A few weeks ago, we published a piece about the contentious ban on mountain biking in Wilderness areas. Dan Chu, the director of the Sierra Club’s, “Our Wild America” campaign, gave us the Sierra Club’s perspective on the issue. Here’s some additional food for thought on this complicated and thorny issue…
Vernon Felton: So, where does the Sierra Club stand on the issue of mountain biking in wilderness areas?
The Wilderness Act actually states no mechanized means of transport can be used within wilderness boundaries, which is why mountain biking is not allowed in official wilderness. However, I can say that the Sierra Club has been involved with the mountain bike community to try and find some consensus whenever that’s possible.
Dan Chu: We try to step back and say, “What is the area we want to protect and how can we do that and still allow for different types of recreation?” There are a variety of conservation designations that allow for that, like wild and scenic river designations, national recreation area designations, and something we’ve been focused on these last few years with President Obama, national monument designations.
Here’s an example: This past December, the Alpine Lakes Wilderness was designated by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. Our volunteers on the ground worked with mountain bikers to sit down and identify areas that were popular with mountain bikers in the Snoqualmie area, and the Middle Fork Trail was identified as an important trail for recreational mountain bikers. So they worked together on an agreement that had the Middle Fork Trail fall into the wild and scenic river designation along the river instead of it falling within the wilderness. As a result, that trail remains open to mountain bike use. And in return, the mountain bike community supported the recommendation for the wilderness designation that was on both sides of that trail.
That’s an example, certainly, of where we are trying to find common ground and that means taking a step back, talking about the areas we want to protect, and taking into account trails mountain bikers are particularly passionate about using so that we can then figure out ways to keep those trails open while protecting the land. There are opportunities for consensus here. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness is a good example of that.
Dan Chu, head of the Sierra Club’s Our Wild America campaign, at Canyonlands National Park. Photo by Marion Klaus
That’s basically the same approach the International Mountain Biking Association has followed-focusing on ways to re-draw boundaries and employing alternative conservation designations to Wilderness that allow for mountain biking while protecting the environment.
Obviously, that’s a better paradigm than outright hostility and deadlock between mountain bikers and groups like the Sierra Club, but a lot of riders look at a situation like the Alpine Wilderness or Columbine Hondo and they say to themselves, “Okay, we kept access to 10 miles of trail, but we lost access to a 100 miles of trail-It’s great we are keeping a great trail, but if we are losing the majority of the trails we used to ride, that’s hardly a win-win situation.”
Yeah, so I can totally appreciate that. But here’s some perspective, the law was established in 1964, before mountain bikes were around. So who knows what Howard Zahniser and the other key originators of that language would have said about mountain bikes specifically, but I think that what they were thinking, in the broader sense, was that there are some areas in this world in which humans need to be as small a element as possible.
In their minds, recreation was probably an important part of creating a constituency for wilderness and for humans to interact with nature. But the main purpose of the Wilderness Act was just to say that there are areas that need to be left alone, as much as possible, by human interactions; that, I think, was the genesis and purpose of the Wilderness Act when it got passed in `64. So, here we are, 50 years later and our policy is that we continue to believe in the purpose and intent of the Wilderness Act. We think that there are areas that are deserving of that kind of primary purpose.
But here’s the thing: If people don’t have contact with the land, they are invariably going to ask themselves, “Why should I pay to protect this land and maintain it if I can’t experience it?” People have a hard time supporting a public resource that they are excluded from-particularly if they feel like they aren’t being excluded for legitimate reasons. Particularly when other recreational users-some of them who have a much greater impact on those lands-get access to it. That’s what burns. We’re being told we can’t go there while other people who are no better for the environment get a free ticket to enjoy it. If the science showed that mountain bikers actually had a greater negative impact on trails than hikers or equestrians, I think a lot of riders would be okay with the ban, but that’s not what the science has shown.
Several studies have shown that equestrians cause more erosion than mountain bikers, yet horseback riders have access to wilderness areas.
I think there are always people who look at the world from a “what’s in it for me?” kind of perspective. That’s just human nature. You have to hope, though, that people will have a broader ethic about this.
Sure, well, ultimately the only hope for humanity is that we can move beyond asking, ‘What’s in it for me?’ I agree. But even if all mountain bikers come to that conclusion and were willing to never touch lands that must be protected, they still are, understandably, asking themselves, ‘Well, wait! Why are we the only group who has to make that altruistic sacrifice?’ That’s the question: Why are we being singled out and other trail users-some of whom have been shown to cause more erosion-aren’t being told they have to make that same sacrifice? That is, no two ways about it, unfair.
DC: Well, I can definitely see that perspective. But regardless of what is right and wrong, the idea of going to Congress right now, in this political climate, and opening up the Wilderness Act to change its provisions…that’s a truly scary proposition. I just don’t see anything good coming out of that. And that, essentially, is what it would take.
There are about a hundred million acres of wilderness, but there are also many times more acres than that of public lands that are at risk. For a number of our members, there are a lot of bigger threats right now that we’re concerned about that are affecting our very ability to have public lands-and they’re real.
There is some legislation, for instance, that is starting to get some legs under it in Congress-it’s becoming a part of the platform of the Republican party-to dispose of federal lands to the states or private entities to generate revenues. Well, the only way to generate revenues is through extraction: oil, gas, lumber, mining…so for us, that’s the bigger thing that we’re concerned about right now. I’m not saying that the concerns you mention aren’t important, it’s just that there are some very serious and energetic efforts afoot right now. We should be spending more time unifying in opposition to those things, and showing the power of recreation to protect public lands into the future. So, that’s where we’re focusing.
But isn’t that the tragedy of all this? We are truly at a tenuous point where a lot of Americans aren’t truly aware that the environment is under attack, simply because the Cuyahoga river isn’t catching on fire these days and smog alerts in Los Angeles have become, largely, a thing of the past. A lot of people are, frankly, losing connection with why we have to have environmental safeguards, why we need to push harder than ever for environmental preservation, at the exact same time that there is a growing push to mine, clear cut and extract as many resources from our public lands as possible.
