Mountain Biking in Our National Forests

Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:55:13 -0800 (PST)
From: a friend
Subject: Fwd: USFS Comment Letter

Dear Mr. Weingardt:

As an introduction to you of why I am writing, please know that I have
more than 50 years of equestrian trail riding experience on National
Forest Lands and I am an advocate for historical and traditional
trails use. I grew up on the Klamath National Forest where my family
visits the Marble Mountain Wilderness numerous times during any given
year. I have utilized hiking and equestrian trails on nearly all
Region 5 forests. I am an equine practitioner, an educator, and
Quarter Horse breeder. I am a grandmother with seven granddaughters
that share my passion. I am a member of the American Horse Council,
the American Quarter Horse Association, a senior member of the
California State Horsemen’s Association, and various local equestrian
clubs where I advocate for safe recreational trail riding at the
local, state and federal levels.

USFS abandons historic use of forest footpaths. I am deeply concerned
by the U.S. Forest Service shift from hiking and equestrian trails to
general multiple-use trails with mountain bikers, (and of course,
motorcycles and ATVs.) SAFETY and SPEED are solid concerns and
evidence of failed protection of historic user groups within the land
management system. The multiple-use trails system results in lost
access of historic trails to hikers and equestrians.

USFS under-represents historic trail users. I am deeply concerned
that equestrians are under-represented within the land management
programs of the U.S. Forest Service, due to domination of conflicts
with mechanized and motorized user groups, and lost access of hikers
and equestrians due to safety and speed concerns.

USFS multiple-use trails system disenfranchises historic user groups,
i.e. hikers and equestrians. I am deeply concerned that when mountain
bikers are allowed on traditional trails, or “footpaths” as they were
originally intended, priority stakeholders are disenfranchised due to
the domination and growing recklessness of this extreme activity,
fearful for our safety and that of our horses, resulting in lost
access.

USFS unfortunate need to focus on management and enforcement of
mechanized and motorized recreation is a detriment to forest lands due
to environmental destruction, and lost access of historic forest user
groups. Multiple-use trails become mountain bike trails because
hikers and equestrians typically abandon trail use for these reasons.
My daughter, my granddaughters and my horses do not participate in
recreational trail riding on multiple-use trails, “single-track,”
“footpaths,” when mechanized and motorized vehicles are added.

I am writing to you in regard to the recent collaboration of the U.S.
Forest Service and the International Mountain Biking Association
(IMBA) “listening session” meetings held throughout the Pacific
Southwest Region from November 30 to December 14, 2006. The five
meetings were held to introduce the “Mountain Bike Planning Strategy”
to the public and hear from trail users the most important issues and
aspects of mountain bike trails. Presented is a totality of bias
from the facilitator and the materials with little or no concern for
other user groups. We were told before and during these meetings that
all trail user input was valuable, but none of the conclusions of the
meetings embrace the concerns and recreation needs of hikers and
equestrians, nor warn of use conflicts of safety and speed.

There was insufficient public notice that these meetings were taking
place, posted on November 24, 2006 to the USFS Region 5 website, six
days before the first meeting.[1] Notice was found on the IMBA
website and presented as co-hosted meetings to announce the “USFS
Mountain Bike Planning Strategy,” November 28, 2006.[2]

For 100 years, hikers and equestrians have been priority stakeholders
on existing trails; and this clearly means that hikers and equestrians
have absolute right to protection on trails where there is existing
and historical use. The IMBA-USFS strategy does not address our
safety; in fact, the Planning Strategy calls safety concerns
perceived, “Studies indicate perception of user conflict is high, but
actual user conflict between mountain bikers and other groups is
low.[3] These meetings provided recommended strategic mountain biker
access to every trail and special consideration for technical trail
design, a dismal failure of public land management.

IMBA has a heavily financed lobby effort, by Specialized Bicycles, to
put mountain bicycles on every trail, the Pacific Crest Trail and
other backcountry trails, spear-headed by Tom Ward (retired Director
of California State Parks.) IMBA clearly wants access to wilderness
areas. They are concerned that NFS policy could be changed from "no
motorized" to "no mechanized" in front range and backcountry. IMBA
appears to be on a “power trip” with the marketing of the new USFS
Memorandum of Understanding.[4]

USFS presenter/facilitator Garrett Villanueva made a veiled attempt to
open discussion with other users only in the “workgroups” and
conclusions via the public input form[5] is designed only for details
of mountain biking activity on NFS trails. Overall discussion was
discouraged. His opening comment was that he was personally
surprised to hear of so many user conflicts and safety concerns during
the meetings statewide. He commented that he didn't know people and
horses were seriously injured, (and horses killed) due to
confrontations with mountain bikers on trails in California.

