Last week’s announcement by the National Park Service that park superintendents would have greater latitude to allow bikes on currently closed service and fire roads kicked off an outcry from those who oppose mountain bikes on national park trails and in wilderness. The Park Service countered that wilderness was still wilderness and bikes would not be allowed, but that didn’t appease the critics.
“All these potential NPS wilderness acres are vulnerable under the proposed rule to have their character changed in such a way as might eliminate their consideration for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System at some later date,” said the Association of National Park Rangers. “Examples include the majority of acreage in some iconic national parks such as Yellowstone National Park and Great Smoky Mountains National Park.”
The Park Service said that new rules going into effect in August will encourage more people to ride “while preserving the service’s responsibility to prohibit bikes in wilderness and other areas where they would have significant impact on the environment or visitor safety.”
While the two sides disagree over interpretation of the new policy, they seem to be on common ground that bikes don’t belong in wilderness. But not everyone agrees.
A wilderness, as defined by the 1964 federal law, “in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
Machines are clearly prohibited. “There shall be…no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.”
Much has changed in the 40-some years since the Wilderness Act was signed into law and the 30-some years since mountain bikes were developed. Public lands face far greater pressure from surrounding development, population growth, and changes in outdoor recreation. The debate, too, has become more polarized.
There three main positions on the issue:
1. Bikes are mechanical and are clearly outlawed by the Wilderness Act. The higher speeds, noise, and aesthetic are inconsistent with wilderness values.
2. Bikes are human power, non-polluting, and are similar to stock animals. They should be allowed.
3. Bikes are not appropriate in wilderness as currently defined, but a new form of wilderness should be created, Wilderness B, which allows cycle transport and is less restrictive and polarizing while still being true to the wilderness ethos. A slightly more accommodating wilderness would be likely to result in the protection of more public lands.
What’s your take?
WIN SMITH SUNGLASSES JUST BY VOTING!
This week, one poll participant will receive Smith Optic’s Spoiler sunglasses. We’ll pick the winner via random number generator (and announce it here) — all you have to do to enter is vote and leave a comment so we have your email to contact you. Must have a U.S. or Canadian address. Contest ends Sunday, July 15, at midnight PST.
Photo of Mt. St. Helens trail sign by Steve Casimiro
Smokey Is Fighting Fracking and the Feds Don’t Like It
Prickly, Beloved Mountain Gazette Print Version Shut Down
Historical Badass: Alpinist Alex Lowe
Volunteer Fired at Saguaro National Park for Reporting Graffiti
Sierra Club Joins Lawsuit Against Mountain Bike Park
Driver Busted After Bragging on Twitter About Hitting Cyclist
The Daily Bike: Les Granges du Galibier, Giro d’Italia 2013
15 Seconds: Boiling Clouds
The List: The 10 Things You REALLY Need on a River Trip
Kim Havell Makes First Female Descent of Grand Teton’s Otter Body
‘Avalanche Sharks’ Coming to a Screen Near You. Might Be a Very Small Screen
Makers of Mountain Project Launch MTB Project
Chris Davenport and Friends Aim to Ski Colorado’s 100 Highest Peaks
American Donates 37,500 Acres to Protect the ‘Everest of Patagonia’
{ 127 comments… read them below or add one }
I like the Plan B approach. If that doesn’t happen and there’s only a Yes or No option, then I’d go with a simple “Yes, they belong.”
If equestrian use is allowed in Wilderness area so too should mountain bike use. Human powered with similar trail impacts…
Horses (and other pack animals) do far more damage to trails and make more of an environmental impact than bikes ever will. While bikes don’t belong in every wilderness situation, Wilderness B would offer a great compromise.
it is all relative. bikes can be harmful to trails and environments but not anymore than walking or hiking in inappropriate areas. People shouldn’t abuse their environment no matter what method they use for transportation.
Rules need to be reviewed. Guidelines from the 60′s were good in the 60′s.