If there was a time when the environmental movement needs consensus, it’s right now. But the Wilderness Act has fragmented us. We’re busy fighting one another over who has access to the wilderness instead of banding together to push for more wilderness. That’s the tragedy. The Wilderness Act is a beautiful and necessary thing because it so effectively staves off exploition of our public lands, but since 1984 when the ban on mountain biking became fixed in stone, it’s done so while simultaneously alienating a growing contingent of people who could be pushing for more wilderness.
I think there’s been a public acknowledgement that the ethic of mountain biking in recent years has turned more towards conservation. And there’s also been an acknowledgement that the political power of mountain biking is increasing-the number of people who mountain bike is on the rise.
Mountain biking is a significant force and we feel that mountain bikers are critical partners. I can think of a number of cases in which mountain bikers really helped us build the political capital to get a place protected. And along the way we hope we can make those compromises on the trails that are important to mountain bikers and keep them open through efforts to come up with alternative designations to wilderness. But you know, there will be cases when that’s just not going to happen. But as far as opening up existing Wilderness to mountain biking? That would take an act of Congress and we just don’t want to open up the Wilderness Act right now.
Top photo by Lance Pysher
You need something to read? We have something to read!
Adventure Journal’s print stories are only available in print. They are deeper, longer, and more nuanced than what you find online. Find out why 99% of subscribers renew every single year.
Order a subscription and current issue you today and most U.S. address will have their copy in three days. West Coast addresses it’s 1-2 days.
Unfortunately, he’s turning a blind eye to what we mountain bikers feel is a grave injustice. Instead, he’s trying to get us on board with hikers to fight the good fight and hope that in the future things might change. However, I’m sure it’s never going to be a good time (in the Sierra Club’s opinion) to “open up the Wilderness Act”.
The hiking organizations, I feel, don’t want the Wilderness Act to change to allow mountain bikes. They do want us to help them fight……but until they can offer something solid in exchange, Mountain Biking has enough of it’s own fights to fight without fragmenting the effort and trying to help the Sierra Club.
And let’s not even bring up the equestrians…..
There will never be a “good time” for the Sierra Club to change the Wilderness Act. They will say “it’s just not the right time” until hell freezes over. The sad thing is, us mountain bikers would be clamoring for way more wilderness, if we were allowed in, and you can bet we would be bringing along trail maintenance, and stewardship to the equation as well.
wow, that was a frustrating read.
I think you could ask Mr. Chu the ‘what about horses’ question on 100 different days and he would give you the slip in 100 different ways.
I am very much pro wilderness and ‘pro- protect all of what we got’. But if their main man cannot even honestly answer this simple question (whether we like the answer or not is another issue!) they (he) earns zero respect from me.
Communicate. answer questions when asked, but don’t jerk us around, thanks for nothing Mr. Chu
Absolutely right on the complete dodging of the horsepacking v cycling impacts question. Frustrating indeed.
Same reaction… Completely dodged the question. I am an avid hiker, back-packer, and mtb-er, but this political war on mtb is why I will never support the Sierra Club. Chu represents what I cannot stand in a politician.
And I agree w/Mr. Tignor. No transparency (the real and honest sort) in Chu’s comments. Zero support for the Sierra Club here either!
bikes are not on their agenda
many give money to SC that are pro horse
ergo
they are never going to support biking in wilderness/backcountry
The Wilderness Act does not need to be legislatively amended to allow mountain biking. The interpretation of mechanized = bikes comes down to a series of administrative decisions which could be altered. There are plenty of examples of legal mountain biking in Wilderness in the 70s and 80s before such rules were put in place.
I do agree with Mr. Chu that in 2015 mountain bike access is small potatoes. If I could choose between restricting horse use in Wilderness and allowing some mountain biking in the same I would pick the former without hesitation.
The term mechanized was only introduced in 1984 at the behest of the SC. Previously the act only stated motorized.
The thing people need to understand with mtbs and Wilderness is that it has nothing to do with trail and ecological impacts. That’s not the issue and never has been. Barking up the wrong tree there. It’s about social/psychological impacts. It’s about having places that are primitive, where humans can experience a feeling of wildness in a landscape. This is the type of landscape we evolved in over tens of thousands of years and when we return to it, we’re coming home. As a mountain biker but also a backpacker, I can say that when I’ve hiked deep into a wild place the feeling of wilderness is seriously disrupted when mtbers come through, much more so than horses. It’s jarring. If you’ve felt that primitive connection with wilderness, you understand. It’s worth protecting.
That said, the whole schism between mtbs and enviros sucks and mtbers in Montana are getting squeezed out of way too many prime backcountry areas. We get pinched between the Wilderness advocates and the moto crowd, with little wild trail left for us to ride in the backcountry. The major issue nationwide is that we’ve effed up so much of the landscape that there isn’t enough wild land left for both Wilderness and quality backcountry mtbing. It’s a major bummer. I get frustrated by Wilderness advocated who won’t acknowledge the validity of backcountry mtbing, but also by aggro mtbers who can’t understand the way their activity can negatively impact the experience of non-mechanized trail users (just like motorized users often don’t understand their impact on bikers/hikers).
The Sierra Club is definitely getting better on this. They’re getting younger and more open-minded. More of their members ride than ever. Some local chapters may still have anti-bike zealots, but the larger organization is working hard to be inclusive. It’s a generational thing, and unfortunately a lot of the old guard of conservation, who have done great things for all of us, have a blind spot when it comes to mtbs.
Sierra Club’s magazine, Sierra, did publish a backcountry mtb feature recently, their first. (Disclosure: I wrote it.) The progress is real.
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2013-4-july-august/feature/view-room
Thanks for your thoughts Aaron.
I support the “Wilderness B” movement, where mountain biking is again allowed in some (not all) Wilderness areas, and no current trails open to mountain bikes are closed to bikes.
