there all the time. They also do fox hunts in there weekly - big groups of horses galloping through on the trails. Now that we're moving to Virginia we'll be able to ride a lot more often. The community we're moving to has 22 miles of paved biking/walking paths and lots of nearby parks that allow bikes.

[Pacific Tortuga]

A park service spokesman said the rule would be proposed no later than Nov. 15 in order for it to be finalized before Bush leaves office.[/quote]


Just like Clinton and the off-road vehical ban, which Bush over turned as soon as he was appointed by the Suprem Court.

[Marta]

IMO bikers and hikers don't mix well on the same trails. (I'm talking about here in the southeast, where there are poor line-of-sight views in the woods, what with the trees and the steep little ups and downs.) I'm all in favor of letting bikers make more trails for themselves but the fact that they're traveling much faster than hikers, and they tear up the ground in a different way, makes sharing the trails not work very well. Hopefully when the decisions are made by local land managers, this POV will be understood.

[john gault]

We like to bike once in awhile but here in Aiken SC there is nowhere to go. The streets are extremely biker UNfriendly...
South Carolina is the worst state to ride a bike (IMO). I lived near Charleston for a couple of years while in the Navy and I absolutely hated that ride to work - one of my worst accidents with a car happend during one of these commutes.

I've also done a couple rides across the state on my east coast rides, on my last one I went west so I could miss SC. My advice to you would be to move far, far away from SC if you like riding a bike. I plan to never ride through that state again.

[chomp]

The bikers and hikers don't mix argument doesn't fly. If that was the case, than bikers and BIKERS don't mix at all. If I'm coming around a blind corner at 12 MPH (fast for a tight singletrack trail) and a hiker is coming towards me at 3 MPH, that's a net 15 MPH we are approaching each other. However, for two bikers, that 24 MPH!! Yet somehow, I've never run into another mtn biker.

Wilderness areas are just that - and bikes are not allowed there. As for forest service roads... bikers hate them as much as hikers. They are boring.

That all being said, some of the best hiking trails will never be invaded by bikes. Its painful to climb a bike over 1000 feet in elevation, and nearly impossible on a typical hiking trail. Steep trails are bad news going up or going down. Unless you are a downhill mtn biker. In which case you're mostly likely somewhere served by a lift, not in the backcountry. Most mtn bikers prefer longer, smoother climbs with nice switchbacks and wide turns. This makes the climbing easier and extends the downhill.

I know a lot of people don't LIKE mtn bikes. I hate horses, for example, but my personal dislike of them shouldn't negate their right to be out there. Although I would very much like it if they picked up their poop.

[john gault]

The bikers and hikers don't mix argument doesn't fly. If that was the case, than bikers and BIKERS don't mix at all. If I'm coming around a blind corner at 12 MPH (fast for a tight singletrack trail) and a hiker is coming towards me at 3 MPH, that's a net 15 MPH we are approaching each other. However, for two bikers, that 24 MPH!! Yet somehow, I've never run into another mtn biker.

Wilderness areas are just that - and bikes are not allowed there. As for forest service roads... bikers hate them as much as hikers. They are boring.

That all being said, some of the best hiking trails will never be invaded by bikes. Its painful to climb a bike over 1000 feet in elevation, and nearly impossible on a typical hiking trail. Steep trails are bad news going up or going down. Unless you are a downhill mtn biker. In which case you're mostly likely somewhere served by a lift, not in the backcountry. Most mtn bikers prefer longer, smoother climbs with nice switchbacks and wide turns. This makes the climbing easier and extends the downhill.

I know a lot of people don't LIKE mtn bikes. I hate horses, for example, but my personal dislike of them shouldn't negate their right to be out there. Although I would very much like it if they picked up their poop.
Actually there's many problems on bike paths with biker-on-biker accidents -- especially in the D.C. area. I haven't been on singletrack for a while, so I can't speak for biker-biker incidents in that case. But hiking trails are not singletrack, I can see potential for many problems.

I think it's a good thing to attract mtn bikers to national parks, just don't mix hikers and bikers. If I do take up singletrack again, I know I'd be looking for true mtn bike trails, for the same reason I don't ride on bike paths.

[Jim Adams]

Having been a mt.biker for 24 years I can very much agree with Chomp. Dirt forest service roads are boring and just a way to get from point A to point B. Most hikers won't understand but most mt bikers are out there for exercise and to see the scenery and beauty....yes you do see it and enjoy it! Chomp also brings up a good point in the fact that most hiking trails would make horrible mt. bike trails.
Accidents of bike to bike are very rare as are bike to hiker...."talk"of both is greatly exaggerated.
OTOH, I think that most hikers are SO against mt. bikers (or hunters, or fishermen, or anyone else using THEIR wilderness) that they are missing a great resourceful group of people to help protect the wilderness. I'm just guessing here but I would say that maybe 1 in 5000 households have a real backpack and backpacker but 95% of households have a bicycle! Wilderness is not doing anyone any good if the parks protecting it are closed and no one is using the area...at that point it is no longer a resourse for humans to enjoy therefore it may as well be drilled, mined, clear cut, dozed, etc.

geek

[Marta]

I can't exactly lay down a simple Yes, hiker; No, bikers law.

Trails that get heavy use by bikers and hikers are really quite unpleasant to hike on. It's like being on a road bike in heavy traffic--you're always aware that disaster could be just around the corner. I realize that some people get off on the adrenalin rush, but that's not what I'm looking for when I go out for a walk.

A more distant trail, where there's an occasional biker...that wouldn't be a problem.

Here in the southeast, erosion is a huge issue for mountain bike trails--heavily-used trails rapidly become unwalkable mud chutes.

I still say, I don't mind sharing any given Park with bikers, but I really, really prefer separate trails.

Bikes are only slightly less hazardous to hikers than dirt bikes and ATVs are, although they are considerably less noisy.

Hopefully, if this sort of decision is given over to the local officials, most of them will take all the tangibles and intangibles into account when deciding to make trails multi-use.

[Mags]

I am glad this discussion is staying (mainly) civil. Remember, it is OK to have difference of opinion...just don't be disagreeable about it. That means no insulting.. :)

Having said that...

I live in an area that is very much multi-use. MTBers, equestrians and hikers often share the same trail. Of course, many of the trails out here are constructed for heavier horse use so they may be more durable than traditional hiker trails as you find back East. In other words, they are less prone to erosion by MTBiking. And more trails are being constructed with multi-use in mind.

In some areas, there are odd/even days (http://www.co.jefferson.co.us/jeffco/openspace_uploads/cnt_alt_use_calendar_08.pdf) so hikers/horses and MTBers don't get in each others way. (Despite the best intentions of all, sometimes it is indeed better for separate hiking/mtbing areas or days).

Other areas, people justs learn to co-exist.

And on a Colorado Trail project this summer, (http://www.coloradotrail.org/2008reports.html#WE1) guess who maintained a 20+ mile stretch of trail? The local mountain biking group! It was a great project. Horsepackers brought in the heavy tools. The MTBiking group organized the project. Many hikers participated. We were just all people out to help one gorgeous summer day.


I am glad there are some areas (such as wilderness areas) that are not MTBing accessible, but I also realize that there are less backpackers (and to a less extent, hikers) than in the past. I do not MTBike, but that does not mean I have to be against it.

We need the support of all outdoor users to maintain and protect the outdoors. Our love of the outdoors should unite us, not divide us.

[garlic08]

As a former bicyclist, now mainly a hiker, I want to put my opinion in too.

I'm nearly a neighbor of Mags' and can verify all he's said about the trails in my area, just south of Boulder. Colorado seems to mainly free of the conflicts I've heard about and seen in other areas.

The only thing I have against bike use of trails is, as Marta said, it definitely changes the trail. I've seen a favorite 8-inch wide foot path near Red Rocks become a 6-foot wide path of destruction, with broken pedals and reflectors strewn about. But that's OK, it's a real fun bike ride. I just hike elsewhere now.

Illegal bike usage on the PCT (means "Perfect Cycling Terrain", I heard) is doing the same thing in areas. For some reason, bikes just can't seem to stay on a narrow footpath, especially at turns, and the path changes character. Luckily, the AT seems to be mostly free of this problem, probably because it ain't so perfect for bikes.

I gave away my mountain bike after joining the local fire/rescue organization, and started working on the medical evacuations (sometimes by chopper) of injured cyclists. Some horrible injuries--for me, it just wasn't worth the risk anymore.

[Tipi Walter]

Wilderness is not doing anyone any good if the parks protecting it are closed and no one is using the area...at that point it is no longer a resourse for humans to enjoy therefore it may as well be drilled, mined, clear cut, dozed, etc.

geek

This is the kind of sentiment I have a hard time understanding. Does our presence validate the existence of a piece of land or wilderness and without our presence the place should not exist? When you say no one is using the area, uh, how about the wildlife? The trees? Reptiles? Should not wilderness exist for its own sake, w/o human interference? Brings to mind a Aldo Leopold paraphrase: "What good are the forty freedoms w/o a blank spot on the map?"

If the only way people can use an area is by rolling over it, then in your opinion there should be no wilderness areas designated as such since the Wheeled Ones must keep out. And if the Rolling Ones are kept out, does it mean no one is using the area? But the fact is, if an area is made a wilderness and is closed to cars and bicycles and ATVs and helicopters, it is still open to the foot traveler, and this is good enough for me.

[Dogwood]

This is the kind of sentiment I have a hard time understanding. Does our presence validate the existence of a piece of land or wilderness and without our presence the place should not exist? When you say no one is using the area, uh, how about the wildlife? The trees? Reptiles? Should not wilderness exist for its own sake, w/o human interference? Brings to mind a Aldo Leopold paraphrase: "What good are the forty freedoms w/o a blank spot on the map?"

If the only way people can use an area is by rolling over it, then in your opinion there should be no wilderness areas designated as such since the Wheeled Ones must keep out. And if the Rolling Ones are kept out, does it mean no one is using the area? But the fact is, if an area is made a wilderness and is closed to cars and bicycles and ATVs and helicopters, it is still open to the foot traveler, and this is good enough for me.

Excellent observation!!!

[ed bell]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration is taking steps to make it easier for mountain bikers to gain access to national parks and other public lands before the president — an avid cyclist himself — leaves office.

The National Park Service confirmed Tuesday that it is preparing a rule to allow park managers in some cases to decide which trails to open to mountain bikers.
Once it's finalized, the rule would take this authority away from federal regulators in Washington, who sometimes take years to decide whether to allow bicycles on individual trails.
A park service spokesman said the rule would be proposed no later than Nov. 15 in order for it to be finalized before Bush leaves office.
Before this gets blown out of proportion, I doubt this changes anything about lands designated as "Wilderness". The rules are pretty specific there. I doubt that would be easy to change and that is a good thing. On top of that, the way I read it, changes would be made by park managers. Sounds reasonable.

[weary]

Wilderness, or not, mountain bikes are not environmentally harmless. A mountain bike churning through a muddy trail does the same damage as an ATV, though on a smaller scale.

Our town land trust two years ago built a half mile of bog bridges on one small preserve to keep the path hikeable from trails chewed up by bikers who loved to get out in the woods on the first good days of early spring.

Conditions in Maine with 60 inches of rain and lots of clay soils are different from the dry barrens of Texas and the west.

Weary

[Homer&Marje]

This is the kind of sentiment I have a hard time understanding. Does our presence validate the existence of a piece of land or wilderness and without our presence the place should not exist? When you say no one is using the area, uh, how about the wildlife? The trees? Reptiles? Should not wilderness exist for its own sake, w/o human interference? Brings to mind a Aldo Leopold paraphrase: "What good are the forty freedoms w/o a blank spot on the map?"

If the only way people can use an area is by rolling over it, then in your opinion there should be no wilderness areas designated as such since the Wheeled Ones must keep out. And if the Rolling Ones are kept out, does it mean no one is using the area? But the fact is, if an area is made a wilderness and is closed to cars and bicycles and ATVs and helicopters, it is still open to the foot traveler, and this is good enough for me.

Just my observation, but Hiking trails are also a form of human intervention. I am in agreement that for the most part hiking and biking trails should be separated, but we are looking at a pot and kettle situation.

Any where humans go we change the land to suit our needs, Beavers are one of the only other species on the planet that does this. Unfortunate, but true. It doesn't matter if you roll in or hike in. There are plenty of blank spots on the map for you to explore. If human interventions are such a problem for you, don't use the trails that have created the interaction and co-existence between you and the woods.

In short, blaze your own trail and really get out into the wild. But remember, as you walk through, you yourself are creating the human interaction with nature that you so despise. You can reduce your impact 99.9% if you like but fact remains. You were there, nature was there.

I completely agree with you that humans have not taken, lets say, the "best" course of action with regards to the environment. Might as well have put this quote up...
"Cheap, intemperate propaganda sometimes achieves impressive short-term goals, but it will be more advantageous in the long run to keep the loyalty of a small number of intelligently committed people than to arouse the passions of the unthinking, fickle mob who will change their attitude as soon as someone comes along with a better propaganda gimmick. However, propaganda of the rabble-rousing type may be necessary when the system is nearing the point of collapse and there is a final struggle between rival ideologies to determine which will become dominant when the old world-view goes under....Until the time comes for the final push toward revolution, the task of revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support of the majority then to build a small core of deeply committed people."



- The Unabomber Manifesto,

Paragraphs 188 - 189

[Tipi Walter]

Just my observation, but Hiking trails are also a form of human intervention. I am in agreement that for the most part hiking and biking trails should be separated, but we are looking at a pot and kettle situation.

Any where humans go we change the land to suit our needs, Beavers are one of the only other species on the planet that does this. Unfortunate, but true. It doesn't matter if you roll in or hike in. There are plenty of blank spots on the map for you to explore. If human interventions are such a problem for you, don't use the trails that have created the interaction and co-existence between you and the woods.

In short, blaze your own trail and really get out into the wild. But remember, as you walk through, you yourself are creating the human interaction with nature that you so despise. You can reduce your impact 99.9% if you like but fact remains. You were there, nature was there.



I've got nothing wrong with human foot trails, even ants make trails. And modern humans have been making foot trails for the last 150,000--200,000 years and probably used trails made by other animals for the last several million years. Foot travel and foot traffic is an interaction with nature that fits and of course, I do not despise.

You say it doesn't matter if you roll in or hike it, but the whole conversation is exactly about whether a person rolls in or hikes in. If rolling wasn't a problem, there wouldn't be the need for wilderness areas and for restrictions against it. Of course there's a difference between rolling and walking and several people have already mentioned the damage bicycles do on foot trails, not to mention ATVs. My point is, we have enough sprawl and development already, why not allow what's left to be a sanctuary for foot-traffic only and keep out the wheel? The wheel has access to 95% of this country already, isn't that enough?

[Homer&Marje]

I've got nothing wrong with human foot trails, even ants make trails. And modern humans have been making foot trails for the last 150,000--200,000 years and probably used trails made by other animals for the last several million years. Foot travel and foot traffic is an interaction with nature that fits and of course, I do not despise.

You say it doesn't matter if you roll in or hike it, but the whole conversation is exactly about whether a person rolls in or hikes in. If rolling wasn't a problem, there wouldn't be the need for wilderness areas and for restrictions against it. Of course there's a difference between rolling and walking and several people have already mentioned the damage bicycles do on foot trails, not to mention ATVs. My point is, we have enough sprawl and development already, why not allow what's left to be a sanctuary for foot-traffic only and keep out the wheel? The wheel has access to 95% of this country already, isn't that enough?


Yes, I said I agree with you that there is not much need to allow any more access than there already is. But also mentioned by myself, and by others... some of the better places, especially out east to hike are inaccessible by ALL wheeled vehicles. Wheeled vehicles are allowed in 95 % of the country but at least 90% of that you wouldn't want to hike near anyways. And that is the faults of humans starting to walk around over the last 150,000 years. IT'S CALLED PROGRESS. Like I said, We didn't handle it very well, being so invasive and all, but unfortunately, because humans have the need to explore, we started walking, and foot trails turned into roads. Animal trails turned into hunting trails and so on and so forth.

I live in a suburban area in between two major east coast cities, Boston and Providence. I have no problem finding areas to bike and hike around my area. If I can do it, so can others:D We don't need more bike trails, nor more hiking trails. We need to preserve and make better what we have.

[john gault]

Not only have we gotten a little a head of ourselves, because as the article read, not a direct quote, but something to the effect: {changes would be made by park managers} -- Not Washington. So we really don't know how they will implement this new (if approved) authorization to allow Mtn bikes at NPs.

Also this issue about trail erosion is not a concern in my mind. People walking on earth or riding bikes or riding ATVs or whatever on "Mother Earth" is not a problem. Earth has sustained much more abuse than what we can dish out.


NATURE IS NOT FRAGILE. WE ARE THE FRAGILE ONES.

[john gault]

...



- The Unabomber Manifesto,


Paragraphs 188 - 189

Who give a damn what a crazy murderer says.

[Tinker]

[quote=Jim Adams;711643]Having been a mt.biker for 24 years I can very much agree with Chomp. Dirt forest service roads are boring and just a way to get from point A to point B. Most hikers won't understand but most mt bikers are out there for exercise and to see the scenery and beauty....yes you do see it and enjoy it! Chomp also brings up a good point in the fact that most hiking trails would make horrible mt. bike trails.
Accidents of bike to bike are very rare as are bike to hiker...."talk"of both is greatly exaggerated.
OTOH, I think that most hikers are SO against mt. bikers (or hunters, or fishermen, or anyone else using THEIR wilderness) that they are missing a great resourceful group of people to help protect the wilderness. I'm just guessing here but I would say that maybe 1 in 5000 households have a real backpack and backpacker but 95% of households have a bicycle! Wilderness is not doing anyone any good if the parks protecting it are closed and no one is using the area...at that point it is no longer a resourse for humans to enjoy therefore it may as well be drilled, mined, clear cut, dozed, etc.

I WORK in BIKE SHOP, and haven't heard any mountain biker praising the beauty of nature. Most of our ATB customers are young, aggressive athletic guys with a love for mountain biking. The woods are just the medium in which they practice their pursuit. Some of them are aware of the damage that they cause on the trails and are responsible enough that they actually pitch in on maintenance projects. Most of them would like access to more difficult trails (hiking trails) because the thrill of overcoming obstacles on your bike with your skills is the big draw.
Older folks like me tend to hold dear the memories of single track pseudo races and club rides while we actually use the dirt roads more as our bodies make it harder to go where the young and strong do.

[weary]

....Also this issue about trail erosion is not a concern in my mind. People walking on earth or riding bikes or riding ATVs or whatever on "Mother Earth" is not a problem. Earth has sustained much more abuse than what we can dish out.

NATURE IS NOT FRAGILE. WE ARE THE FRAGILE ONES.
Let's take the second claim first. Sadly, there is growing evidence that nature is in fact fragile. If we believe the vast majority of earth scientists, humans seem to be changing the very climate of the earth in which all creatures have evolved. The rate of extinction of God's creatures is excelerating as a result.

As for mountain bikes, I agree, they do not destroy nature. They simply make it more difficult for walkers to enjoy nature. Bikers represent a tiny minority of the users of our town's land trust preserves. But the damage they cause is apparent to all users. And bikers so far have been totally absent from the list volunteers that do the day to day work of acquring land, managing land, and maintaining the trails.

Not earth shattering, to be sure. But irritating, nevertheless.

Weary

[Homer&Marje]

Who give a damn what a crazy murderer says.

I surely do not. I was making a comparison between the "Fear of Technology" ....If we are now considering the Wheel, Technology.

Kascinksky never feared the wheel... He despised the Universities and Airlines.

If more Americans rode bicycles these days we might not be in the crisis of fuel and such we are today. I agree with TW that mountain bikes on trails for hiking is less suitable than, well separation, but the same complaint of the dreaded "Wheeled" vehicle comes up, that shows a fear of technology which... if researched... was a major FBI personality flaw of the UnA Bomber... hence the relative comparison quote.

Personally I do not own a 12' by 12' plywood cabin in the woods.:D

[fiddlehead]

Not sure how this discussion now has mountain bikes in wilderness areas. I don't think that's the case.
Brings back memories of a hike i did in the "BOB" Marshall wilderness area in Montana.

In the northwest corner of that wilderness area (the biggest in the lower 48), there is an old fashioned air strip that was grandfathered into the wilderness area and the only such thing in a wilderness area.

Interesting that even wheel-barrows are banned at that strip to help get peoples luggage from the airplane to the park ranger's cabin.
The "wheel" is only allowed on the strip for landing itself, not off of it.

I think they agree that the wheel takes the wild out of wilderness.

[john gault]

Let's take the second claim first. Sadly, there is growing evidence that nature is in fact fragile. If we believe the vast majority of earth scientists, humans seem to be changing the very climate of the earth in which all creatures have evolved. The rate of extinction of God's creatures is excelerating as a result...
Weary
OK, OK...the earth ("nature") is FRAGILE:datz

By the way all of God's creatures will go extinct when the sun burns out and then this precious earth will just float out to empty space and probably hit some distant planet and kill off all the dinosaurs. How's that for cycle of life:sun

[Tipi Walter]

OK, OK...the earth ("nature") is FRAGILE:datz

By the way all of God's creatures will go extinct when the sun burns out and then this precious earth will just float out to empty space and probably hit some distant planet and kill off all the dinosaurs. How's that for cycle of life:sun

You're right, the sun is forecasted to expand and destroy the earth but not for another 4-5 billion years, but this fact does not change the results of our actions, both good and bad, as humans on the earth. Your logic is like this: Why feed and house and protect a child when that same child will grow into a person who is eventually gonna die anyway?

As far as exinction goes, I like this quote from Dr. Terry Root, biologist:
"I've turned a corner. When you see that one species is about to cause the exinction of greater than 40 percent of existing species on the planet, it's hard to sit back."

[rickb]

As for mountain bikes, I agree, they do not destroy nature. They simply make it more difficult for walkers to enjoy nature.

Some folks still think that a sense of solitude (or relative solitude) is a characteristic as worthy of protection as the quality of the foot bed itself.

Because of their speed, a single mountain bike can have a disproportionate impact on others' sense of solitude.

My guess is that fewer land managers consider its importance each year, as do fewer thru hikers.

[JAK]

I don't have a problem with mountain bikes if it gets more people out there learning from nature and away from causing more harm by other activities, but the real progress will come when we start opening up more land to nature, habitat corridors and wetlands and hedgerows and so forth. I'm not exactly sure how to define nature or natural habitat, but I feel a deep need for more than one could ever wish to see in a life time.

[JAK]

Nature should not be fragile. Nature should be robust, fearsome. If it ain't, it's broke, and so are we.
Our goal should not be to protect nature. Our goal should be for nature to scare the hell out of us.

[Jim Adams]

This is the kind of sentiment I have a hard time understanding. Does our presence validate the existence of a piece of land or wilderness and without our presence the place should not exist? When you say no one is using the area, uh, how about the wildlife? The trees? Reptiles? Should not wilderness exist for its own sake, w/o human interference? Brings to mind a Aldo Leopold paraphrase: "What good are the forty freedoms w/o a blank spot on the map?"

If the only way people can use an area is by rolling over it, then in your opinion there should be no wilderness areas designated as such since the Wheeled Ones must keep out. And if the Rolling Ones are kept out, does it mean no one is using the area? But the fact is, if an area is made a wilderness and is closed to cars and bicycles and ATVs and helicopters, it is still open to the foot traveler, and this is good enough for me.

Walter,
No, I don't feel that the land is useless to humans if it is empty and not used BUT the problem arises when most of the time our government does feel that way.
Sorry for the confusion...I have been on the Barren Lands and have on occassion wondered if anyone else had ever walked in the same foot step...it is an awesome feeling to be somewhere that you can wonder that thought!:cool:

geek

[Jim Adams]

I've got nothing wrong with human foot trails, even ants make trails. And modern humans have been making foot trails for the last 150,000--200,000 years and probably used trails made by other animals for the last several million years. Foot travel and foot traffic is an interaction with nature that fits and of course, I do not despise.

You say it doesn't matter if you roll in or hike it, but the whole conversation is exactly about whether a person rolls in or hikes in. If rolling wasn't a problem, there wouldn't be the need for wilderness areas and for restrictions against it. Of course there's a difference between rolling and walking and several people have already mentioned the damage bicycles do on foot trails, not to mention ATVs. My point is, we have enough sprawl and development already, why not allow what's left to be a sanctuary for foot-traffic only and keep out the wheel? The wheel has access to 95% of this country already, isn't that enough?

Walter,
Again, I agree with you however the hikers are in the minority and the wheels are in the majority. I'd venture to say that Honda sold more ATV's LAST YEAR than backpacks sold in the US in the past decade.

geek

[minnesotasmith]

Walter,
I'd venture to say that Honda sold more ATV's LAST YEAR than backpacks sold in the US in the past decade.

geek

Not when you factor in schoolkids. Probably at least 40:1 in favor of backpacks then.

[taildragger]

This is the kind of sentiment I have a hard time understanding. Does our presence validate the existence of a piece of land or wilderness and without our presence the place should not exist? When you say no one is using the area, uh, how about the wildlife? The trees? Reptiles? Should not wilderness exist for its own sake, w/o human interference? Brings to mind a Aldo Leopold paraphrase: "What good are the forty freedoms w/o a blank spot on the map?"

If the only way people can use an area is by rolling over it, then in your opinion there should be no wilderness areas designated as such since the Wheeled Ones must keep out. And if the Rolling Ones are kept out, does it mean no one is using the area? But the fact is, if an area is made a wilderness and is closed to cars and bicycles and ATVs and helicopters, it is still open to the foot traveler, and this is good enough for me.

Vote for the change, at the point that its no longer being utilized its sold off, or used in another way (grazing, timber etc...)

[chomp]

And bikers so far have been totally absent from the list volunteers that do the day to day work of acquring land, managing land, and maintaining the trails.



Um, that statement is completely and totally false. Here is one case of a mtn bike group BUYING LAND that I know of in my back yard. Not working to conserve land, actually purchasing the land:

http://nemba.org/Articles/Vietnam/NEMBAsVietnamProperty.html

Mtn bikers and mtn bike associations have come a long long way in the last ten years. Its a disservice to all the work we have done to not acknowledge that.

[Homer&Marje]

Um, that statement is completely and totally false. Here is one case of a mtn bike group BUYING LAND that I know of in my back yard. Not working to conserve land, actually purchasing the land:

http://nemba.org/Articles/Vietnam/NEMBAsVietnamProperty.html

Mtn bikers and mtn bike associations have come a long long way in the last ten years. Its a disservice to all the work we have done to not acknowledge that.


Thank you for that link. I used to live in Hopkinton MA right next to where the Vietnam trails are. I have ridden most of them if not all of them many times and is a fantastic area. I used to work at a restaurant in milford and the group that bought that land and put the money together used to sit at my table every sunday after their ride.

They did a HELL of a job raising money and there was such support for them to do it that it took them much less time than originally planned for. Really good people. And absolutely fantastic trails back there, I HIGHLY suggest it.

[mudhead]

Whatever Tipi, most WB'ers should take up mountain biking. They might start to look like hikers then instead of metabolic syndrome poster kids.
Agreed! I do dislike plane noise, so I give Tipi a smile for his opinion.







- The Unabomber Manifesto,

Paragraphs 188 - 189
You have the right to your opinions, and such.


I don't know why, but I found the use of this whackjob's ramblings distasteful.

[Jim Adams]

Not when you factor in schoolkids. Probably at least 40:1 in favor of backpacks then.:rolleyes:
Those aren't backpacks, they are daypacks used to carry books, video games and guns. They have nothing to do with backpacking.

geek

[Tipi Walter]

You have the right to your opinions, and such.


I don't know why, but I found the use of this whackjob's ramblings distasteful.

Using the Unabomber quote was in my opinion a baiting attempt to diffuse some anti-bicycle comments by offering an extreme example of an incendiary anti-technology rant, thereby tacitly ridiculing any effort to get the danged bicycles off foot trails.

[weary]

Walter,
Again, I agree with you however the hikers are in the minority and the wheels are in the majority. I'd venture to say that Honda sold more ATV's LAST YEAR than backpacks sold in the US in the past decade.

geek
Based on my observations, I doubt if that is true. My town has a dozen or two avid ATV users. Many times that number of walkers. Our guided walks this year attracted around 150 people. At least three times more people just walk the trails by themselves, though accurate counts are impossible, since our 20 miles of trails have no gates, or sign up requirements.

Weary

[dessertrat]

I can't see trail maintainers being so willing to volunteer their time when it comes to patching up trails torn up by mountain bikes. (And yes, I used to bike offroad a lot, so I know the culture, the damages to the trails, and the efforts that some mtb'ers put into repairing damage).

[Mags]

If trails are constructed with MTBers in mind, how you feel about that? What is MTBers adopt a section of a well known regional trail?

I readily admit Western trails are different than Eastern Trails. The horse population means that the trails are more forgiving (I think). I think horses do more damage to trails than MTBikes to be honest.

But, I also think there are so few people who appreciate the outdoors vs the population as a whole it is b etter to work together than against each other.

I'd like my own private Idaho as well. Realistically it ain,t gonna happen.

Finally, quoting the unibomber does seem...odd?

[weary]

Um, that statement is completely and totally false. Here is one case of a mtn bike group BUYING LAND that I know of in my back yard. Not working to conserve land, actually purchasing the land:

http://nemba.org/Articles/Vietnam/NEMBAsVietnamProperty.html

Mtn bikers and mtn bike associations have come a long long way in the last ten years. Its a disservice to all the work we have done to not acknowledge that.
Chomp, if you will take the time to read my post, you may discover that I was referring only to the mountain bikers that use our town land trust preserves. I don't have a list of all the volunteers nationally. Just those in my town and a few that work on the AT in Maine.

Weary

[Jim Adams]

Based on my observations, I doubt if that is true. My town has a dozen or two avid ATV users. Many times that number of walkers. Our guided walks this year attracted around 150 people. At least three times more people just walk the trails by themselves, though accurate counts are impossible, since our 20 miles of trails have no gates, or sign up requirements.

Weary

Weary,
That may be true in your town but Maine is fairly sparsely populated compared to most eastern towns. I would venture to say that in Pennsylvania, 65-75% of households own some type of ATV.

The figures that Honda posts for ATV sales are staggering and you still have Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki, Polaris, Can am, Bombardier, etc.:-?

geek

[weary]

Just an addendum. Our 800 acres of town land trust preserves were all bought or donated for use as nature preserves and walking trails. We haven't banned mountain bikes, though we may have to one of these years.

I continue think it would be nice if bikers would voluntarily remain away during the critical mud times, and occasionally work to repair the obvious special damage the tires cause. An occasional cash gift would help also.

Preserving land is not easy. We've raised a million dollars over the past 20 years and donated hundreds of volunteer hours building and repairing trails, all in a town with a population of 2,100.

I know most walkers don't volunteer labor or money either. But a few do. No mountain biker has done so, at least on the preserves I know best, those in my town.

Weary

[Homer&Marje]

Using the Unabomber quote was in my opinion a baiting attempt to diffuse some anti-bicycle comments by offering an extreme example of an incendiary anti-technology rant, thereby tacitly ridiculing any effort to get the danged bicycles off foot trails.


If you want to find some an example of an incendiary anti-technology rant, you might check back at your own posts.

Of course I was showing an extreme example. You obviously think that wheeled vehicles is a serious problem in this country. Neglecting mostly the fact that people and their desire to explore and procure understanding is what led us to the problem. Stop thinking that the worlds trails are yours and start thinking of them as ours.

A little more lee way in both directions I say is the best course of action. Dont close line me with your hiking stick the next time I go riding by, pardon me for enjoying more than one activity as a "Progressive" human being, hike on all fours if you want to. Might get awfully cold in the winter time hiking in a loin cloth.

[Kirby]

I like the idea of letting park leaders decide what trails are open to mountain bikes, not federal regulators.

Kirby

[Custerslaststand]

If they get this passed it will be great!! Can't wait to tear into some dirt. Give the trail maintainers something to do. Maybe put some WBers to work. (smile)

[Rocks 'n Roots]

I used to maintain the New York Long Path in Rockland County. It was always a hiking trail and was built by hikers specifically for hiking. Mt Bike and ATV companies built a product and sold it with enthusiam and profited from our free market society. They didn't however account for or take any responsibility for their product and the damage it does to hiking trails. After the Palisades section was obviously becoming a popular section for New York City area bikers the Palisades Park Commission shut it down to bikes. It was close enough to roads and rangers to do so. The more remote areas on the Palisades cliffs up in Rockland were harder to police so riders rode there with impunity - ATV's too. The increased erosion caused by mt bikes on the fragile mountain clay soils with over 53 inches of rain a year was immediately apparent. Mug bogs that were never there before started showing up and climbs had outshoot dirt and run-off from knobby tires blowing out trail. I built a brand new section on a virgin ridge to get it up off a road by some houses - something I wanted to do for years. I went back to maintain it and noticed it had several years worth of trail wear within the first year. It was being frequented by mt bikes. And I assure you their attitude was "that's life, get used to it". These groups never organized to build their own trails and never helped maintain the hiking trails they invited themselves in on.

I suspect many of the offhand multiple use commenters are not maintainers and probably have a hiking connection to the AT mainly. They probably don't have a firsthand knowledge of the problems AT volunteers go through because of mt bikes and ATV's.

Bush is the devil.

Good to see you still posting 'Weary"!

[Lone Wolf]

Bush is the devil.

Good to see you still posting 'Weary"!

bye bye political loser. you guys are buds obviously? cute :)

[Gray Blazer]

Bush is the devil.


Why? Cuz Hugo Chavez said so?

This post to be deleted soon. So many brainwashed people in this country.

[nitewalker]

hikers cause the least impact on the trail. bikes would be 2nd, horses 3rd, atv 4th, jeeps 5th and so on. the bigger the means of travel the bigger the impact on the used area.. i really dont mind if mtbikers use our trails because most of the trails i hike are impassable by most bikers. low lying trails will get most of the use by the bikers. how many of you have seen a mtn biker on a summitt in the whites? not, it doesnt happen. i guess if we give them a chance it may happen at some point. hell some of the mtns down south have roads that go up and over them and we are going to worry about a bike, uggh....i usually agree with tipi but i am going to let the bike issue slide for now... noisy atv's are the bigger problem along with people who have no regaurd for others.......

[weary]

I like the idea of letting park leaders decide what trails are open to mountain bikes, not federal regulators.
Kirby
Hey, Kirby. The folks proposed to make the decisions work for the federal government, and thus are "federal regulators."

Weary

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Some of the worst people for hiking trails are hikers themselves. A case in point are hikers who voice opinions like "does the AT have too much land already?" or "The Maine AT needs to do its part for green and allow wind turbines". These people take offense when someone suggests those aren't the best opinions for the AT. But truth is they aren't. The basic rule with mt bikers is once they get in they'll branch out and seek trails wherever they find them. The damage from mt bikers on the southern NY trail network put in place by volunteers for decades was obvious. Tire tracks with the water table puddling up into them and wider mud bogs along with braided avoidance tracks around hazards, some created by bikes themselves, were all in clear evidence, as well as advancing erosion.

That's why I don't like the previous 'conservative' political climate in America. It allows lesser sophisticated or credible opinions to feel they have a strong voice when really they are just forcing a lesser ethic or sensibility. I'll take it that since no effort was made to address the damage part of my post that it says enough in itself. Some people want to go right to the political part, bypassing the entire damage/use conflict part, and still feel they have a credible opinion.

Unlike some Trail Conference people I think mt bikers should be allowed to build and maintain trails of their own in the lower NY area. But the two very definitely don't mix for people with a credible learned knowledge from volunteer experience with hiking trail authorities and their long volunteer hour, back-breaking maintenance (ehemm ehemm).

A good example of the irresponsibility of this laissez faire share and share alike opinion is a hiker who reported from the Continental Divide Trail that the upper mountain tarns all had their fragile riparian zone with their fragile grasses and ecosystem scoured away by ATV's. I'm sure the people doing it would love to have the argument simplified down into simple 'environmental elitist' terms - but it isn't that simple. The forces behind it, and their agenda, and how it translates to the overall environment, is clear to those paying attention. The idea is an attack by higher members of government on environmentalism. It's an insidious force using dubious tactics to weaken environmentalism at a time it is needed most. For lesser minds it is reduced to a wrestling type level of extreme right vs extreme left. It's silly.

[Mags]

Let's try to stay on topic and not mention the left vs. right crap again...

Thanks! :)




This post to be deleted soon. So many brainwashed people in this country.


Nope. Not gonna delete posts. However, I think most of you can be respectful and keep the political debates of left vs. right outside of this multiuse thread. Aye?

[Mags]

I suspect many of the offhand multiple use commenters are not maintainers and probably have a hiking connection to the AT mainly.


http://www.comba.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=5&Itemid=41
(They maintain a long stretch of the CO trail)

http://bma-mtb.org/getinvolved/volunteer.php
(They were one of the moving forces to help construct a new trail in Boulder County/Lyons that connected two big chunks of open space
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jun/08/labor-of-love-volunteers-build-picture-rock/)


Those who argue against multi-use are probably not familiar with the spirit of cooperation and stewardship that is shown among outdoor users out West. We value our resources together. Not work against each other.

[john gault]

http://www.imba.com/news/action_alerts/11_08/11_19_nps_rule_change.html

[yappy]

On portions of the Colorado trail there were dirt bikes going so fat... spooking the sheep, that they busted ankles and legs running away in confused fear. we saw it happen more then once. I did ask a guy to slow down cuz of it and he did. He did'nt seem to realise is was happening. That is the key seems to me. We ALL have to recognise that we play a part if we are gonna share the trails well. Noone owns them. it was incredibly sad to see though. Also, there were so many branching off trails that it gets really beat up and abused.

[Rockhound]

Wilderness, or not, mountain bikes are not environmentally harmless. A mountain bike churning through a muddy trail does the same damage as an ATV, though on a smaller scale.

Our town land trust two years ago built a half mile of bog bridges on one small preserve to keep the path hikeable from trails chewed up by bikers who loved to get out in the woods on the first good days of early spring.

Conditions in Maine with 60 inches of rain and lots of clay soils are different from the dry barrens of Texas and the west.

Weary
or the impact of 5000 pairs of hiking poles and boots. people should be able to enjoy the outdoors in whatever manner they chose. hiking, biking, horseback riding, all will have an impact. there is enough land to have seperate trails for bikers, horses and hikers while still keeping our human impact minimized. the key is living in harmony with our environment. raise revenue from hikers/bikers/riders to protect the land from those who would clearcut and stripmine every last acre.