Bikes should be allowed up to a point. I am a biker but I know of areas that I would not want to ride. Those trails should be kept for hikers. But allowing horses on trails and not bikers, that I do not agree with with. Horses tear up the trails more and faster than any biker ever would.
I went with the Wilderness B option. It makes sense that bikes can’t go EVERYWHERE, but more places would be a good thing in a lot of cases. I’d also like to see the places that don’t allow bikes ban horses too. Human-powered, non-mechanized areas would be nice and you’d know anyone there put forth some effort to be there. .
Depends on the trail wilderness b seems like a good compromise
Allowing bikes their own designation seems fair, it’s not motorized but it is degrading to trails, and you can go faster than the average hiker/horsepacker downhill.
I also really like the Plan B approach. Unfortunately there is not enough wilderness to go around nowadays but I think this is a good compromise.
Yep. Bikes belong. They’ve been treating mountain bikes and dirt bikes the same as motor bikes for years. This does not make sense. Bikes are not motorized vehicles. They are completely different. When areas get diagnosed wilderness areas (which can be good for conservation), it automatically restricts mountain biking in that area, many times in areas that were previously ridden by bikers, and in some cases on trails that were built by mountain bikers. Not only that, but being on a bike allows you to travel farther and experience more. There’s been no evidence supporting the idea that bikes tear up the trail anymore than any other user group (most notably horses). As far as maintaining trails, mountain bikers are some of the most active trail advocates/volunteers and do more trail work than most hikers (at least where I live).
Wilderness B
When I am hiking I don’t want bikers screwing up my trails. I love biking and do a lot, but there is no place for them in deep wilderness
Extremist on either side of an issue are guilty of what they accuse the other side of – unwavering fanatical devotion to their cause. Option C creating a new class of wilderness that is accessible to human powered cycle traffic is the best approach.
When I think of the wilderness I think of a landscape that the above snip-it describes, ‘a land where man himself is the visitor.’ However I think the age old saying about a tree falling in the woods also applies, if the awe inspiring scale and beauty of that natural world can’t be seen by human eyes, is it really as amazing as we think?
Review the rules and find a comprimise
If there are bike only areas provided I do not see a problem with it. The more people that can enjoy the protected areas, the more people will want to save other natural areas throughout the country (and world)
I dig the Wilderness B approach.
I am an avid mountain biker and a hiker. I believe there are many places bikes do not belong just as much as hiking trails. its important to keep the wild places wild
The rules need to be reviewed more than anything. Bikes Belong! They are human powered, cause less damage than stock animals, don’t leave piles of poo on the trails and don’t eat the surrounding foliage. According to the “word of the law”, people with mechanical knee braces shouldn’t be allowed in Wilderness Areas… That’s not right. The laws need to be updated.
Let’s not confuse National Parks with Wilderness. I am an avid mountain biker, but mountain bikes do not belong in true wilderness (neither do pack animals).
Yes. That is my favorite place to bike. The scenery is the best.
Yes, I like wilderness B
No bikes in the wilderness!
Wilderness B
This would simply give the NPS more ability to allow bikes – it doesn’t automatically allow bikes in all wilderness areas. I say the more ways you allow people to enjoy these areas the better. People are getting outdoors less and less. Let’s be more inclusive people!
Given that native horses went extinct in North America in the Pleistocene, the equestrian use of wilderness is just as much an intrusion of modern human culture as the mountain bike (whether in wilderness areas or on national trails such as the PCT). And the trail impacts of horses are arguably greater in terms of down-cutting and dust production. Additionally, not many mountain bikers dump their excrement in the trail for the rest of us to step in. Though I think mountain bikes should be allowed in wilderness, I suspect it would be reasonable to restrict their usage to existing trails. .
This survey seems biased with two “yes” options. Wilderness B is a weasel answer. Think like a mountain. Keep it wild.
I think there is a place for bikes in the Parks.
As others have said – it depends. It’s not so much the bike that will cause the damage, but the person riding it and where they decide to ride.
Heck yes they should! It has been proven that bike cause less erosion than both hikers and horses…they poop less too!
I think having a wilderness B is a great idea.
Yep they should be allowed, but people should be respectful
What about baby joggers with oversize knobby wheels? Where do those fall?
This is too easy, if Wilderness B existed, why not?
plan b seems like a middle ground – something that should be utilized more often in the country.
Was surprised to learn a few years ago they weren’t allowed. I can see banning them in places like tundra areas. But other wilderness areas are pretty robust. I can see special use wilderness areas to allow for bikes.
More trails = less wear and tear because the user population is spread across more miles. More accessible bike trails = less user conflict.
Not sure how horses ended up being allowed in wilderness areas.. I like horses, but these are not wild horses, (there are lots of wild horses out in the high desert incase anyone doesn’t realize it) these are stock animals, and they really mess up the trails for hikers.. unless you like hiking through horse piss and piles of poop with horse flies buzzing around and fleas and ticks carried by stock animals.. I live in an area with great mtn biking terrain that is all wilderness and i would love to be able to ride here without being worried about getting a ticket. Bikes are human powered and leave a minimal foot print aren’t noisy and leave no pollution.. I can’t believe that there is anything illegal about bikes? I am all for no bike restrictions but voted for the plan b approach because its just not that practical to ride a bike very deep into the wilderness anyway..
Wilderness B
Perhaps another option would be guided biking only, similar to the situation with snowmobiles in Yellowstone. Economic opportunities for tour guides/operators who can keep an eye on us “destructive” MTBers.
Wilderness B, yo.
Yes, Forest roads only
Wilderness B…Sentator Udall is a similar approach but under a different name. Could be a good thing if we can get it through…
If pack horses are allowed, then mountain bikes should be allowed. However, use should be limited to reduce impact on sensitive lands.
I like Wilderness B. Deep back country has a certain allure to it that for me a bike just doesn’t fit into.
Yes
I like the Wilderness B option. Especially given that pack animals are allowed.
I agree that the Wilderness B designation would make the most sense, but if the only options were no bikes or allowing bikes in wilderness, I’d go with letting them in – they’re human powered, don’t pollute, are great exercise and would get more people out to experience the natural world and want to work to protect it!
Plan B, i like it!
yes.
With so much ideology from both sides of an issue these days, a compromise would be a welcome solution. I vote Yes, in Wilderness B.
I like the Plan B approach, as a cyclist and a outdoorsman I understand the havoc that MTBs can cause on trails, but would love the opportunity to explore more areas on two wheels.
Especially within areas where human populations are condensed against Wilderness, creating bike-able corridors within Wilderness and/or Wilderness B designation is a must.
I too would like to endorse the Wilderness B idea, and to defend horses in wilderness A.
The question of horses in the wilderness not about the trail impacts in wilderness, which is fairly similar, if a bit heavier, than the trail impact of bicycles. Rather, the decision to allow horses may stem more from the overall velocity and noise of each type of backcountry travel. Horses are slow, especially when laden with packs & gear for wilderness expeditions. Bikes are louder and faster, and bikers tend to behave in more aggressive ways on the trail. I am a cyclist, and I admit to riding fast, railing corners, launching off jumps & rocks. I like doing that, but I don’t want to do it in a wilderness area. If bikes are allowed, that’s what will happen.
Plain and simple, bikes scare away more wildlife and diminish the wilderness experience more than horses. Horses, being animals, are silent fit better into the ethos of wilderness.
It’s worth noting that I haven’t always felt this way. I once believed that bikes do belong in wilderness, but after decades in the cycling field, I have observed a lot of cyclists don’t behave in a manner fitting to the wilderness ethos.