I do understand how mountain biking activity can negatively impact the experience of non-mechanized trail users, and I try very hard to lessen that impact when biking in backcountry (non-Wilderness) areas when I encounter non-wheeled users. But the same argument can be said (and has been said) about trail running, that it destroys the solitude and wildness. Is Wilderness backpacking the next target? I mean, wildness does not mean carbon fiber frame backpacks and and cuben fiber tarps and freeze-dried astronaut ice cream and plastic water bladders, right? 😉
Each year more and more Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas or Wilderness Quality Area trails currently open to mountain bikes are closed. And that bums me out.
Thank you for your thoughts. I think you hit on some good points, However, I would counter that my personal experience is more damaged when I come upon horses, and the things horses leave behind, than other back country mountain bikers. I find the large animals intimidating, especially when being ridden by someone who looks unclear of how to control the many thousand pound creature, shod with steel, beneath him/her. Further, the damage to the trails from those shod hooves is frustrating to encounter, not to mention the horse dookie. When I am backpacking, horse camps are a bain to my overnight experience, drawing horseflies and other bugs, creating odors, and generally damaging the area, often within a hundred feet of a beautiful alpine lake (see Alice Lake near Ketchum for example.) So I am beginning to thing the only solution is multiteered wilderness with some being off limits for all but hikers, some allowing hikers and cyclists, and some allowing the above and horses, etc. I am sure some would want to put horses and bikes in the same category, but the science shows otherwise.
I beg to differ – the wilderness act has nothing to do with the “feeling” of the land, and everything to do with protecting and preserving its physical state. It was never designed to create places where some human beings could go to get their ‘nirvana fix’ per se. It is literally about keeping the physical state of the wilderness as close to its natural state as possible.
Well, many of us backpacker/bikers (and straight backpackers for that matter) have encountered bicycles in the backcountry with no such “jarring.” In fact, I was exclusively a backpacker for over two decades before getting my first bike and it was the overwhelmingly positive encounters I had with the cyclists I encountered that first led me to consider adding cycling to my backcountry repertoire in the first place.
But there is an easy answer that still protects the cherished experience for those more “sensitive” than me and others like me. Wherever implemented in contentious areas, shared use schedules have proven very effective. These schedules still discriminate against cyclist by allowing hiking 100% of the time and cycling during some limited portion of the time. That way bikes aren’t 100% excluded and hikers can still have bike-free experiences. Nevertheless, it is a compromise most cyclists have been happy to make in the name of harmonious trail user relations.
It’s also a little hard to swallow the “I want a natural experience” argument when so many hikers head into the backcountry with GPS, I-pods, ultralight titanium cookstoves, tents with space age materials and aerospace grade titanium poles, freeze dried foods . . . and many other mechanical devices such as boats with fixed oarlocks, cross country skis with pivoting bindings, carbon fiber hiking poles with shock absorbing tips etc.
Mountain biking has an image problem when it comes to Wilderness. Many commenters here refer to backcountry biking and what I imagine they are referencing is a slower, more contemplative journey through the wilderness. However, mountain biking is also Aaron Gwin rocketing to his latest DH world cup win, its the Red Bull Rampage, and its countless videos showing cyclists carving turns down scree fields roosting dirt high into the air like a powder skier. While the former may not be very far removed from the Sierra Club’s vision of primitive exploration, the later seems closer to motocross. The difference between these two extremes is obvious, but how would one ever make this distinction in practice. Only single speed bikes? Only bikes with less than 100mm travel? Speed limits? All seem unenforceable at best and just plain ridiculous.
I completely agree with AT that there is an experience to be had in wild places that is disrupted by the speed which can be attained on a bicycle. It’s not about erosion and trail maintenance, I don’t even think its entirely about the presence of modern items such as carbon-framed packs or sat-phones. In my opinion its the experience of traveling through primitive places, step-by-step, in the same manner of all other creatures, and in the same manner our species has for thousands of years. I for one want to know that experience still exists, whether or not I am able to get out there to do it with any regularity.
As a small disclaimer- I am privileged to live in a place (Crested Butte, CO) with backyard access to the best mountain biking in the country as well as multiple wilderness areas (Raggeds, Maroon Bells, Collegiate Peaks.) If I were in Montana and the ability to ride my mountain bike were more limited, my opinion may be different. As it is I am in agreement that we should focus our energy as mountain bikers toward preserving and growing incredible trails throughout the multitude of other public lands that are available.
Very well put. Mountain bike trails can be highly eroded 3 wide tracks with exposed roots and obvious erosion problems. And they can be decades old singletrack that has weathered better tan major footpaths.
There is nothing wrong with a trail just for hikers. A trail just for equestrians. A trail just for trail runners. A trail just for pushing strollers. A trail just for dog walkers. A trail just for wild life. Why do mountain bikers want to ruin all those trails?
Segregation is not the answer. SOME segregation is acceptable but MTBers always get second class citizen status. Hikers can use pretty much ALL trails and equestrians can as well but MTBs get shut out of tons of trails, not to mention that if we slice up the land into a zillion different user group specific slices, said slices will be small.
My wife and I ride horses as well as MTBs, in fact I own a MTB guiding company here in SW Utah. Horses are very hard on certain terrain but so are MTB “skidiots”. When I am on my horse I’d rather share the trail with bikes than hikers, frankly they are more courteous and our horses are solid with bikes. Hikers more of ten than not reach for the horses face or wave their hiking poles around and generally don’t communicate with me as a rider like bike people do.
Mountain bikers are far less damaging to trail tread than horses. This is not a debate, it’s physics and a fact of pounds per square inch. I’ve watched 20 horses ruin Casto Canyon for the season for bikes….and they laughed while they did it. Assholes inhabit all user groups.
The Sierra Club has always maintained an adversarial relationship with the mtb community. Initially they bullied us with impunity, and then we organized. Now we are a bit of a presence, and so they take us a little more seriously. Throw us a bone every now and then. But until we can drop as much money as the horse people, we will remain on the outside of their club. Chu’s political dodge of the direct question is annoying but not a surprise.
Writers below discussing how their pristine wilderness experience might be ruined if they see a mtb-er are participating in the Sierra Club’s discrimination. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve been annoyed as a backpacker by groups from the Scouts or Outward Bound, ’cause I didn’t want to see a group. Do I get to exclude them, because they are too many, and my revary was disturbed? No, nor do I want to. They have equal rights to the back country. That’s what mtb-ers want.
Cloak your discrimination however you wish. You want to keep Wilderness pristine? Keep everyone out. Period. Otherwise, your argument is empty discrimination, an example of the affluent and organized keeping others out of their exclusive club.
As always, the Sierra Club stinks. Yes, I’m a little bitter…. Happy trails everyone!
Jim, you said it so well. All of the things I’ve felt and experienced from these bullies over the years, but couldn’t quite put into words, you just did! Thank you for the clarity and eloquence of your response.
Thank You Aaron,
I’ll just add this thought.
If we mt bike riders are asked to appreciate the few puny morsels that may be tossed our way in regards to historically accessed dirt paths within wilderness areas.
Then I ask the anti mt bike crowd this.
We’ll swap trails miles access w you anytime, being the prevailing sentiment is we have it so good.
I’m thinking it’d be a whole different discussion -legal dogfight if any other non motorized user group was bullwhipped w these ongoing restrictions targeted at mt bike riders.
AT – I enjoy seeing primitive backcountry from my bicycle. Period. It’s a religious experience for me. If you let the Wilderness discussion be about the ‘experience’, you’ve already lost the argument, as it has just become a subjective debate about which religion is right.
The point missed in this article was that it would be so incredibly easy to simply not advocate for new Wilderness. Use NRA designations instead, don’t bother to ‘open up’ the Wilderness act, just stop creating new Wilderness areas, and especially, defacto Wilderness as is being done in MT.
From the article: “So who knows what Howard Zahniser and the other key originators of that language would have said about mountain bikes specifically, but I think that what they were thinking, in the broader sense, was that there are some areas in this world in which humans need to be as small a element as possible.” – Dan Chu, head of the Sierra Club’s Our Wild America campaign.
I keep coming back to this logic: So if “…some areas in this world in which humans need to be as small a element as possible” is the highest, best value, then why do we allow humans in Wilderness at all? Doesn’t the logic of the conservation movement dictate that we close more Wilderness to all human activity? Because some areas in this world are just too precious for any humans. Wilderness for Wilderness’ sake, not for humans.
Quiz time… Real comment or fake satirical statement? – “All these thrill-seeking hikers and backpackers and trail runners with their high-tech carbon fiber gear and mechanically-cushioned hiking poles and nano-material lightweight rubber trekking shoes destroying the soil microbes and eroding trails and eradicating the solitude and ruining the wildness and scaring the wildlife should be banned from the sacred Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas or Wilderness Quality Areas or Potential Wilderness-Type Areas. Wilderness is too precious of a place to allow any human-powered recreation at all! Wilderness should be preserved for Wilderness’ sake, fenced, locked and protected, only to be admired from afar and preserved from the ravages of modern man!!!”
Thanks, Vernon, for another excellent piece on the topic of bikes and wilderness!
I have a copy of one on IMBA’s first print newsletters with the lead story titled “Sierra Club Board Votes to Close All Public Land to Mountain Bicycles.” Really — I can post an image if you like.
But that issue (it’s actually Volume 1, Issue 1) was published in 1988 and things have changed in meaningful ways. For one thing, the Sierra Club is not the only group advocating for wilderness expansions and wrestling with IMBA about what trails might get closed and which ones stay open — The Wilderness Society is arguably a bigger player in shaping these proposals.
Another thing that has changed is that IMBA has grown dramatically in that short time frame and is making strides with shaping forms of land protection. This quote from your interview was especially rewarding to see.
Chu: Mountain biking is a significant force and we feel that mountain bikers are critical partners. I can think of a number of cases in which mountain bikers really helped us build the political capital to get a place protected. And along the way we hope we can make those compromises on the trails that are important to mountain bikers and keep them open through efforts to come up with alternative designations to wilderness.
That’s a long way from “Sierra Club Board Votes to Close All Public Lands to Mountain Bicycles.” If IMBA can keep growing the political and social influence we have gained I think there is a legitimate chance of achieving even more dramatic changes in how mountain bike use on public lands is managed.
I really like Vernon’s question about why mountain bikers need to be the group to sacrifice access to public lands in order to provide protection to the land. Truth be told, I am an avid mountain biker and have been a supporter of Wilderness for all of my adult life. Resolving the cognitive dissonance this issue raises has been quite difficult. Not only do I ride every chance I get, I have spent years in wild areas and Wilderness (literally years as a hiking guide or on back country work groups in various different locations across the west – I had well over 900 days on trail guiding/working between 2000 and 2007, not including personal hiking trips). I have experienced the power of hiking and living in the natural world for extended periods of time. I also know the unique experience of riding my bike in wild and remote areas as well. Personally, I prefer riding over hiking.
The reason I ride in the back country is to find solitude, a spiritual connection with nature, to find silence, meditate, observe wildlife, and seek challenge. Back country biking is so much more than sport or seeking an adrenaline rush as some would like to suggest. Riding my bike in the back country has become an escape from the stress and obligations of the adult world. It’s the way I have found that allows me to feel that sense of “coming home” as Mr. Teasdale says in his post. But I feel like the ability to seek these experiences on my bike are becoming more and more limited.
In the Bitterroot National Forest, bikers are definitely having to sacrifice more than other human powered user groups. Looking at the numbers; the Bittterroot National Forest has approximately 1600 miles of trails on approximately 1.6 million acres. Currently 743,000 acres (47%) of which is designated Wilderness with more likely to be added; bringing the total up to around 56% of the forest acreage designated as Wilderness.