However, he also commented that more importantly 21% of the public
ride mountain bicycles and there are 5.5 million mountain bikes in
California, justifying his mission to increase mountain biking in USFS
recreation plans. His conclusions during these strategy sessions a

1. More trails open to mountain bikers

2. More technical trails, more single-track

3. Access to backcountry/longer/loop trails.

Mr. Villanueva has no comparative statistics on hiking and equestrian
use of Forest Service trails, and provided no references for
statistics representing mountain biking use, other than IMBA remarks.

The opening slide on Mr. Villanueva’s Power Point presentation[6]
shows the classic mountain biker rounding a corner on a single-track
trail, newly armored against trail erosion caused by the speeding
bikers. The obvious intent of this rider is clearly getting around
the downhill corner with speed and he is clearly oblivious to the
potential of other trail users in his path. This type of mountain
bike activity belongs in separate-use, special-use areas and not on
beloved footpaths where people are there to enjoy nature, solitude,
exercise, and according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
“a unique recreational experience worthy of preservation.”[7]

As IMBA has significantly lost access to public lands in cities,
municipalities, and counties of California, across America and Canada
due to user conflicts, injuries, deaths, and environmental
destruction, including their own home town 3600-acre park in Boulder,
CO, the place IMBA can now focus their trails agenda is with state and
federal agencies or on private land. Unfortunately, the state and
federal agencies don't have as much "on-the-ground" experience with
the negative factors of mechanized vehicles on single-track / footpath
trails, due to budget cuts for trails maintenance and law enforcement,
and the need to focus on impacts of motorized user groups. The USFS
(Kathy Mick) declares that the new IMBA Memorandum of Understanding is
particularly important for prevention of poaching on illegal trails
and illegal construction of bicycle trails and obstacles on public
land. But, there is no reference to safe use for historic users of
USFS trails, i.e. hikers and equestrians, nor funds available for
enforcement containing mechanized and motorized vehicles. IMBA
actually refuses to admit to safety issues with other users, and does
not solicit for separate-use trails, using double-speak rhetoric to
confuse the veracity of trail management and user conflict issues.[8]
More seriously, when most mountain bikers cause accidents and
injuries, they speedily leave the scene rather than to help injured
parties.

Fortunately, at the Redding meeting, there were several equestrians
present that discussed safety and disenfranchisement when mountain
bicycles are added to traditional trails. However, there is little
hope that these elements of land management responsibilities will be
contained in reports of “Mountain Bike Planning Strategy.”

The Forest Service has been fined for their attempt to remove
equestrians and packers from public lands ($4.5 million on the Inyo in
2003) based on recorded historical use. Horseback riding is one of
the fastest growing “family” recreation activities in America,
according to the Washington Post, November 20, 2006.[9]

In California alone, a full 70% of the equine industry, including
700,000 horses and 400,000 owners/riders, are primarily users of
recreational trails.[10] Nationwide, these figures are 3.9 million
trail horses and 2 million owners who primarily use horses for
recreational trail riding, a full 70% of the horse and equestrian
population.[11]

The equine economic impact for California is $7 billion per year, the
highest in the nation, and California equestrians employ more
full-time workers than any other state. California equestrians
contribute $210 million in taxes to state and local governments. “When
considering indirect and induced spending, the horse industry annually
generates approximately $102 billion for the U.S. economy.[12] The
International Mountain Bicycle Association reports annually generating
approximately $5 billion for the U.S. economy.

California’s history is rich with historical use and legislative
acknowledgment of hiking and riding trails, such as the California
Riding and Hiking Trail Laws of 1946. I fully believe it is time for
the U.S. Forest Service to re-acknowledge the historic and traditional
use of trails, “footpaths,” as hiking and equestrian recreation, and
refrain from adding mountain bikers to all trails. There are more
appropriate places for mountain bikers to ride, i.e. dirt roads where
the width and line of sight is safer for all users of “multiple-use”
recreation, and separate mountain-bike-only trails.

The mountain bike has no inherent “right” to all the trails, all the
time, especially narrow trails or “footpaths.” according to Bicycle
Trails Council of Marin v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1452 (9th Cir.
1996). If you do not have a copy, I will mail one to you.

