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.

[Pedaling Fool]

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.

[Pedaling Fool]

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 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, 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.