Of the 1600 miles of trails in the forest, 593 miles (or 37%) are currently open to bicycling but, 178 of those miles have been proposed to be closed to bicycles. If they are closed to bikes, we are down to 415 miles of trails to ride. That means bicycles will only be allowed on a mere 26% of the total mileage of all the trails in the forest. There is no way to get back that lost mileage of trail once it’s in a designated Wilderness area and there doesn’t seem to be much willingness to give new trail access to bikers to replace the miles that we keep losing to Wilderness.
If only all the remaining 415 miles were worth riding. So many of those miles are marginal trails that at this point exist more as lines on maps than as usable trails
Oh the hypocrisy.
What’s really frustrating is that this is even an issue. The importance of the fight for protection of our last wild places vastly outweighs any of our ego-driven, whining “gimme gimme” arguments about which sports group gets to play in them! The Wilderness ideal is one of America’s greatest legacies, and the thought that one more in a long chain of special-interest groups is yelling ‘what about us’ in disgusting and selfish. This current X-games generation needs to get their heads out of the sand and learn that recreation opportunities mean nothing in the face of habitat loss and species on the brink. “Little boys love machines, little girls love horses; Grown-up men and women like to stand up and walk on their own two feet.” -Ed Abbey
“The Wilderness ideal is one of America’s greatest legacies, and the thought that one more in a long chain of special-interest groups is yelling ‘what about us’ in disgusting and selfish. ”
Except we can fully protect our wild places without slapping down a designation that arbitrarily discriminates against an equally low impact user group — so why do it? The Dept of the Interior has all manner of tools at its disposal to protect our wild places, not just Wilderness designation. Or just return the application of Wilderness regulations to their original intent–nonmotorized, human powered travel.
“This current X-games generation needs to get their heads out of the sand and learn that recreation opportunities mean nothing in the face of habitat loss and species on the brink.”
Highly prejudicial statement there. The backcountry cyclist shares the same ethos as the backcountry hiker. The “x-games” crowds like to go to bike parks with man made stunts or ride the extra gnarly lift served resort trails, not venture miles into the backcountry under their own power.
And as long as we’re going to quote Edward Abbey, lets try to use a quote that actually pertains to the debate at hand:
“A man on foot, on horseback or on a bicycle will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one mile than the motorized tourists can in a hundred miles.” (from Desert Solitaire)
And Oliver gets slam dunked!!! Way to know your Ed Abbey!
“Or just return the application of Wilderness regulations to their original intent–nonmotorized, human powered travel.”
Except that the Wilderness Act also includes a prohibition against “mechanical transport,” and it’s in the same sentence as the prohibition on motor vehicles, so the authors were clearly making a distinction between the two, while prohibiting both.
OK, let’s look at that clause again, “there shall be no temporary road, 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.”
If you want you claim is true the should be no point in stating motor boats or aircraft after motorized equipment and motor vehicles since those would be redundant. It seems pretty obvious they we trying cover all kinds of motorized conveyances that exist. Is a logging truck a motor vehicle? How about a dirt bike? Or are they motorized equipment, or is motorized equipment, chain saws? What about a canoe with an outboard engine? Not really a motor boat? Not really a motor vehicle? And mopeds. They aren’t classified as motor vehicles or motorized equipment.
Let’s play a game. Let’s change the clause and play which of these items doesn’t fit.
“there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, bicycles, and no structure or installation within any such area.
I appreciate the article. This is such a frustrating issue for me, as the hypocrisy is so blatant. Last year I stopped donating to both the SC and IMBA. The damage that horses do to a wet trail is beyond belief, and I’m left to ride over the moonscape or more likely hike it. On top of that, the Forest Service allows cattle grazing in many areas of Utah, and talk about ruining the experience. I hike, I bike, I snowshoe, I backcountry ski, you name it, I’m it’s most respectful steward. The “experience” is up to each of us, and I certainly don’t mind when a biker wants to pass me when I’m hiking, it takes nothing away for me, they are gone in a flash. Its a shared resource, not an exclusive one. I don’t even mind horsemen, but I do mind that they have more privilege than I do to wilderness with my 25 pounds of two wheels versus their 1,000 pounds of four legs whilst dropping excrement every 50 yards. It all sounds terribly elitist to me.
I can’t say I’m surprised but I’m still disappointed in Mr. Chu comments. It would have been nice if he had admitted that the Sierra Club had worked with the Wilderness Society to have the Forest Service redefine their interpretation of “mechanized” in 1986 to include hang gliders and mountain bikes. But then that would have undercut his argument that the Sierra Clubs hands are tied by the Wilderness Act and that it would take an act of congress to open wilderness areas to mountain bikes.
The problem I have with banning bikes because some people find them jarring is that to a large degree that experience is rooted in our biases and expectations, and not rooted in some intrinsic feature of mountain bikes. A flotilla of bright red or blue rafts floating down a wilderness river is jarring if you aren’t expecting it. Encountering a hunting camp with a wall tent and several cords of cut wood in the wilderness is jarring if you don’t expect it. A troop of boy scouts camping at your secluded lake is jarring if you thing are going to have it yourself. Yet none of these are banned, we learn to live with them, hopefully learn something, and not try to exclude others who are seeking a different, but equally valid wilderness experience. It would interesting what the through hikers thought of Scott Morris as he shared the CDT with them last summer. Were they initially jarred and apprehensive? Did their feelings change after seeing him share the trail over the weeks and months?
If the Sierra Club is interested in working with mountain bikers, and using companion designations it would be great if they would support the efforts of IMBA or local bike groups here in Montana to retain our access to WSAs and recommended wilderness. Many of the areas would be best served as National Recreation Areas. But this backdoor approach to defacto wilderness leaves mountain bikers begging for scraps rather than as equals when it comes to future land designations.