I am not against mountain bicycles on public lands. There are right
circumstances and the right kind of trails where mountain bikers
should be permitted. However, opening all trails to multiple-use with
mountain bikers is not safe and it restricts the historical use by
hikers and equestrians, with obvious loss of access. And provisions
for technical trails with obstacles is not a requirement of public
land managers, but should be confined to private land with IMBA
funding, just as horse arenas, rodeos, horse shows, gymkhanas,
cross-country jumping provisions and facilities are provided by
equestrians.

During the “listening sessions” individual mountain bikers commented
that they don’t like riding on trails with hikers and equestrians. As
mountain biking increases and becomes more extreme, they won’t have to
worry about other users because those other users will abandon their
trails, again a failure of the public land managers to provide safe
access for historic user groups.

The “listening session” workgroup breakouts during the USFS-IMBA
meetings gave user groups a good opportunity to share their interests
and concerns, although many more mountain bikers were present. I
found the participants to be willing and able to compromise and
support each other’s interests. While attending such meetings and
groups for trail advocacy around the State of California, it is clear
that IMBA is not willing to compromise their position of putting bikes
on every trail. If IMBA was willing to concede safety concerns and
understand the true need for certain separate-use areas, it is my
studied opinion that there would be less friction between the user
groups, less user conflict, and far fewer injuries on the trails.

USFS Civil Engineer Garrett Villaneuva has written "Risk Management
Plan for Technical Mountain Bicycle Trails in the Lake Tahoe Basin
Management Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service."[13] This booklet is a technical trails guide for new
construction of specialized trails obstacles with degrees of technical
difficulty, all of which should remain a separate use trails system.
It is my opinion that such a trails system should be by special use
permit and not a function of the USFS to plan and fund construction of
such services and facilities. Preference would extend to private land
and private funding.

This is a paragraph from the booklet: "Trails are an important part
of outdoor recreation and are an integral part of experiencing open
spaces. While many factors, such as vistas, seclusion, and exercise
draw people onto trails, the best trails have a "feeling" about them
that is harder to quantify. Trail designer Troy Scott Parker, author
of the acclaimed book “Natural Surface Trails by Design,” accurately
sums up one of our primal connections with trails when he states:
"Dealing with and performing in the face of manageable risk improves
self esteem, provides personal satisfaction, and creates a sense of
accomplishment -- all of which are often sought from outdoor
recreation."[14]

Because risk-taking may be the goal of most mountain bicyclists, they
are certainly in direct conflict with hikers and equestrians who do
not want trail use to be a "risk-taking" sport, but an avenue to enjoy
"vistas, seclusion and exercise." Therefore, it is imperative in the
broad scheme of trails classification for separate trails for any type
of technical mountain biking use, and not allow "technical mountain
biking" on multiple-use trails. What we viewed as extreme ten years
ago has now become traditional, and new extremes are pushed for speed
and maneuvering.

Multiple-use trails, crowded with high-risk adventure sportsmen,
including mountain bikes, motorcycles, ATVs, etc. do not provide
appropriate and safe recreation for hikers and equestrians, and
primarily disenfranchise these historical user groups. There is
little argument if these shared activities take place on Forest
Service and public dirt roads, built and maintained for wheeled access
and safer for hikers and equestrians due to increased line of sight
and width of the road beds.

Quoted from USFS personnel, all trails are considered multiple-use and
"use at your own risk." As the Forest Service is warned and notified
of their inappropriate allowances of conflicting user groups on
multiple-use trails not designed nor maintained with safety standards,
the Forest Service is violating the absolute right of historic users
to protection on trails where the existing use has been footpaths, and
presenting agencies with potential liability issues for severe
injuries and deaths.

Speed kills.

The mountain biker typically travels at threefold and far more the
speed of a hiker or equestrian, leading to his inability to stop or
control his bike when necessary.

Rather than appropriately yielding to foot traffic, the mountain biker
endangers other users by sheer default of his extreme goals. If a
hiker or horse has no place to escape from the confrontation of the
speeding mountain bike/biker, major accidents happen.

The mountain biker has little awareness of his surroundings or other
trails users when speed and technical expertise are primary goals of
his recreation experience, especially on downhill terrain and
switchbacks.

The mountain biker has little patience with other users that impede
his progress. In heavily populated areas, verbal and physical
assaults have been heaped on hikers and equestrians. Hikers and
equestrian trail users enable this bad behavior by getting out of the
way, when they can.

With the advent of USFS technical trails for mountain bikers, the
attention to speed and maneuvering technical obstacles, whether
natural or man-made, takes the mind off safety and consideration of
other trail users, with ultimate high-risk adventurous goals, and
should never take place in a “multiple-use” environment. However, the
use of natural obstacles along trails provides for these same
experiences on multiple-use trails.