In the same manner, I’ve rarely seen horsemen & women behave in that way. There is something about being a steward and guardian of an (expensive, powerful, and easily frightened) animal that changes people’s behavior in the wilderness in more civilized ways, generally speaking. Oh, and those who mentioned that horses shit in the woods. So do deer, elk, moose, bear–it’s organic fertilizer distributed via an ungulate delivery system.
Wilderness B. Let’s just get more wilderness on the books so we all win. On the horse thing just hike the rim trails from the Grand Canyon sometime and you’ll understand why “horse shit” bothers people and brings them against horses/mules. The bright angel trail is like hiking in a stable. It’s definitely not a wilderness experience.
Wilderness? No. National Parks? Yes.
Yes … definitely … although the ‘wilderness B’ option sounds more appropriate … I don’t want downhillers flying down the trail into Grand Canyon etc. Just thinking about it makes me want to go for a ride.
If the equestrians can ride, so should Mt Bikers.
wilderness B but I wish we could have a bike culture where it could be Wilderness without the next GoPro huck star building a crappy trestle-cum-ride of death in the middle of nowhere and destroying much of the trail dragging in supplies.
I vote for Wilderness B, but if that doesn’t become an option, then I say no. Having to compete with fast bikers on the trails can ruin the experience way more than encountering someone’s dog, for example.
Julie is incorrect. Wilderness is not about preserving one’s personal experience. It’s a public good for all to enjoy and …. share! I say to most of wilderness. Leave the most used trails to the hikers and open up all the backcountry where barely a soul sets foot or hoof to cyclists.
LOOKS LIKE THE PAIR I LEFT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ECONLOCKHATCHEE RIVER
Yes for Wilderness B!
Lets not forget that most wilderness trails are poorly suited to cycling. All we need is spandex clad cycling alliances doing trail maintenance in what little is left of the wilds of the lower 48. Riding a bike does not put one on some kind of green moral high ground where access is granted because your method of travel is self powered. Horses and foot travel are the means by which early explorers discovered the United States and wilderness should preserve that experience.
B or nothing.
I am a mountain biker as well as a backpacker. I vote NO for bikes in wilderness. Keep wheels out of wilderness.
Bike totally belong! They are not motorized vehicles, do not create pollution, and don’t hurt anything. It’s all dirt people whether you walk on it or bike on it. As far as the horse thing goes, at least bikes don’t crap on the trail, I hate that way more. Now maybe there should be restrictions on when you can ride. Like after a rainstorm, close the trails if you’re so worried, then ruts won’t get created and the trails will be preserved.
yes and yes
“B” Be Best
Whew, I’m late to this one, but even as a mountain biker first, I have to vote NO on bikes in wilderness. Simply put, allowing bikes on a trail changes everything, especially as bikes have evolved into go-everywhere technological wonders of suspension and speed. The trail changes as bikes use it and modern bikes can use more trail than ever. The speed and trail use involved is not a wilderness experience for the species that live there nor for the humans that visit on foot.
For the record, horses should not be allowed in wilderness, either. Their heavy hoofprint alters and abuses trails too, and their waste spreads invasive weeds and is certainly not part of the wilderness experience for the human visitors who have to step around it.
I like a Wilderness B designation, but only for new areas, not to demote current areas already designated as wilderness.
Let wilderness be wild and let it be forever.
Those are some tough answers. Hard for me to narrow down all my opinions on the matter to fit one. I picked “B” because it seemed to fit best.
for god’s sake YES. Let reason prevail and let old habits die with their due dignity.
actually, one other thought…
If the Sierra Club reckons that they and the other few equestrians and hiker clubs will be able to stem the tide of industrialization, then they’re probably overestimating their might. If we choose to include your mountain bike riding neighbors into the fold, then we bring another swarm of invested/interested/caring people into Wilderness Use conversations. They can now pitch in and advocate for wilderness with the same level of commitment that Sierra has because now they’ve got skin in the game too.