AT – I enjoyed your article about 10 Lakes. I hope to get there before the trails are closed to bikes. If you ever get down to the Bitterroot, I’ll share some our threatened gems with you.
Great viewpoint, one that I hadn’t considered in years of thinking about this issue.
The Wilderness Act does not mention bicycles. Its prohibitions refer to “mechanical transport,” which it mentions in the context of motor vehicles, motor boats, and airplanes. Chu and the NPS can claim it covers bicycles, and with the NPS it is indeed their right to invent regs that prohibit bicycles in wilderness areas. But to pretend that the legislation requires it is a cop-out. As other have pointed out, it the Wilderness Act were really so stringent, it would also prohibit skis (never mind how high-tech the bindings are, skis are mechanical), backpacks, and wheelchairs, as well as other prosthetics. I think the NPS actually does view wheelchairs/prosthetics as prohibited by the WA – but would concede the ADA overrides those prohibitions.
There are plenty of places and times where the presence of bicycles is inappropriate and can be destructive toward wildlife, terrain, or solitude. And that is reason enough to regulate where bikes may be ridden. But neither we nor Chu nor the NPS should pretend these prohibitions were written in stone by others 50 years ago. They weren’t – they were invented by bureaucrats years later in a process that can be amended without going back to Congress. The political winds Chu mentions are real, I’ll grant him that, and it may create all sorts of mess to reopen the regs. But they could if they really wanted to.
Why not designate a current or proposed Wilderness area just for mountain biking? No hiking, no horseback riding, no backpacking, and no trail running allowed. There’s nothing wrong with a Wilderness area just for mountain biking. I think people would be okay with it. Then mountain bikers wouldn’t have their experienced ruined by slower trail users. I’m a hiker that owns 2 mountain bikes and I think it is fine to have a Wilderness just for mountain biking.
I am not sure that Mr. Chu will read this here, so I have also sent it direct to him via e.mail.
I would like to ask what the Sierra Club thinks about the pending / potential wilderness areas in the Rockies which would effectively ban mountain biking from the Continental Divide Trail.
I ask, because of the three long distance, North-South trails we have in the US, (the PCT, the AT and the CDT) Mountain bikes are already banned on the PCT and AT. It would be a shame if bikes are cut out of the last trans-continental trail which is still technically open to them.
Is the Sierra Club willing to advocate some creative corridor designations along this route which would help to ‘save’ the route for biking? Does the Sierra Club even care if bikes get shut out of this wonderful trail experience?
Unrelated, but I also wonder if IMBA even realizes this is a pending issue….
In any case, as many have said Wilderness is one of our greatest assets, I will also in this moment say that I can completely understand those who may choose to ‘ethically poach’ a remote Wilderness trail from time to time. Civil disobedience is one of the greatest freedoms we enjoy in the US.
I don’t need a trail to myself as a mountain biker. Because you know how many of my rides have been ruined by a hiker? By a trail runner? By a bright blue raft?
None.
Fellow travelers, all.
There are real issues where development and extraction are concerned, yet the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society insist on fighting this self-imposed two-front ideological war with likeminded stewards.
Grow up, Sierra Club. Arms linked together in solidarity we could fend off any and all encroachment on the land we simultaneously hold dear. It is YOUR “Wilderness or nothing!” position that poses the number one obstacle in land protection.
You can keep deluding yourself about extending an olive branch to the MTB community, but the numbers when viewed in larger context reveal that oft-repeated statement as the disingenuous and self-serving stretching of the truth that it is. We’ve lost far, far more than we’ve preserved or gained.
And for the love of Pete, IMBA, will you please STOP showing that Copper Harbor video to the hiking community? You can almost see them flinch when they view it. Aaron Teasdale is right – the optics of RAD! have created an enormous image problem, one that backcountry riders pay for daily.
Amen.
Very well said.
The Copper Harbor video from 2012 with Andrew Shandro? The one with riding on designated gravity trails, managed for one-way, bike-only use?
Yes, the subjects goof around and plink some cans with rifles, but I don’t believe they’re breaking any laws or acting irresponsibly.
I’m also not confident that the key to success here is to paint a picture of mountain biking intended to disguise the fact that fast riding and big jumps is one aspect of the sport. Isn’t that perfectly okay when there are trails designed and managed for that kind of riding, as is the case in this video?
Which brings up an interesting aspect of backcountry biking that rarely gets discussed: trail design. It’s perfectly possible to design trails that keep bike speeds in check, yet are attractive to hikers and equestrians. In fact, most backcountry trails will achieve that with very little attention because they tend to be rocky and steep.
When it comes to the relative speeds of users, there are a lot of trails here in Colorado that I know can be run faster than they can be biked. I’d be happy to challenge people who don’t believe this to a 15-mile run versus bike race, so long as I get to pick the trail segment!
Respectfully Mark, I stand by my comment. Featuring that video in gatherings intended to build bridges between the two camps hurts mountain biking far more than it helps it. Because the second you have to qualify the riding with terms like “one way” and “bike specific”, you’ve already lost them. 3 minutes in and you can see them shifting uncomfortably in their seats, the oft-leveled accusation of bikes as “gravity assisted thrillcraft” finding more and more validation within their personal perspective.
I’m a big fan of IMBA and of the people that work there. But as a person trained to consider the optics of such things (as are you,) this baffles me.
Showing the Wilderness camp rad videos of riders boosting tabletops and gap jumps or even railing a berm with elbows completely perpendicular to the ground, legal or not, paints pictures in their heads of trail collisions and mismatched stewardship ideals. It does the naysayer’s job for them.
In all seriousness still a fan,
Mike
Agree 100% Mike.
As a mtn biker, I don’t like to share trails with the DH/Shuttle crowd either. No way a hiker that is already not particularly welcoming to mtb use is going to embrace riders with full face helmets and armor that are riding engineless motorcycles (nor are these the riders who are going to spend 10 hours on a backcountry loop with as much pushing as riding).
The video to show these groups would be fat bikes picking their way through a rocky trail, at moderate speeds uphill and downhill, with huge smiles on their (not hidden by full face helmets) faces.
As IMBA’s communications director it would be easy for me to say, “Let’s only use images where the riders have two wheels on the ground, nobody seems to be moving very fast and none of the riding seems too difficult.”
But I don’t think that would achieve very much. For one thing, IMBA can’t control how all the other media outlets depict MTB. Anyone who wants to decry fast riding and airtime is not going to have a hard time finding examples of it.
If IMBA only used the tamest, most conservative imagery, we would get criticized (even harder than we already do in some camps) for being out of touch with the sport. For not caring about gravity riders and for not reaching out to younger audiences. The old fuddy-duddy XC guys (like me) can’t solve mountain biking’s problems on their own.
I’m not saying we need to compete with Pinkbike for radness points—we’re not going to win that one. But we also can’t depict the sport as something it’s not.
People do ride aggressively and fast on mountain bikes, and there’s nothing wrong with that so long as it’s done in an appropriate setting. The video with Shandro styling out gravity trails in Copper Harbor is a legitimate part of MTB, one that many riders find inspirational– and he’s doing it on trails that were designed and built for that type of riding.
Mike’s understanding of the fact that there are many examples of closed-course gravity riding seems to incorporate the reason we need more communication of the backcountry biking experience while missing that fact itself. If people say IMBA is out of touch with the sport, that’s a clear example. No one needs or wants closed course gravity rides deep in the backcountry, far from help and “distracted” by solitude and beautiful views.
If the subjects of a video practice good stewardship by staying out of the backcountry and sticking to places where their preferred activities are allowed, good for them, but they’re irrelevant to any discussion of backcountry biking because they (apparently) don’t do any. Obviously the Red Bull crowd has plenty of exposure, if IMBA is going to use donated money to create video it should be targeted, not redundant.
Are these public lands we’re talking about ? Does the Wilderness Society or the Sierra Club
have members that pay more taxes and or have some golden ticket giving them
more access. The “it compromises my experience” argument is bs, it is public land paid
by the American taxpayer for the American taxpayer. Yeah, I’m sure everyone would
like their own private Idaho but guess what there’s 300 million of us. Buy your own
land if you want it to yourself.
So in short the Wilderness Society & Sierra Club have sold out the youth & future
supporters of Wilderness with their me first approach. This will wither in the next decades if not sooner. Unimaginable they whine so hard for support & then kick fellow environmentalists out. And don’t tell me we didn’t kick you out, just your bicycle bs. That’s why we can’t
wait for you & your aging group to hike into the sunset for good. Sorry, but crapping
on the next generation does very little for your legacy.
If you use that argument then you also can’t limit motorized use. They pay taxes, too, right?
Fair enough & a reasonable response. I think this discussion relates to human powered
activities. Human powered & motor powered are extremely different. The WA supposedly
promotes human powered recreation. I think the volume of mountain bicyclists
speaks a lot as far as how human powered recreation should be managed (differently
than the old Wilderness guard clings to). Since there is a contingent of rec motorized
tax payers I think they should have areas to recreate also. Little more complicated
when you think of impact, noise, etc.
A majority (?) of mountain bicyclists could really be environmentalists especially
backcountry users. However the SC & Wilderness Society have turned the
words environmentalists & conservation into 4 letter words. Shared (alternate day)
use would solve a lot of problems.
Very interesting, frustrating debate. Can see both sides and understand the value of keeping some lands primitive. The horse thing is a little tricky, but I guess they are kind of indigenous to the whole thing. All in all, great, thought-provoking piece.
Lost also here is another lone, sad fact. Most bicycle manufacturers could exert the powerful influence of their large social followings, but somehow don’t. This could change the dialogue. Yet most sit embarrassingly idle on the sidelines. This is like sitting LeBron on the bench. Or Curry. Or Brady, Manning or Rodgers.
Keep selling those 6″ bikes. And keep printing those sweet ads. Get it while it’s hot. Because those rides? The ones tailor made for long travel endurance? They’re disappearing. And all the bike parks in the world can’t replace them once they’re gone.
There is more to advocacy than bike lanes and IMBA. And IMBA is just one group – as talented and driven as they are in Boulder, they can’t do it all – no matter how big the checks written by Mike Sinyard and John Burke. We need a more granular approach where MTB land advocates are placed in the same room with the bike industry’s best and brightest social media people, ones who’ve been essentially told, “Make it happen!” by their employers.
THEN you’ll see change.
Like !
So just for fun, I went back and search the Wilderness Act for the term mechanized. It shows up three times.
The first in the Preamble, “In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions” Does any one really believe that the fear was that our cities would turn into Copenhagen full of bikers happily tooling around.
The second time we all know about, and I have already commented on.
The third time is in the Special Provision pertaining to mining, ” use of land for transmission lines, waterlines, telephone lines, or facilities necessary in exploring, drilling, producing, mining, and processing operations, including where essential the use of mechanized ground or air equipment…” Now my knowledge of mining in the 60s is limited but I doubt there was significant use of hang gliders and bicycles in mines. Again it is clear that mechanized is equivalent to motorized.
An excellent analysis of the intent of the term ‘mechanical’ can be found here:
https://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/Penn%20State%20Law%20Review%20TS.pdf
You’re putting words in my mouth, Mark.
I’m not suggesting you depict cycling as something that it’s not. Nor am I in any way marginalizing the joyous, beautiful and yes, inspirational riding on display in the Copper Harbor video.
I’m merely suggestion that IMBA consider the appropriateness of that video when hosting groups of mixed ideologies. Especially when vying for the approval of one of those groups.
It’s a wonderful documentary, one that I’ve enjoyed viewing both on the surface and when considered within its broader context. But showing it to Susie Kincade? To me that seems more than a little tone deaf.
You can’t control what other people say, print or publish. But you CAN control what you do. I know you to be an incredibly thoughtful and intelligent person. Showing diehard Wilderness advocates video of Andrew Shandro is akin to revealing to them the pentagram we all know you have tattooed on your chest. It’s just not necessary.
To draw an analogy, I can whip my willie out of my buttless leather chaps at a Black Sabbath reunion concert, but that doesn’t mean I should do the same at my parents’ dinner table.
Typical Sierra Club BS. There is no rational basis for prohibiting mountain bikes in areas that are open to horses and hikers. If the Sierra Club went back to its roots of protecting and PROMOTING the outdoor experience and stopped the eleteist environmental nut job routine, I would give them some credibility.
John Muir is turning over in his grave.
Exactly Tim!
Mike, how on earth can we control the audience on social media? If your black sabbath willie video hits the interwebz your in-laws are going to see it whether you like it or not.
My apologies for sidetracking the main thrust of the conversation, readers. The fact that I don’t agree with Mark on this point doesn’t detract from the immense respect I have for him and for IMBA.
By and large, I think that we can all agree that the majority of riders consider themselves (and are in both thought and deed), backcountry stewards. Yet the image we present often places the perception of our group at odds with its amazing reality. Mark is right – we cannot un-ring that bell.
Every organization, individual or manufacturer has a choice regarding how to present ourselves to the hiking community and Wilderness lobby. This happens both on a micro level (such as a trailside interaction) and at the macro level – like in a room filled with members of both groups. My point is that just because Billy or Bob or Steve or Kenny or Kate exhibits certain behaviors doesn’t excuse those of us who should know better from doing the same.
Every negative interaction sets us back. And as Mark pointed out, the sheer volume of content that paints an accurate (if stunningly incomplete) image of who and what we are is staggering. It’s a significant part of the problem, as Mr. Teasdale so eloquently observed. That’s why positive interactions and better choices in mixed company are so critical.
I’m not critical of IMBA or Mark on this point because I don’t respect them. I’m critical because I DO. And because of that, I hold them to a higher standard.
So to all – keep fighting the good fight. Keep electing cyclists to public office. Consider volunteering your time on a town board or committee in order to represent cycling’s interests. Can’t volunteer? Send a check annually. To IMBA or to your local group. In order to fund the defense of our backcountry access and legacy.
But above all else? Please – stay involved. Because where access issues are concerned, we’ve too many grasshoppers and not enough ants.
Here in Tucson, the mountain bikers are about the only group of people that do any trail maintenance at all. If they opened up the Wilderness, the mountain bikers would be the most dedicated trail maintainers of the entire bunch, guaranteed! And then the Sierra Club would have more advocates and allies in the pursuit of Wilderness lands. It would not be the loss they think it would be, to let us in.
Respectful comment.
Please see my edits of replacing hiker,equestrians group access limitations into the below quoted “successfully” negotiated mt biking compromise.
Honestly, would any of these 2 user groups sit idly by or regard these access limitations as a positive?
Well, neither would-do I.
“So they worked together on an agreement that had the Middle Fork Trail fall into the wild and scenic river designation along the river instead of it falling within the wilderness. As a result, that trail remains open to hiker-equestrian use. And in return, the hiker-equestrian community supported the recommendation for the wilderness designation that was on both sides of that trail.
That’s an example, certainly, of where we are trying to find common ground and that means taking a step back, talking about the areas we want to protect, and taking into account trails hikers-equestrians are particularly passionate about using so that we can then figure out ways to keep those trails open while protecting the land”.
This was difficult to read.
why do mountain bikers attempt to isolate themselves from the rest of us and assume they are being discriminated against? Do they belong to a legally protected class? I don’t beieve they do. So, why in this discussion does Mr Felton ask why mountain bikers have to make this “altruistic sacrifice”? Well, it’s simple, they’re not. Thats just a sleazy attempt to assume a victims role. No person is being discriminated against. ALL persons have COMPLETELY EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to enjoy America’s wilderness areas.
The Wilderness Act was written to exclude vehicles. All types of offroad vehicle traffic are disallowed in wilderness areas, not just bicycles. There is no prejudice toward bicycles;they are appropriately given the same treatment under the Act as all other vehicles.
Again, ALL persons will always be allowed equally..
No Randy, the WA was meant not designed to ban vehicles, it was meant to ban motorized equipment. Lots of motorized equipment are not vehicles, including water pumps, generators, and chain saws. None of those are vehicles, but they are banned because of the noise and destruction they are capable of. Bicycles are not motorized, and they do no more destruction than hikers, and vastly less than horses. They are not “appropriately” given the same treatment as other vehicles, because it is not appropriate that they are classed the same as a motorized vehicle. They are quiet, and emit no pollution. It’s obvious you are one of the elitists that think only your user group belongs.
Actually, Vallie, Mountain biker do more damage than hikers. In the study the hikers and mountain bikers did about the same amount of damage in side by side test plots. But even the researchers concede that mountain bikes do more damage because they cover 2 to 3 times more ground than hikers in the same time period. Also, the Wilderness Act bans “mechanical transport” which is more than just motorized vehicles
I have come upon hikers in the back country, and could see every one of their footprints, and then turned around and looked, and my soft tires spread out with more surface area, had not even left a visible print, so unless you are skidding on the brakes, I disagree about the greater damage. And the indisputable fact is that one horse does the damage of 100 or more bikes, and yet still they get free range to travel any trail they want, all the while, eating vegetation and crapping in the waterways. And also, add in the fact that I have never once seen horseback riders doing trail maintenance. Not once! Around here, the biggest volunteer groups for maintenance are the mountain bikers, by a huge amount! Horseback riders don’t give a crap, they figure their animal can step over and through the post holes they make!
Sierra Club is out of touch and teetering on generational indifference to membership. Reduce the elitism and embrace all human powered trail users before it is too late. Just saying ‘NO’ in 50 different shades of condescension isn’t working on the next generation. Embrace human powered trail users now!