Mountain bikers doubled the number of self-inflicted injuries
requiring hospitalization from 1996 to 1997, with exponential
increases since that time. The cost factor to the people of
California is prohibitive, and anticipations of increasing legislation
to protect non-users and the general public from extreme, high-risk
sports is on the horizon.

The Forest Service does not have the ability to provide safe
recreation for all high-risk adventure sports and also continue to
preserve the integrity of the land with its historical use of foot
traffic.

Environmental destruction by wheeled vehicles is an absolute.

It is my opinion and recommendation that the sport of mountain biking
should be contained and limited to separate-use trails and public
roads as multiple-use, especially as the sport increases in numbers
and degrees of “extreme.” Liability within the National Forest,
including all public land managers, could be the future doom of our
historical public use of public lands. Nobody wants that to happen.
Available for any conversations, workshops, or training session
discussions, are members of the California Equestrian Land and Trails
Coalition, representing ~ 60,000 equestrians within California.

[1] USDA Forest Service, Region 5, News Release, November 24, 2006;
USFS Website. See attachment.
[2] IMBA Action Alert, USFS, November 28, 2006; IMBA Website. See
Attachment.
[3] USDA Forest Service Region 5, Mountain Bike Planning Strategy,
November 24, 2006, page 3. See attached printing of Power Point
presentation.
[4] Service-Wide Memorandum of Understanding 06-11132424-076 between
the USDA Forest Service and The International Mountain Bicycling
Association. See attachment.
[5] USDA Forest Service Region 5, Mountain Bike Planning Strategy
Public Input Form. See attachment.
[6] USDA Forest Service Region 5, Mountain Bike Planning Strategy,
November 24, 2006, page 1. See attached printing of Power Point
presentation.
[7] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact
Statement, August 2004, Lake Oroville State Recreation Area, historic
hiking and equestrian trails, denial of California Department of Water
Resources’ application to reclassify trails to multiple-use with
mountain bicycles.
[8] A TRAIL OF ONE’S OWN?, James Hasenhauer, Past President IMBA.
[9] Washington Post, November 20, 2006
[10] Economic Impact of the California Horse Industry, Deloitte,
American Horse Council Foundation 2005
[11] Economic Impact of the Horse Industry on the United States,
Deloitte, American Horse Council Foundation 2005
[12] IBID. Page 3
[13] Risk Management Plan for Technical Mountain Bicycle Trails in the
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, United States Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, July 2006; Garrett Villanueva and IMBA.
See attachment
[14] IBID, page 4.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:55:13 -0800 (PST)
From: a friend
Subject: Fwd: USFS Comment Letter

Dear Mr. Weingardt:


snipola

This is totally irrelevant
unless you're suggesting that
it's better to grant access to
equestrians than to mountain
bikers.

We all know the only common
element to all of your
arguments is not a desire to
preserve the trails or nature
in general, but rather a hate
for mountain bikers. Don't you
think we see that?

cc

cc wrote:

We all know the only common
element to all of your
arguments is not a desire to
preserve the trails or nature
in general, but rather a hate
for mountain bikers. Don't you
think we see that?

You're wrong.

His only common element is to get mountain bikers to validate his
existence by responding to him and arguing with him. This has been
going on for many, many years and you are now the latest incarnation
of his fan club.

Ignore him if you really want to get under his skin.

Reply to him if you want to make him feel all warm and fuzzy.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:34:53 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:55:13 -0800 (PST)
From: a friend
Subject: Fwd: USFS Comment Letter

Dear Mr. Weingardt:


snipola

This is totally irrelevant
unless you're suggesting that
it's better to grant access to
equestrians than to mountain
bikers.

What an idiot! I don't advocate access for ANYONE. DUH! Besides,
everyone already has access to all trails: on foot! DUH!

We all know the only common
element to all of your
arguments is not a desire to
preserve the trails or nature
in general, but rather a hate
for mountain bikers. Don't you
think we see that?

cc
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:58:08 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

cc wrote:

We all know the only common
element to all of your
arguments is not a desire to
preserve the trails or nature
in general, but rather a hate
for mountain bikers. Don't you
think we see that?

You're wrong.

His only common element is to get mountain bikers to validate his
existence by responding to him and arguing with him. This has been
going on for many, many years and you are now the latest incarnation
of his fan club.

Ignore him if you really want to get under his skin.

Reply to him if you want to make him feel all warm and fuzzy.

What a fool! I don't care either way. If you ignore me, no one can
refute me. On the other hand, if you try to post, STILL no one can
refute me. DUH!

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande