Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness

Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness

by George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner is an ecologist
and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books including,
Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He
has
personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.

I just got
back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of Bend,
Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my
mountain
bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling
without
the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously
logged
forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or
other
special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain
biking.

The key words here are “appropriate location.�

That is the same
qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other
“thrillcraft.� I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when
driving in
snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s
appropriate to
drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike
can
climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s
appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.

Although I can’t speak
for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is
representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail and
the
sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings. In
other
words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my
cycling
experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my
biking
experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary
conflict
between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.

This is not to
say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are immune to
the
beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and
appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to
observe
nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would
agree. When
careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the trail
in
front of us, not the natural world around us.

Our wildlands are not
outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for
wilderness
designation is to provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and
observe
natural systems.

It is clear from a reading of the debate around the
creation of the Wilderness System that recreation is not the prime
rationale for
wilderness designation. The act says little about preserving recreational
uses
or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962,
Howard Zahniser, the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, stated
clearly:
“Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.�
In an
essay he authored in 1956, Zahniser wrote about the spiritual benefits of
wilderness, which he considered one of its highest purposes: “Without the
gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to
establish
among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to
know
the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s
littleness, to
sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and
responsibility.�

I do not believe mountain bikes contribute to the
development of humility, nor a sense of dependence, interdependence, and
responsibility. There are four major reasons why mountain biking should
not be
permitted in officially designated wilderness areas or in any areas that
are
strong candidates for wilderness designation.

Legal. The
Wilderness Act is unambiguous about the kinds of activities that are
deemed
acceptable in designated wilderness – namely travel without “mechanical
advantage.� The rationale for the law, as stated in its opening paragraph,
is
“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, leaving no lands designated for
preservation
and protection in their natural condition.� Mountain bikes are part of
that
growing mechanization. The sophisticated advancement of mountain bike
technology
reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character, whereas those
walking
or traveling by horse remain within natural limits.

Ecological.
Bike proponents often suggest that mountain bikes may do less damage than
a pack
of horses or even a Boy Scout troop. This is a specious argument. The
cumulative
effects of numerous tires create additional erosion, sedimentation in
streams,
and potential for trail damage. The idea that some activities do more
damage
than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. There is a
cumulative impact from all uses, and adding to existing use can only
increase
impacts. The main goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild
nature, not
to preserve recreational opportunity.

Sociological. Any
mechanical advantage – whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike –
shrinks
the backcountry. This has several effects. Those walking are easily
surpassed by
those using mechanical means, which can psychologically dismay other
users. On
heavily used trails, the threat of a fast moving bike changes the
experience for
other trail users. If you are a hiker, the ability to relax and soak in
the
natural world is impeded when one is anxious about having to jump out of
the way
of a bike.

Philosophical. The spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act is to
protect lands that retain their “primeval character and influence.� The
more
advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the greater our
alienation
from the spiritual values of wilderness areas. To many who are walking in
quiet
contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no
different
to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a bike were to invade the Sistine
Chapel
or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many
mountain
bikers are oblivious to the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one
reason
why those walking find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even
disrespectful.

For me – and many of my fellow wilderness advocates – the
goal of conservation is to preserve the remnants of wild nature, not to
protect
self-indulgent recreational opportunities. With ever more technological
gadgets
available for distraction and diversion, we need the sanctity and
self-restraint
that Wilderness Areas represent more than ever.

The above essay says it all in my estimation. Anyone stupid enough to
disagree with any of it is beyond the pale. I suggest that all mountain
bikers who think it is OK to ride on trails used by hikers read and reread
the above until it sinks into their thick heads.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

Mountain Biking Is Inappropriate In Wilderness

by George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner is an ecologist
and former hunting guide who has written or edited many books including,
Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He
has
personally visited more than 400 designated wilderness areas.