Just because we see Wilderness designated areas as sacred and worthy of indefinite protection, doesn’t mean that society will continue to agree with that sentiment over the long haul. Consider that we’re in a race against time… that someday, maybe 2025, maybe 2055… someone will definitely question the worth of Wilderness in America. Will there be enough hikers and horsers around in 75 years to go to Washington and advocate on its behalf? Maybe yes, but something tells me no. However, if this generation can muster the foresight to include mountain bikers today, then maybe in 75 years there will be enough left of all 3 groups to effectively keep Wilderness Wild. Together.
get the word out.
No bikes, no horses, no bear bells…. Could be a boon for the Search and Rescue team…Oh yeah, we pay for them…..
At least bikes don’t eat vegetation or poop potential weed seeds (most of the time).
MTB’s belong in the wilderness just as much as trail animals do. They do far less damage then damage then horses and MTB’ers in general tend to be more environmentally minded then horseback riders (in my experience). Plus when is the last time you saw a group of horse back riders out maintaining a trail to prevent erosion? I think its fool hardy to exclude mtb’ers and what they can do to sustain our parks.
As BizzyB says above, “being on a bike allows you to travel farther and experience more.” This is exactly why bikes don’t belong in wilderness. The distance that can be covered on a bike versus on foot mean more people and more impacts in our few remaining wild lands.
Yes- bikes should be allowed but its never gonna happen so I will forever be opposed to new wilderness designations.
Bikes yes, spandex riding suites, no!!!
I currently do not agree with bikes being allowed, however, I am willing to be swayed from that position. I hope that a continued debate will result in better policies being put into place before mistakes cause us to amend our positions.
I really like the wilderness B idea. I see a clear separation between bikes and other forms of mechanism and the damage done to trails by bikes is very minimal.
If they are not going to allow bicycles, they better keep things like skis and snowshoes out as well. While not as complicated as a bike, they are a very simple machine that allows people to travel with greater ease.
The notion that a bicycle is the same thing as a 2-stroke motorcycle, jeep, or ATV is absurd. Human powered transportation is entirely different than motorized transportation. The whole “keep it wild” argument also has a ring of hypocrisy when “purist” trail users are often carrying a couple thousand dollars in high tech gear (GPS, SPOT, sat phones, tents, carbon fiber doo dads, $$$ technical clothing, goretex, titanium cookware, etc.) with them, and driving to trailheads in gas guzzlers.
Access for bicycles, horses, and people needs to be evaluated on a trail-by-trail basis. Blanket policies are absurd. The key component for bicycle and horse access, is good trail design and construction: good sightlines, features that mitigate erosion, features that control user speed, etc. Different trail users are successfully coexisting in areas all over the country- with good trail design practices.
I live in an area dotted with wilderness areas. Some bike-legal trails are totally unsuitable for bicycles, while other wilderness (non bike-legal) trails are perfectly suited for bicycle travel. It’s a perfect example of poor legislation.
If B means the creation of new wilderness and the bikers will stop opposing wilderness designation (talk about a contradiction!) then I’m for it. Otherwise No. Just because horses destroy trails doesn’t make it ok that bikes do too.
Bikes allow those of us without access to horses or endless amounts of free time to travel deeper into these pristine “public lands in a sense opening up more of these lands for our enjoyment and appreciatiation as the act intended.
Bicycles in no way contradict the spirit of the 1964 Wilderness Act and the fact that they are currently banned is simply because bicycles have been incorrectly grouped with other off-road, motorized users and are incorrectly seen as having similar impacts. While the Act bans mechanized things in the Wilderness, there are numerous mechanized items that are currently allowed in the back country that do not degrade it’s experience. Bicycles are human powered, quiet, emit no pollution and cause less trail damage than horses.
Equestrian traffic causes much more erosion than bikes. I clean up after my dog…. whey doesn’t the equestrian crowd?
Also do not get the no chainsaw use in wilderness to clear trails, some areas use them others don’t. In areas of heavy blowdown or huge old growth fallen timber, crosscut saws wont work. Times are changing and I am all for resource protection, but a balanced approach needs to happen!
They’re basically human-powered horses and they produce a lot less droppings. I say let the bikes ride free!
Bikes do damage to the trail, especially when off the trail. National Scenic Trails and Wilderness areas are protected by law.
Out of control bikes are dangerous.
I think that Wilderness B is the proper way to go, but in reality, if you build trails and allow bikes, they will use them. Don’t build trails or designate trails for bikes and they are automatically excluded. Many wilderness areas are not appropriate for wheeled travel as it is (too steep, rocky, too small for an appropriate graded and water-resistant trail, etc.). But if they can handle horse traffic, bikes should be allowed too. They do less damage to the trail than lots of horse traffic at the cost of being a bit more dangerous for having more traffic. Sight lines are important for allowing bikes though.
There seems to be some misconception about designated Wilderness and new Wilderness B areas. Any new Wilderness will take an act of congress. Any Wilderness B will take the same. Wilderness B cannot take over already designated Wilderness Areas. That would take many hundreds of acts of Congress. With all of the opposition to the idea of Wilderness B, and with all of the misconceptions about it as well. a lot of educating still needs to happen. Time will tell if the idea will take hold. I like the Wilderness B idea and it has it’s place as an important problem solving tool.
Quit ragging on bikes folks. That is not where the problem lies. It’s in the popular media perception of mountain biking as a radical extreme sport. The one percent that jumps big and charges downhills is ruining our options for the future. Realize that the problem lies in public perception of mountain biking as radical.
Bike do belong in many alpine areas. It is amazing how little impact a bike does have on a remote trail. Remember, the majority of the places we speak about are very difficult to access and travel through, and that difficulty thins out all visitors, including bicyclists.
Wilderness B can be used to fix issues with existing Wilderness that may overlap a traditional bike route. Wilderness B can be a viable designation option. Wilderness B can be a corridor option for new Wilderness Area proposals. Wilderness B will not allow chainsaws. We will have to learn to use crosscuts for those big tree challenges. Wilderness B can be a compromise option for contested areas. Many alpine biking trails have been recently closed due to indiscriminate Wilderness advancement. With Wilderness B we can spend more time agreeing and less time fighting. I say bring it on where appropriate!
Cupcake, just as an observation, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail is open to bicycles where it is not in designated Wilderness or National Park – so protected by law.
Out of control users of all sorts are dangerous.
95% of visitors to Y.N.P don’t go more than 1 mile from the roads – a few trails for bikers thru the park would be epic – bikes belong!
Wilderness B, please. Basically, that says I’m willing to compromise and take things on a case-by-case basis. Compromise is a concept some users simply don’t understand. Share the trail, please. I’ve ridden on “illegal” trails where we’ve ridden all day and never saw another user. It really boggles my mind. And if seeing a bicycle totally ruins your wilderness experience, I suggest you adjust your expectations.
I like the Wilderness B idea and i agree with many of the other commets. Pack animals do way more damage and cause way more annoyance for hikers than I feel any bikers would ever cause.
I like wilderness B’s approach. I think managing usage should be intentional. Traffic in an area can determine what is appropriate. If close to a major city, a trail system may not handle bike, motos, or horses. The designated wilderness around here would handle bikes just fine. Some adjacent areas allow motos and it is not a bad thing due to the low user volume.
Wilderness B is a good compromise option. “Compromise” is a dirty word these days, but is one that applies in this context. I’ve seen this issue play out close to home and unfairly to those of us who respect hikers, but would rather ride our bikes – a low-impact, quiet, human-powered activitiy – on trails. The outright ban on mountain biking is outdated and contrary to the spirit of the Wilderness Act. The Act’s had two goals – preserve open space, yes, but preserve it for human-powered recreation! I would venture a guess that very few of you have actually read the Act. The legislative history behind the Act definitively shows that the sponsors of the act realized that Americans in the 1960′s were becoming less physically active – people were beginning to chose motorized recreation over physical activity. The Act was written to encourage more human powered activity, not less! The Act DOES NOT BAN bikes. The ban arises from a later unilateral interpretation of the act that was not the subject of negotiation or input by user groups, as well as inconsistent with other interpretations that flat out allow other mechanized activities in Wilderness, such as backcountry skiing and the use of oar-driven boats. The ban should and must be revisited so that all user groups whose activities comply with the spirit and intent of the Wilderness Act may have proper imput. Wilderness B or something along those lines would protect more land than is currently protected, while preserving the option of uses that are consistent with wilderness preservation ethos and non-motorized. The ban as it currently stands places most mountain bikers (see the 84% of voters above) in the awkward position of having to oppose land protection as unfair discrimination. Anti-mountain biking groups literally can’t see the forest of support from the biking community for land preservation from the “trees” of their limited and outdated/aging membership who typically oppose biking on emotional grounds, not intellectual or reasoned grounds. It’s time for those groups to drop their unreasoned rhetoric (and actually read the act) and join with those of us who would rather ride than walk. DISCLAIMER – These are my own personal views and may not reflect the views of any organization with which I may be affiliated.
The majority of Mountain Bike riders I know and have experience with are respectful, responsible trail users. While I feel a Wilderness B option is better than no access for bikes, opening trails to Mt. Bikes that are currently open to stock animals would cause no more damage to the trails, and provide hundreds if not thousands of people with more access to enjoy and revel in our nation’s beautiful wilderness areas.
I agree with wilderness B. I think if a horse can go so should a bike. Horses cause much more damage than a bike ever could to the environment. Bikers don’t leave excrement full of invasive plant species that can alter the wilderness forever. It has already happened! Go into your local wilderness area and start identifying how many non-native plant species there are. You would be amazed! And guess what? Bikers had nothing to do with that. Again bikers and and any wilderness travelers need to be conscious of the trail conditions and ride appropriately but a horse cannot make the decision on their own to avoid a muddy section that will cause erosion the rider has to do that. On another note, I have bad knees and can only hike so far, but on my bike my knees have no problem. It would be nice to go on farther trips in the wilderness without hurting my knees!
The B plan has some appeal, but I don’t like the thought of creating another tier of wilderness which values some wild lands less than others. If it’s wilderness, it’s wilderness. Plus it would create substantial regulatory and enforcement issues. Bikes are a low-impact way for people to explore and enjoy the outdoors, and I think they should be allowed.
I believe mountain bikers should be allowed in the wilderness. Their impact is less than that of an equestrian. I would agree there are bad users in each group from hikers to bikers to equestrians. That being said the impact and spread of non native species is far less with bikers than equestrians and equal to that of a hiker. I believe all non motorized travel in the wilderness is acceptable. With the impacts of population growth and our digital society there is less interest by younger generations to preserve our open spaces and wilderness. If our society as a whole becomes uninterested in our wilderness and the ability to recreate on those lands they could very well go away and the wilderness could very well become shopping malls and housing developments.
Cyclist need a place in the wilderness. Maybe not the entire wilderness, but a place all the same.
No, I do not like it. There is already a great deal of area that a biker can go. ALL of the National Forests. I am a biker, but do not think they should be allowed. Keep the parks clean. Kick the damn horses out too!
I guess I could get behind it if it was just fire roads/service roads.
Yes, The bike rolls lighter than the horse
Yes. Wilderness B at a minimum. This should be looked at on a case by case basis and not a blanket prohibition or approval. Human and animal powered recreation is well within the intentions of the creators of the Wilderness designation.
I don’t really understand the Wilderness B approach. I could see bikes being allowed in some wildernesses and not in others, or some trails and not others, but is there a *consistent* definition to what those are? I guess I’m asking if that is compromise for the sake of compromise, or if there is a logical basis for compromise. If there is no other difference between Wilderness A and Wilderness B, then I don’t like that approach. How would you even choose? The new Park Service approach I do like, bikes can be approved on specific routes…
Yes, the creators of the law couldn’t have foreseen cyclists using the trails. But if they allowed horses, certainly they would be okay with bikes.
The last option is a little ridiculous as far as the time and money it would take to produce such an object. Just let people ride in the wilderness, but make sure they pick up their waste.
I say yes to bikes. I understand that it opens more of the wilderness to the masses, but I’m cool with that.
In general, yes, bikes should be allowed in Wilderness areas. There are some Wilderness Areas near higher population areas, with larger numbers of visitors, where bikes should not be allowed, since the wilderness character would be significantly impacted. But where I live (Montana) this would clearly not be the case. There are relatively few visitors to the Wilderness Areas here. Mountain bikers do a large amount of maintenance of the backcountry trails around here. Allowing mountain bikes in the Wilderness Areas in Montana and Idaho would be a great way to improve trail maintenance in those areas, as the National Forest Service clearly does not have the resources to keep the trails maintained.
I understand that a bicycle is a “machine.” However, I don’t think the drafters had bicycles in mind when crafting this legislation. If they’d have rode a single speed mtb in any of the areas in question, I’m certain that bicycles would have escaped “machine” designation. Open it up.
Make it case by case not a blanket decision.
Bikes yes!
Wilderness B seems to be a good option. It should be a case by case basis.
Bikes should definitely be allowed!
One problem the Wilderness B challenges is the one where Wilderness advocates create plans for areas and will not compromise on boundaries for bicycle use. Usually this is where bicycles have been ridden for 25 or 30 years. The no compromise stance just helps build support for ideas like Wilderness B. So what’s it going to be folks, compromise or new concepts?
Bicyclists need to start driving the land management bus. Create good compromise land preservation plans and get the attention of your Congressional Representatives! Propose your own Wilderness plans or Wilderness B plans!
As far as National Parks go, they will be doing trail by trail evaluation. Many National Parks are already Wilderness, so those portions are off limits, unless of course some areas or corridors are modified by congressional act to Wilderness B status.
yes bikes dont leave huge piles of smelly poop right in the middle of the trail
Opening up to bikes, opens NPs to a larger group of people that may not visit otherwise.
Horses DESTROY trails and pollute water far more than bicycles. Moreover, it is only illogical bureaucrats naively interpreting the Law to write regulation — no wait, not naively — under the pressure of the old school, long time polluting, trail destroying horse-packing and big game hunting industry to keep it open to them rather than bikes.
By the same logic that disallows bicycles as “mechanical”, skiis with mechanical bindings should also be outlawed in Wilderness.
turtles!
Wilderness B. It irks me no end that horses are allowed but bikes are not, but I would like to preserve the idea that some land is highly restricted (even though it keeps my cycling out) while others are given a (slightly) less restrictive designation that maintains the idea of wilderness while allowing a different type of adventure. Wilderness B.
clearly a complicated issue. I think that anything without a motor should be allowed in the wilderness.
It’s a bicycle, what is the problem? it dosen’t pollute, make noise and has less impact than many other forms of wilderness tranportation. The more we exclude people from the wilderness the less they will be concerned about it’s departure.
No bikes? Too mechanical? What about the person with the prosthetic leg hiking on those trails? Too mechanical? Be careful. Pretty soon big brother won’t be letting anybody on any trail or anything else for that matter, all in the name of environmental preservation.
Plan B sounds like the most ecological balanced solution!
bikes are nothing like stock animals or horses and do far less damage. Also they smell better and their people are usually nicer, more considerate to other users and more aware of environmental concerns.