I just got
back from a mountain bike ride. The trails outside of my hometown of Bend,
Oregon have numerous loops and degrees of difficulty, and riding my
mountain
bike is a pleasant way to unwind, get some exercise, and enjoy pedaling
without
the fear of being hit by a car. The trails are located in previously
logged
forests on the edge of town. These lands do not qualify for wilderness or
other
special protection, and thus are an appropriate location for mountain
biking.

The key words here are “appropriate location.”

That is the same
qualifier I would have for my four-wheel drive vehicle as well other
“thrillcraft.” I am grateful to have a four-wheel drive vehicle when
driving in
snow, muddy roads and the like, but that doesn’t mean I feel it’s
appropriate to
drive it everywhere it can go. Similarly, just because my mountain bike
can
climb steep hillsides and traverse meadows, doesn’t mean I think it’s
appropriate to use wherever I might feel like it.

Although I can’t speak
for all mountain bikers, I think my experience while on my bike is
representative of most cyclists in that I am more focused on the trail and
the
sense of movement than I am aware of and in tune with my surroundings. In
other
words, the natural world I am traveling through is more a stage for my
cycling
experience. Whether that stage is wildlands or not is irrelevant to my
biking
experience. This fundamental indifference to landscape is the primary
conflict
between mountain biking and the Wilderness Act’s goals.

This is not to
say that mountain bikers do not enjoy wildlands or that they are immune to
the
beauty of nature. Indeed, when I stop cycling, I often look around and
appreciate the setting. But the reason I am biking is not primarily to
observe
nature, and I think it’s safe to say that most mountain bikers would
agree. When
careening down a mountain we must, by necessity, be focused on the trail
in
front of us, not the natural world around us.

Our wildlands are not
outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks. Part of the rationale for
wilderness
designation is to provide an opportunity for people to contemplate and
observe
natural systems.

It is clear from a reading of the debate around the
creation of the Wilderness System that recreation is not the prime
rationale for
wilderness designation. The act says little about preserving recreational
uses
or adapting new types of recreation. In testimony before Congress in 1962,
Howard Zahniser, the chief architect of the Wilderness Act, stated
clearly:
“Recreation is not necessarily the dominant use of an area of wilderness.”
In an
essay he authored in 1956, Zahniser wrote about the spiritual benefits of
wilderness, which he considered one of its highest purposes: “Without the
gadgets, the inventions, the contrivances whereby men have seemed to
establish
among themselves an independence of nature, without these distractions, to
know
the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s
littleness, to
sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and
responsibility.”

I do not believe mountain bikes contribute to the
development of humility, nor a sense of dependence, interdependence, and
responsibility. There are four major reasons why mountain biking should
not be
permitted in officially designated wilderness areas or in any areas that
are
strong candidates for wilderness designation.

Legal. The
Wilderness Act is unambiguous about the kinds of activities that are
deemed
acceptable in designated wilderness – namely travel without “mechanical
advantage.” The rationale for the law, as stated in its opening paragraph,
is
“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, leaving no lands designated for
preservation
and protection in their natural condition.” Mountain bikes are part of
that
growing mechanization. The sophisticated advancement of mountain bike
technology
reduces the natural limits imposed by primeval character, whereas those
walking
or traveling by horse remain within natural limits.

Ecological.
Bike proponents often suggest that mountain bikes may do less damage than
a pack
of horses or even a Boy Scout troop. This is a specious argument. The
cumulative
effects of numerous tires create additional erosion, sedimentation in
streams,
and potential for trail damage. The idea that some activities do more
damage
than another is not a reason to expand damaging activities. There is a
cumulative impact from all uses, and adding to existing use can only
increase
impacts. The main goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild
nature, not
to preserve recreational opportunity.

Sociological. Any
mechanical advantage – whether it is a dirt bike or a mountain bike –
shrinks
the backcountry. This has several effects. Those walking are easily
surpassed by
those using mechanical means, which can psychologically dismay other
users. On
heavily used trails, the threat of a fast moving bike changes the
experience for
other trail users. If you are a hiker, the ability to relax and soak in
the
natural world is impeded when one is anxious about having to jump out of
the way
of a bike.

Philosophical. The spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act is to
protect lands that retain their “primeval character and influence.” The
more
advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the greater our
alienation
from the spiritual values of wilderness areas. To many who are walking in
quiet
contemplation of nature, mountain bikes are an intrusion. They are no
different
to many wildlands enthusiasts than if a bike were to invade the Sistine
Chapel
or were ridden in the Arlington National Cemetery. The fact that many
mountain
bikers are oblivious to the spiritual values inherent in wildlands is one
reason
why those walking find mountain biking obnoxious at best, and even
disrespectful.

For me – and many of my fellow wilderness advocates – the
goal of conservation is to preserve the remnants of wild nature, not to
protect
self-indulgent recreational opportunities. With ever more technological
gadgets
available for distraction and diversion, we need the sanctity and
self-restraint
that Wilderness Areas represent more than ever.

The above essay says it all in my estimation. Anyone stupid enough to
disagree with any of it is beyond the pale. I suggest that all mountain
bikers who think it is OK to ride on trails used by hikers read and reread
the above until it sinks into their thick heads.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota


Utter bull**** and even the writer didn't agree with that in reality.

"to protect lands that retain their primeval character and influence.”
The more advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the
greater our alienation from the spiritual values of wilderness areas.
To many who are walking in quiet contemplation of nature, mountain
bikes are an intrusion."

You prance around there in your special hiking boots, with your water
proof coat and you even have your carbon fiber Trekking Pole, which
apparently you aren't even capable of selecting as I came across a
site offering "expert advice" in selecting a trekking pole.

So there you stand in your special "trekking gear" rabbeting on about
"primeval character". If you were really intent in truly enjoying the
"primeval character" then why all the fancy clothes? Whouldn't you be
out there in your jock strap? After all "primeval" actually means
"having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage
or state".

You say "quiet contemplation" but in fact you are making so much noise
that every thing actually native to your "wilderness" has fled in
terror of the big, noisy, bad smelling, creature.

And, what about all those man made shelters and those so called hiking
trails that you are so jealous of? They aren't "primeval". Shouldn't
you be sleeping on the ground?

In short, you are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and
constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.

Dolan - Great? Nope, Dolan the kindergarten kid.
--

Alvin D.

wrote in message ...

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

The above essay says it all in my estimation. Anyone stupid enough to
disagree with any of it is beyond the pale. I suggest that all mountain
bikers who think it is OK to ride on trails used by hikers read and reread
the above until it sinks into their thick heads.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota


Utter bull**** and even the writer didn't agree with that in reality.

Obviously you don’t know how to read.

"to protect lands that retain their primeval character and influence.�
The more advanced the technology that we drag along with us, the
greater our alienation from the spiritual values of wilderness areas.
To many who are walking in quiet contemplation of nature, mountain
bikes are an intrusion."

You prance around there in your special hiking boots, with your water
proof coat and you even have your carbon fiber Trekking Pole, which
apparently you aren't even capable of selecting as I came across a
site offering "expert advice" in selecting a trekking pole.

So you don’t like hikers. What else is new in the biker world?

So there you stand in your special "trekking gear" rabbeting on about
"primeval character". If you were really intent in truly enjoying the
"primeval character" then why all the fancy clothes? Whouldn't you be
out there in your jock strap? After all "primeval" actually means
"having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage
or state".

I can clearly see that you don’t have a brain either. Apparently the world “primeval� was just too much for you.

You say "quiet contemplation" but in fact you are making so much noise
that every thing actually native to your "wilderness" has fled in
terror of the big, noisy, bad smelling, creature.

“So you don’t like hikers. What else is new in the biker world?� – Ed Dolan

And, what about all those man made shelters and those so called hiking
trails that you are so jealous of? They aren't "primeval". Shouldn't
you be sleeping on the ground?

I can see that the word “primeval� has thrown you for a loop.

In short, you are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and
constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.

In short, it is not much of a pleasure for me to dispose of an idiot like you.

Dolan - Great? Nope, Dolan the kindergarten kid.

The only kid here is yourself. Try to post something sensible with some substance the next time around and maybe I will give you the time of day.

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

Alvin D. wrote:

In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and
constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.

Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has provided in the way of wilderness – and for free too!

Want to ride a bike instead? There are millions of miles of roads of all descriptions waiting for you.

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:27:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

Alvin D. wrote:

In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and
constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.

Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has provided in the way of wilderness – and for free too!

Of course you can. So why the outcry about others enjoying the "forest
primeval" as you term it?

After all, it is not "primeval" at all as you twits insist on having
paths made, some with stairs even, "oh my goodness, we must have
walked a whole mile today Estrella", and you dainty creatures don't
want to exert yourselves. Fireplaces, the three walled Appalachian
shelters, those cute marker posts so that the intrepid "trekkers"
won't lose their way. What is next? Fumigations crews to kill all
those savage insects?\/ Ohoooo a deer fly might bite me! Ohooo I'm so
scared.

I see articles like "Appalachian Trail Shelter" telling the intrepid
"trekker" that "shelters sometimes have a sloping ceiling inside and
it's very easy to bang your head against one of the shelter cross
beams unless you are careful", or "11 things I wished I'd known before
hiking the Appalachian Trail". Really great advice like, "A popular
tradition of Appalachian Trail culture is to give thoughtful nicknames
to your co-hikers, such as MonkeyButt, Golden Shower, or DangerPants.
If you point your headlamp down while you pee in the dark, you'll be
called "flash". Or Diaper cream will save your ass. This is really
great advice, "Chafing is less of a problem for people with slender
builds, but for most people, and especially for women, it's a common
problem in hiking. You can laugh now, but when you feel the forgiving
kiss of Destiny on that burning monkey butt"

Jesus H. Christ, you "trekkers" are so fat that your legs rub together
and you get "chafed". Oh you poooor dears. So dainty.

Back in the '50's there was a beer brewed by the "Griesedieck Bros
Beer Company" and aptly called Griesedieck Beer, and now we have the
greasy dick hikers.

It appears that rather than the Intrepid Trekker (visions of Lewis and
Clark) you are actually fat slothful people, with your arse liberally
anointed with Vaseline, who can't find your way across the room
without a "trail marker", and who worry about bumping your head
because the ceiling is so low.

It is hard to admit that the country has sunk so low.


Want to ride a bike instead? There are millions of miles of roads of all descriptions waiting for you.

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Trails are, apparently, for people with grease on their arse.

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

More likely, "Lard arse Boy Dolan with the greasy butt"
--

Alvin D.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

I suggest that all mountain
bikers who think it is OK to ride on trail

It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 02:25:47 -0000 (UTC), news16
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

I suggest that all mountain
bikers who think it is OK to ride on trail

It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.

No it is not, and I suspect that the indubitable Dolan, if he were
ever actually in a "wilderness" area, would find it very
disheartening. No fancy shelters, no trails, no little signs "Ohoo it
is only 1 mile to the camping grounds". Just big vicious mosquitoes
and other blood sucking critters, and not much else.
--
cheers,

John B.

wrote in message ...

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:27:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

Alvin D. wrote:

In short, you [hikers] are enjoying a luxurious, government financed and
constructed area and like a little kid in the sand box trying to hug
all the toys in your arms so no one else can play with them.

Anyone who is willing to walk can enjoy whatever the government has provided in the way of wilderness – and for free too!

Of course you can. So why the outcry about others enjoying the "forest
primeval" as you term it?

They can enjoy it by walking since that way there is no interference with anyone else also enjoying the environment. Elementary, my Dear Watson!

After all, it is not "primeval" at all as you twits insist on having
paths made, some with stairs even, "oh my goodness, we must have
walked a whole mile today Estrella", and you dainty creatures don't
want to exert yourselves. Fireplaces, the three walled Appalachian
shelters, those cute marker posts so that the intrepid "trekkers"
won't lose their way. What is next? Fumigations crews to kill all
those savage insects?\/ Ohoooo a deer fly might bite me! Ohooo I'm so
scared.

It is primeval enough by the standards of today. Anyone who is walking in a wilderness setting is roughing it no matter how many conveniences he is carrying. In any event, such a walker is in no way impacting the wilderness except in the most minor ways.

I see articles like "Appalachian Trail Shelter" telling the intrepid
"trekker" that "shelters sometimes have a sloping ceiling inside and
it's very easy to bang your head against one of the shelter cross
beams unless you are careful", or "11 things I wished I'd known before
hiking the Appalachian Trail". Really great advice like, "A popular
tradition of Appalachian Trail culture is to give thoughtful nicknames
to your co-hikers, such as MonkeyButt, Golden Shower, or DangerPants.
If you point your headlamp down while you pee in the dark, you'll be
called "flash". Or Diaper cream will save your ass. This is really
great advice, "Chafing is less of a problem for people with slender
builds, but for most people, and especially for women, it's a common
problem in hiking. You can laugh now, but when you feel the forgiving
kiss of Destiny on that burning monkey butt"

Any point you may be trying to make escapes me. What does it matter to you how some hikers see themselves?

Jesus H. Christ, you "trekkers" are so fat that your legs rub together
and you get "chafed". Oh you poooor dears. So dainty.

Back in the '50's there was a beer brewed by the "Griesedieck Bros
Beer Company" and aptly called Griesedieck Beer, and now we have the
greasy dick hikers.

It appears that rather than the Intrepid Trekker (visions of Lewis and
Clark) you are actually fat slothful people, with your arse liberally
anointed with Vaseline, who can't find your way across the room
without a "trail marker", and who worry about bumping your head
because the ceiling is so low.

It is hard to admit that the country has sunk so low.

“Any point you may be trying to make escapes me. What does it matter to you how some hikers see themselves?� – Ed Dolan

Trails are, apparently, for people with grease on their arse.

What an Asshole you are! Everything you've applied to hikers can be applied to bikers in spades, in fact to just about anyone. Your remarks are as pointless as you are. Either make a relevant point or get lost!

Want to ride a bike instead? There are millions of miles of roads of all descriptions waiting for you.

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

"news16" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:03:49 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

I suggest that all mountain
bikers who think it is OK to ride on [a] trail [are *******s pure and simple.]

It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.

Of course it is. Even pristine wilderness untouched by human kind will have trails made by whatever animals exist in the region. But read the Wilderness Act. There you will find the purpose for which wilderness was established. And it has to do with trails for humans walking, not for slobs on bikes like you trying to ride a course.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 02:25:47 -0000 (UTC), news16
wrote:
[...]

It isn't Wilderness if it has trails.

No it is not, and I suspect that the indubitable Dolan, if he were
ever actually in a "wilderness" area, would find it very
disheartening. No fancy shelters, no trails, no little signs "Ohoo it
is only 1 mile to the camping grounds". Just big vicious mosquitoes
and other blood sucking critters, and not much else.

My advice to you is to stay out of wilderness areas. There is no harm in having a few conveniences along the way, but I can see that any roughing it is not for the likes of you.

By the way, to tie yourself to the inane mutterings of AlvinD and news16 marks you as an idiot also. You are known by the company you keep. I have never yet had the pleasure of having an intelligent discussion with a mountain biker, except for Blackblade. He was of course wrongheaded, but still could make some intelligent remarks from time to time. So far the 3 of you are total strike outs.

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota