George Wuerthner on Mountain Biking

For a very interesting, insightful look at the mountain biking and
wilderness issue, check this out....

http://www.newwest.net/main/article/...not_convinced/

Mountain biking and wilderness--not convinced

By George Wuerthner, 5-12-09

This past weekend, I was hiking in the Mount Hardesty proposed
wilderness near Eugene, Oregon. The Mount Hardesty area was among the
roadless lands that were included in the 1984 Oregon Wilderness bill.
It was cut at the last minute to accommodate an “acreage” limit
imposed by then Oregon Senator Hatfield. So the Mount Hardesty awaits
wilderness protection.

The Mount Hardesty area is not spectacular*there are no vast vistas or
snow capped peaks. It is, however, one of the last unlogged low
elevation old growth forest tracts near Eugene. I often took my
children there to hike when they were small because the trails were
easy to hike, but I would not recommend the trails to parents with
children today.

Since my children were born, mountain bike use of this area has
increased dramatically. Because Mount Hardesty did not obtain
wilderness status in 1984, it is today overrun by mountain bikers. I
barely missed being run over this weekend and was run off the trail by
several mountain bikers. In some ways mountain bikers are worse than
motorized thrillcraft because they are silent. It is easier for them
to sneak up on you. After several close calls, I found myself,
continuously looking over my shoulder to make sure that another bike
wasn’t barreling down on me. It definitely changed what had been a
relaxing and contemplative walk into a nerve-racking ramble.

The mountain bikers had torn up the trail in all the wet spots.
Finding one’s way around these mud holes may be a small inconvenience,
and admittedly as mountain bikers like to point out horses can do as
much or more damage to the trails, but does that justify yet another
use that degrades the trails or the experience of other forest
visitors? So that has me thinking about whether wilderness advocates
should accept mountain biking as a potential new use in wilderness
areas. Here’s my two cents worth.

SHOULD MOUNTAIN BIKING BE EMBRACED?

I have been thinking a lot lately about mountain biking and
wilderness, in part, because New West’s Outdoor Columnist, Bill
Schneider, recently published a couple of thoughtful columns
suggesting that wildlands enthusiasts join with mountain bikers to
protect roadless lands from motorized uses. (To read Bill’s essays
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article.../L41/#comments
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article...ilderness_lite )

To avoid endless conflicts over wilderness designation, Schneider
suggests that Congress should either permit mountain bikes in
designated wilderness or create another category of land designation
not quite wilderness, but something protected from industrial
development like logging, oil and gas, motorized use, and mining,
which nevertheless permits uses like mountain biking, and perhaps
other non-motorized forms of recreation like para gliding,
skateboarding and whatever else might be invented. Schneider’s goal is
to protect wildlands. He is less bothered by the term for these lands
than making sure the roadless lands remain protected from industrial
development.

I share Schneider’s concerns that the longer we wait to put lands
under some kind of land protection--whether it is called wilderness or
wilderness lite, the greater the chances that industrial uses will
destroy their wildlands value. Though I believe Schneider has some
strong arguments and he may still convince me that his ideas should be
embraced, I remain at this time unconvinced that opting for permitting
mountain bikes in wilderness or supporting some new land designation
is ultimately a wise move.

Is it wise to compromise strong wildlands protection to garner support
from users who have no interest in wildlands other than using it as an
outdoor gymnasium? Those mountain bikers who genuinely care about
wild country*which I count myself as one*are going to support
wilderness designation whether we can ride a bike there or not.

Before I go further, I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to
mountain biking –in appropriate locations. I own a mountain bike. I
ride it several times a week in the warmer months. I admit riding on a
challenging trail can be fun. But one doesn’t need to ride in
wildlands to have fun. There are plenty of old roads that provide
miles and miles of access.

It would be nice if mountain bikers worked to close roads, and sought
to restore lands previously damaged by mining, oil and gas
exploration, logging and other development and lobbied to maintain
those areas for mountain biking and other non-motorized recreation.
But greater access and intrusion into otherwise undeveloped wildlands
is something that I think should be prohibited. What we need is less
human access and the problems that excessive access creates.

VALUES OF WILDERNESS

There are many values to wilderness regardless of whether we
“recreate” in it or not: protection of watersheds, wildlife habitat,
and ecological processes. People recreate in wildlands as
well*fishing, hiking, hunting, camping, canoeing, and so forth are all
well-known wilderness activities--but that is not the only reason or
the main reason I advocate for wildlands protection.

Wilderness designation is also an act of restraint where we purposely
limit our technology*particularly the technology that allows us to
pass through the landscape rapidly. Entering wilderness on its terms,
not our terms, is part of the value of wilderness. And by accepting
this restraint we at least create the opportunity to see the land as
something other than just a place to “use” but to come to know it in
more intimate terms. Careening on a mountain bike down a steep trail,
with your entire focus on the ten feet of trail in front of you
doesn’t lend itself to contemplation, or appreciation of the land,
other than how it might challenge your mountain biking ability.

MOUNTAIN BIKERS ARE JUST A NON-MOTORIZED FORM OF THRILLCRAFT

There is a lot of what I might call “causal” mountain bikers. We use
our bikes primarily as transportation to get from point A to point B,
without using a motor. Just as I use my 4WD pick up for
transportation, not for challenging myself by tearing up the landscape
as many ORVers do. I don’t feel compelled to drive my pick up off
road for kicks, nor speed around the backcountry on my bike to
challenge myself on bumpy trails or roads. It is not the destination
so much as the journey that is important to mine and most other
wildlands hikers. In other words, we are out to enjoy the landscape we
travel through as much as the final destination*if there be one at
all.

By contrast, there’s an implicit selection by mountain bikers for
quantity of miles traveled and the challenge of the trail, over the
quality of the natural world experience. Riding on a rough trail
requires concentration that makes it difficult to observe one’s
surroundings. Mountain bikers are often oblivious to their
surroundings, except as regards the challenge of the trail. Those who
do enjoy those kinds of experiences are more interested in thrills
than transportation, and culturally they are no difference in my view
than the dirt bikers who love to ride trails and challenge themselves
on steep hills. Too many mountain bikers see Nature primarily as a
giant gymnasium or sandbox*unfortunately in using the land as a
gymnasium, they harm the land.

Obviously there is challenge and thrills that all of us experience at
one time or another while wandering wildlands. I get a thrill from a
nice downhill run in fresh powder on my skis. I’ve been challenged by
a sea crossing among big waves in my kayak. I enjoy running rapids in
my canoe. My skis, kayak and canoe are how I travel in wild places,
the activity itself is not the prime purpose of the trip.

MOUNTAIN BIKE DO DAMAGE THE LAND

Mountain bikes do damage the land. They cause soil erosion, soil
compaction, create tracks that alter water drainage, and spread weeds,
among other impacts. Mountain bikers, because of the greater ability
to travel further with less effort, have a greater opportunity to harm
wildlife and plants, particularly sensitive species like grizzly
bears.

Of course, one can argue that other uses, some permitted in wilderness
like horses, also damage the land. But the argument that other uses do
damage is no reason to permit the introduction of more damage. It
might be reasonable to debate whether mountain bikes do less harm than
say horses or hikers, but that is not the issue so it is irrelevant.
Hiking is always permitted, and horses are permitted in some places
(but not all). The issue is whether mountain bikes damage the land and
whether we should expand the areas open for more ecological damage by
enlarging the areas open to mountain bikes.

Secondly by the greater distances they can travel in a typical day or
outing, even if things like soil erosion were similar between say
hikers or mountain bikers, the greater distances that are traveled
greatly increases the damage to trails.

MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESERVE ACCESS

This is a spurious argument since mountain bikers already have
access*just like everyone else*they can walk. It’s just their
thrillcraft that are not welcome everywhere.

UNDEFINED LANDS WILL CREATE NEW LEGAL CHALLENGES

Assuming that Congress would create a new “Wilderness Lite” category
as Schneider suggests, I can guarantee that it will invite endless
legal challenges. No matter how well thought the legislation might be,
there will be attempts to push the boundaries. If the law didn’t
expressly deny use by say skateboards, would skateboards be legal?
Every new invention or modification of an existing use would invite
yet more legal wrangling and administrative law. We’d see a lot of
energy going into defending the land instead of working towards new
wilderness areas. We don’t need another distraction.

POLITICANS WILL OPT FOR THE “LITE” END OF WILDERNESS

I also fear that such a new category will provide a convenient way for
politicians to avoid controversy by opting for a less protective land
status. Bill even concedes that this may be the case in his essay*that
we might see the end of new wilderness areas. I’m not yet ready to
give up on wilderness designation. The Omnibus Public Lands Bill
proved, if it proved anything, that we can still pass meaningful
wilderness legislation without permitting mountain bikes in
wilderness.

MOUNTAIN BIKERS LACK RESPECT FOR OTHER USERS, REGULATIONS OR THE LAND

Like their counterparts in the motorized thrillcraft world, mountain
bikers often lack any respect for regulations and the land. I’ve had
countless encounters and seen the tracks on trails of mountain bikers
which have ignored closure signs. Worse, I’ve seen numerous new
trails and routes pioneered across the landscape without any prior
agency review or permission. There’s a reason why the Forest Service
and BLM plan things like roads and trails –to avoid degrading
sensitive environments. But like their thrillcraft cousins, mountain
bikers don’t seem to care how their activities affects the land or
other users.

SPIRITUAL VALUE OF WILDLANDS

There are many reasons why many of us support wilderness designation,
but certainly one of the reasons is that it is place where people can
connect to the natural world. By going slow and through careful
observation, one can gain respect for the surroundings one sees, and
is aware of things that we often miss in our daily routines. Certainly
not everyone that goes into wilderness is looking for a spiritual
revelation or even to experience the natural world, but that doesn’t
mean we should give up on the possibility for the realization of those
values to accommodate other uses. Just as we would be applauded if
someone decided to get their kicks doing tricks on the pews in a
church, many of us are revolted when we see mountain bikers performing
feats on mountain trails. Not that I don’t think those acts of bravo
are not amazing or lack skill, but I do not think it’s something that
one needs to do in wildlands.

WILDERNESS STILL BEST IDEA

This brings me back to the issue of wilderness designation. I realize
as Bill Schneider does that broadening support for more wilderness
designation or at least protection from industrialization is critical.
There is a strategic advantage to neutralizing the opposition to
wilderness by mountain bikers. Nevertheless, hard core mountain bikers
(as opposed to causal bikers like myself) are still a minority, though
vocal. Just like their motorized thrillcraft cousins, they make a lot
of noise, far more than their numbers would suggest. For myself, I
would rather continue to fight for pure wilderness designation than
change the wilderness act to accommodate mountain biking. I surely
believe it’s worth discussing wilderness proposals with mountain bike
activists to avoid conflicts where that is possible. However, where
their usage compromises the integrity of a larger protected area, we
should not give up on advocacy for the wildlands values, even if that
engenders opposition from that quarter. Hopefully over time mountain
bikers will recognize that there are reasons for protecting lands that
goes beyond their personal desires for an exciting backcountry ride
and they will join with wildlands defenders to advocate for the
highest possible land protection--namely designated wilderness.




Comments

By T Lewis, 5-12-09
George, yours is the voice of reason on this contentious topic. Well
done.
By bearbait, 5-12-09
George: Given the USFS can regulate just about anything on land in
their care, why is Wilderness the be all and end all of land
protection, and if land is not designated Big W Wilderness, alas, all
is lost?

If the USFS wanted to keep mountain bikes out of an area, they can. If
they want to keep horses out of an area, they can, although they
themselves use packers and pack strings seasonally for all sorts of
purposes to haul freight to back country projects and administrative
sites. Or ATVs, what have you.

Roadless is pretty much a finite limitation on use. Roadless has
protected the special places quite handily for quite a while. And so
has the National Park designation, but NREPA is written to put
National Park lands inside its purview and regulation. If I were in
the Park Service, I would see this as an indictment of the agency's
stewardship. That inclusion is tainted with the language of zealots,
and from those I tend to shy.

Mountain biking is a youth deal. It is about speed, about adrenal
glands. And it is about the defiance of youth to authority and
regulation. Sixteen year old kids die going too fast in cars, on skis,
ATVs, and even bicycles. A sixteen year old on a mountain bike, with
little or no serious law enforcement regulation to control his or her
judgement, could give a damn about your hiking in solitude. That is
who they are. Some are 40, and still trying to be 16. No matter.
Mountain biking is not about to be a staid sport, ever. It is the
outlaw mentality of macho-man. I have witnessed it. I have been right
there at the property line, with the landowner, who asked that the
mountain bikers stop, turn around, and not cross his land. 40
something professionals. University, high tech kinda guys. They just
glared, said "F-you," and rode right by the landowner. Noon time in a
college town, and public land everywhere. Evidently they are special
people. Entitled. "I am fit and on a bicycle, therefore I am better
than your property right." I learned a lot about that crowd that day.
And what is better, the guy built a mineral surface trail that would
not create fall line erosion, signage and all, and the mountain bikers
ignored it and rode right down the ever increasing ditch created by
their tires. If it were my property, a keg of roofing nails would be
spread to put iron in the soil.

Yeah, George. I don't like mountain bikers. But they should have
access to USFS land. It is, after all, public land. But not in
Wilderness. In roadless, sure. But there has to be respite from their
presence somewhere in the forest. One would think that all the cat
tracks and clear cuts, and old jeep and fire roads would provide a lot
of opportunity. Some old guy once told me that the sure way to kill a
deal is to want it all. He said to me "Hummer, if you can get 95% of
what you think you should, jump on it. The whole deal could disappear
like a fart in a windstorm, and you get all of nothing. Part of
something, Hummer, is better than all of nothing." (The Hummer
nickname came from a joke I told about a little martini bar, a few
stools, a cool jazz pianist, and great drinks. So this guy was sitting
there, and a monkey ran down the bar, stopped, and sat on his glass,
his monkey balls soaking in the best martini he had ever tasted. The
bartender pretended not see. So the drinker asks the cool jazz pianist
if he knew whose monkey just dropped his balls in my martini and the
pianist replied "No, man, but if you can hum a couple bars, maybe I
can pick it." The siderod called me Hummer forever after.
By George Wuerthner, 5-12-09
--
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 in message
...
For a very interesting, insightful look at the mountain biking and
wilderness issue, check this out....

http://www.newwest.net/main/article/...not_convinced/

Mountain biking and wilderness--not convinced

By George Wuerthner, 5-12-09

This past weekend, I was hiking in the Mount Hardesty proposed
wilderness near Eugene, Oregon. The Mount Hardesty area was among the
roadless lands that were included in the 1984 Oregon Wilderness bill.
It was cut at the last minute to accommodate an "acreage" limit
imposed by then Oregon Senator Hatfield. So the Mount Hardesty awaits
wilderness protection.

The Mount Hardesty area is not spectacular*there are no vast vistas or
snow capped peaks. It is, however, one of the last unlogged low
elevation old growth forest tracts near Eugene. I often took my
children there to hike when they were small because the trails were
easy to hike, but I would not recommend the trails to parents with
children today.

Since my children were born, mountain bike use of this area has
increased dramatically. Because Mount Hardesty did not obtain
wilderness status in 1984, it is today overrun by mountain bikers. I
barely missed being run over this weekend and was run off the trail by
several mountain bikers. In some ways mountain bikers are worse than
motorized thrillcraft because they are silent. It is easier for them
to sneak up on you. After several close calls, I found myself,
continuously looking over my shoulder to make sure that another bike
wasn't barreling down on me. It definitely changed what had been a
relaxing and contemplative walk into a nerve-racking ramble.

The mountain bikers had torn up the trail in all the wet spots.
Finding one's way around these mud holes may be a small inconvenience,
and admittedly as mountain bikers like to point out horses can do as
much or more damage to the trails, but does that justify yet another
use that degrades the trails or the experience of other forest
visitors? So that has me thinking about whether wilderness advocates
should accept mountain biking as a potential new use in wilderness
areas. Here's my two cents worth.

SHOULD MOUNTAIN BIKING BE EMBRACED?

I have been thinking a lot lately about mountain biking and
wilderness, in part, because New West's Outdoor Columnist, Bill
Schneider, recently published a couple of thoughtful columns
suggesting that wildlands enthusiasts join with mountain bikers to
protect roadless lands from motorized uses. (To read Bill's essays
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article.../L41/#comments
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article...ilderness_lite )

To avoid endless conflicts over wilderness designation, Schneider
suggests that Congress should either permit mountain bikes in
designated wilderness or create another category of land designation
not quite wilderness, but something protected from industrial
development like logging, oil and gas, motorized use, and mining,
which nevertheless permits uses like mountain biking, and perhaps
other non-motorized forms of recreation like para gliding,
skateboarding and whatever else might be invented. Schneider's goal is
to protect wildlands. He is less bothered by the term for these lands
than making sure the roadless lands remain protected from industrial
development.

I share Schneider's concerns that the longer we wait to put lands
under some kind of land protection--whether it is called wilderness or
wilderness lite, the greater the chances that industrial uses will
destroy their wildlands value. Though I believe Schneider has some
strong arguments and he may still convince me that his ideas should be
embraced, I remain at this time unconvinced that opting for permitting
mountain bikes in wilderness or supporting some new land designation
is ultimately a wise move.

Is it wise to compromise strong wildlands protection to garner support
from users who have no interest in wildlands other than using it as an
outdoor gymnasium? Those mountain bikers who genuinely care about
wild country*which I count myself as one*are going to support
wilderness designation whether we can ride a bike there or not.

Before I go further, I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to
mountain biking -in appropriate locations. I own a mountain bike. I
ride it several times a week in the warmer months. I admit riding on a
challenging trail can be fun. But one doesn't need to ride in
wildlands to have fun. There are plenty of old roads that provide
miles and miles of access.

It would be nice if mountain bikers worked to close roads, and sought
to restore lands previously damaged by mining, oil and gas
exploration, logging and other development and lobbied to maintain
those areas for mountain biking and other non-motorized recreation.
But greater access and intrusion into otherwise undeveloped wildlands
is something that I think should be prohibited. What we need is less
human access and the problems that excessive access creates.

VALUES OF WILDERNESS

There are many values to wilderness regardless of whether we
"recreate" in it or not: protection of watersheds, wildlife habitat,
and ecological processes. People recreate in wildlands as
well*fishing, hiking, hunting, camping, canoeing, and so forth are all
well-known wilderness activities--but that is not the only reason or
the main reason I advocate for wildlands protection.

Wilderness designation is also an act of restraint where we purposely
limit our technology*particularly the technology that allows us to
pass through the landscape rapidly. Entering wilderness on its terms,
not our terms, is part of the value of wilderness. And by accepting
this restraint we at least create the opportunity to see the land as
something other than just a place to "use" but to come to know it in
more intimate terms. Careening on a mountain bike down a steep trail,
with your entire focus on the ten feet of trail in front of you
doesn't lend itself to contemplation, or appreciation of the land,
other than how it might challenge your mountain biking ability.

MOUNTAIN BIKERS ARE JUST A NON-MOTORIZED FORM OF THRILLCRAFT

There is a lot of what I might call "causal" mountain bikers. We use
our bikes primarily as transportation to get from point A to point B,
without using a motor. Just as I use my 4WD pick up for
transportation, not for challenging myself by tearing up the landscape
as many ORVers do. I don't feel compelled to drive my pick up off
road for kicks, nor speed around the backcountry on my bike to
challenge myself on bumpy trails or roads. It is not the destination
so much as the journey that is important to mine and most other
wildlands hikers. In other words, we are out to enjoy the landscape we
travel through as much as the final destination*if there be one at
all.

By contrast, there's an implicit selection by mountain bikers for
quantity of miles traveled and the challenge of the trail, over the
quality of the natural world experience. Riding on a rough trail
requires concentration that makes it difficult to observe one's
surroundings. Mountain bikers are often oblivious to their
surroundings, except as regards the challenge of the trail. Those who
do enjoy those kinds of experiences are more interested in thrills
than transportation, and culturally they are no difference in my view
than the dirt bikers who love to ride trails and challenge themselves
on steep hills. Too many mountain bikers see Nature primarily as a
giant gymnasium or sandbox*unfortunately in using the land as a
gymnasium, they harm the land.

Obviously there is challenge and thrills that all of us experience at
one time or another while wandering wildlands. I get a thrill from a
nice downhill run in fresh powder on my skis. I've been challenged by
a sea crossing among big waves in my kayak. I enjoy running rapids in
my canoe. My skis, kayak and canoe are how I travel in wild places,
the activity itself is not the prime purpose of the trip.

MOUNTAIN BIKE DO DAMAGE THE LAND

Mountain bikes do damage the land. They cause soil erosion, soil
compaction, create tracks that alter water drainage, and spread weeds,
among other impacts. Mountain bikers, because of the greater ability
to travel further with less effort, have a greater opportunity to harm
wildlife and plants, particularly sensitive species like grizzly
bears.

Of course, one can argue that other uses, some permitted in wilderness
like horses, also damage the land. But the argument that other uses do
damage is no reason to permit the introduction of more damage. It
might be reasonable to debate whether mountain bikes do less harm than
say horses or hikers, but that is not the issue so it is irrelevant.
Hiking is always permitted, and horses are permitted in some places
(but not all). The issue is whether mountain bikes damage the land and
whether we should expand the areas open for more ecological damage by
enlarging the areas open to mountain bikes.

Secondly by the greater distances they can travel in a typical day or
outing, even if things like soil erosion were similar between say
hikers or mountain bikers, the greater distances that are traveled
greatly increases the damage to trails.

MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESERVE ACCESS

This is a spurious argument since mountain bikers already have
access*just like everyone else*they can walk. It's just their
thrillcraft that are not welcome everywhere.

UNDEFINED LANDS WILL CREATE NEW LEGAL CHALLENGES

Assuming that Congress would create a new "Wilderness Lite" category
as Schneider suggests, I can guarantee that it will invite endless
legal challenges. No matter how well thought the legislation might be,
there will be attempts to push the boundaries. If the law didn't
expressly deny use by say skateboards, would skateboards be legal?
Every new invention or modification of an existing use would invite
yet more legal wrangling and administrative law. We'd see a lot of
energy going into defending the land instead of working towards new
wilderness areas. We don't need another distraction.

POLITICANS WILL OPT FOR THE "LITE" END OF WILDERNESS

I also fear that such a new category will provide a convenient way for
politicians to avoid controversy by opting for a less protective land
status. Bill even concedes that this may be the case in his essay*that
we might see the end of new wilderness areas. I'm not yet ready to
give up on wilderness designation. The Omnibus Public Lands Bill
proved, if it proved anything, that we can still pass meaningful
wilderness legislation without permitting mountain bikes in
wilderness.

MOUNTAIN BIKERS LACK RESPECT FOR OTHER USERS, REGULATIONS OR THE LAND

Like their counterparts in the motorized thrillcraft world, mountain
bikers often lack any respect for regulations and the land. I've had
countless encounters and seen the tracks on trails of mountain bikers
which have ignored closure signs. Worse, I've seen numerous new
trails and routes pioneered across the landscape without any prior
agency review or permission. There's a reason why the Forest Service
and BLM plan things like roads and trails -to avoid degrading
sensitive environments. But like their thrillcraft cousins, mountain
bikers don't seem to care how their activities affects the land or
other users.

SPIRITUAL VALUE OF WILDLANDS

There are many reasons why many of us support wilderness designation,
but certainly one of the reasons is that it is place where people can
connect to the natural world. By going slow and through careful
observation, one can gain respect for the surroundings one sees, and
is aware of things that we often miss in our daily routines. Certainly
not everyone that goes into wilderness is looking for a spiritual
revelation or even to experience the natural world, but that doesn't
mean we should give up on the possibility for the realization of those
values to accommodate other uses. Just as we would be applauded if
someone decided to get their kicks doing tricks on the pews in a
church, many of us are revolted when we see mountain bikers performing
feats on mountain trails. Not that I don't think those acts of bravo
are not amazing or lack skill, but I do not think it's something that
one needs to do in wildlands.

WILDERNESS STILL BEST IDEA

This brings me back to the issue of wilderness designation. I realize
as Bill Schneider does that broadening support for more wilderness
designation or at least protection from industrialization is critical.
There is a strategic advantage to neutralizing the opposition to
wilderness by mountain bikers. Nevertheless, hard core mountain bikers
(as opposed to causal bikers like myself) are still a minority, though
vocal. Just like their motorized thrillcraft cousins, they make a lot
of noise, far more than their numbers would suggest. For myself, I
would rather continue to fight for pure wilderness designation than
change the wilderness act to accommodate mountain biking. I surely
believe it's worth discussing wilderness proposals with mountain bike
activists to avoid conflicts where that is possible. However, where
their usage compromises the integrity of a larger protected area, we
should not give up on advocacy for the wildlands values, even if that
engenders opposition from that quarter. Hopefully over time mountain
bikers will recognize that there are reasons for protecting lands that
goes beyond their personal desires for an exciting backcountry ride
and they will join with wildlands defenders to advocate for the
highest possible land protection--namely designated wilderness.




Comments

By T Lewis, 5-12-09
George, yours is the voice of reason on this contentious topic. Well
done.
By bearbait, 5-12-09
George: Given the USFS can regulate just about anything on land in
their care, why is Wilderness the be all and end all of land
protection, and if land is not designated Big W Wilderness, alas, all
is lost?

If the USFS wanted to keep mountain bikes out of an area, they can. If
they want to keep horses out of an area, they can, although they
themselves use packers and pack strings seasonally for all sorts of
purposes to haul freight to back country projects and administrative
sites. Or ATVs, what have you.

Roadless is pretty much a finite limitation on use. Roadless has
protected the special places quite handily for quite a while. And so
has the National Park designation, but NREPA is written to put
National Park lands inside its purview and regulation. If I were in
the Park Service, I would see this as an indictment of the agency's
stewardship. That inclusion is tainted with the language of zealots,
and from those I tend to shy.

Mountain biking is a youth deal. It is about speed, about adrenal
glands. And it is about the defiance of youth to authority and
regulation. Sixteen year old kids die going too fast in cars, on skis,
ATVs, and even bicycles. A sixteen year old on a mountain bike, with
little or no serious law enforcement regulation to control his or her
judgement, could give a damn about your hiking in solitude. That is
who they are. Some are 40, and still trying to be 16. No matter.
Mountain biking is not about to be a staid sport, ever. It is the
outlaw mentality of macho-man. I have witnessed it. I have been right
there at the property line, with the landowner, who asked that the
mountain bikers stop, turn around, and not cross his land. 40
something professionals. University, high tech kinda guys. They just
glared, said "F-you," and rode right by the landowner. Noon time in a
college town, and public land everywhere. Evidently they are special
people. Entitled. "I am fit and on a bicycle, therefore I am better
than your property right." I learned a lot about that crowd that day.
And what is better, the guy built a mineral surface trail that would
not create fall line erosion, signage and all, and the mountain bikers
ignored it and rode right down the ever increasing ditch created by
their tires. If it were my property, a keg of roofing nails would be
spread to put iron in the soil.

Yeah, George. I don't like mountain bikers. But they should have
access to USFS land. It is, after all, public land. But not in
Wilderness. In roadless, sure. But there has to be respite from their
presence somewhere in the forest. One would think that all the cat
tracks and clear cuts, and old jeep and fire roads would provide a lot
of opportunity. Some old guy once told me that the sure way to kill a
deal is to want it all. He said to me "Hummer, if you can get 95% of
what you think you should, jump on it. The whole deal could disappear
like a fart in a windstorm, and you get all of nothing. Part of
something, Hummer, is better than all of nothing." (The Hummer
nickname came from a joke I told about a little martini bar, a few
stools, a cool jazz pianist, and great drinks. So this guy was sitting
there, and a monkey ran down the bar, stopped, and sat on his glass,
his monkey balls soaking in the best martini he had ever tasted. The
bartender pretended not see. So the drinker asks the cool jazz pianist
if he knew whose monkey just dropped his balls in my martini and the
pianist replied "No, man, but if you can hum a couple bars, maybe I
can pick it." The siderod called me Hummer forever after.
By George Wuerthner, 5-12-09
--
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

Another Kook,

On Thu, 14 May 2009 11:56:45 -0500, "DI" wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
For a very interesting, insightful look at the mountain biking and
wilderness issue, check this out....

http://www.newwest.net/main/article/...not_convinced/

Mountain biking and wilderness--not convinced

By George Wuerthner, 5-12-09

This past weekend, I was hiking in the Mount Hardesty proposed
wilderness near Eugene, Oregon. The Mount Hardesty area was among the
roadless lands that were included in the 1984 Oregon Wilderness bill.
It was cut at the last minute to accommodate an "acreage" limit
imposed by then Oregon Senator Hatfield. So the Mount Hardesty awaits
wilderness protection.

The Mount Hardesty area is not spectacular*there are no vast vistas or
snow capped peaks. It is, however, one of the last unlogged low
elevation old growth forest tracts near Eugene. I often took my
children there to hike when they were small because the trails were
easy to hike, but I would not recommend the trails to parents with
children today.

Since my children were born, mountain bike use of this area has
increased dramatically. Because Mount Hardesty did not obtain
wilderness status in 1984, it is today overrun by mountain bikers. I
barely missed being run over this weekend and was run off the trail by
several mountain bikers. In some ways mountain bikers are worse than
motorized thrillcraft because they are silent. It is easier for them
to sneak up on you. After several close calls, I found myself,
continuously looking over my shoulder to make sure that another bike
wasn't barreling down on me. It definitely changed what had been a
relaxing and contemplative walk into a nerve-racking ramble.

The mountain bikers had torn up the trail in all the wet spots.
Finding one's way around these mud holes may be a small inconvenience,
and admittedly as mountain bikers like to point out horses can do as
much or more damage to the trails, but does that justify yet another
use that degrades the trails or the experience of other forest
visitors? So that has me thinking about whether wilderness advocates
should accept mountain biking as a potential new use in wilderness
areas. Here's my two cents worth.

SHOULD MOUNTAIN BIKING BE EMBRACED?

I have been thinking a lot lately about mountain biking and
wilderness, in part, because New West's Outdoor Columnist, Bill
Schneider, recently published a couple of thoughtful columns
suggesting that wildlands enthusiasts join with mountain bikers to
protect roadless lands from motorized uses. (To read Bill's essays
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article.../L41/#comments
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article...ilderness_lite )

To avoid endless conflicts over wilderness designation, Schneider
suggests that Congress should either permit mountain bikes in
designated wilderness or create another category of land designation
not quite wilderness, but something protected from industrial
development like logging, oil and gas, motorized use, and mining,
which nevertheless permits uses like mountain biking, and perhaps
other non-motorized forms of recreation like para gliding,
skateboarding and whatever else might be invented. Schneider's goal is
to protect wildlands. He is less bothered by the term for these lands
than making sure the roadless lands remain protected from industrial
development.

I share Schneider's concerns that the longer we wait to put lands
under some kind of land protection--whether it is called wilderness or
wilderness lite, the greater the chances that industrial uses will
destroy their wildlands value. Though I believe Schneider has some
strong arguments and he may still convince me that his ideas should be
embraced, I remain at this time unconvinced that opting for permitting
mountain bikes in wilderness or supporting some new land designation
is ultimately a wise move.

Is it wise to compromise strong wildlands protection to garner support
from users who have no interest in wildlands other than using it as an
outdoor gymnasium? Those mountain bikers who genuinely care about
wild country*which I count myself as one*are going to support
wilderness designation whether we can ride a bike there or not.

Before I go further, I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to
mountain biking -in appropriate locations. I own a mountain bike. I
ride it several times a week in the warmer months. I admit riding on a
challenging trail can be fun. But one doesn't need to ride in
wildlands to have fun. There are plenty of old roads that provide
miles and miles of access.

It would be nice if mountain bikers worked to close roads, and sought
to restore lands previously damaged by mining, oil and gas
exploration, logging and other development and lobbied to maintain
those areas for mountain biking and other non-motorized recreation.
But greater access and intrusion into otherwise undeveloped wildlands
is something that I think should be prohibited. What we need is less
human access and the problems that excessive access creates.

VALUES OF WILDERNESS

There are many values to wilderness regardless of whether we
"recreate" in it or not: protection of watersheds, wildlife habitat,
and ecological processes. People recreate in wildlands as
well*fishing, hiking, hunting, camping, canoeing, and so forth are all
well-known wilderness activities--but that is not the only reason or
the main reason I advocate for wildlands protection.

Wilderness designation is also an act of restraint where we purposely
limit our technology*particularly the technology that allows us to
pass through the landscape rapidly. Entering wilderness on its terms,
not our terms, is part of the value of wilderness. And by accepting
this restraint we at least create the opportunity to see the land as
something other than just a place to "use" but to come to know it in
more intimate terms. Careening on a mountain bike down a steep trail,
with your entire focus on the ten feet of trail in front of you
doesn't lend itself to contemplation, or appreciation of the land,
other than how it might challenge your mountain biking ability.

MOUNTAIN BIKERS ARE JUST A NON-MOTORIZED FORM OF THRILLCRAFT

There is a lot of what I might call "causal" mountain bikers. We use
our bikes primarily as transportation to get from point A to point B,
without using a motor. Just as I use my 4WD pick up for
transportation, not for challenging myself by tearing up the landscape
as many ORVers do. I don't feel compelled to drive my pick up off
road for kicks, nor speed around the backcountry on my bike to
challenge myself on bumpy trails or roads. It is not the destination
so much as the journey that is important to mine and most other
wildlands hikers. In other words, we are out to enjoy the landscape we
travel through as much as the final destination*if there be one at
all.

By contrast, there's an implicit selection by mountain bikers for
quantity of miles traveled and the challenge of the trail, over the
quality of the natural world experience. Riding on a rough trail
requires concentration that makes it difficult to observe one's
surroundings. Mountain bikers are often oblivious to their
surroundings, except as regards the challenge of the trail. Those who
do enjoy those kinds of experiences are more interested in thrills
than transportation, and culturally they are no difference in my view
than the dirt bikers who love to ride trails and challenge themselves
on steep hills. Too many mountain bikers see Nature primarily as a
giant gymnasium or sandbox*unfortunately in using the land as a
gymnasium, they harm the land.

Obviously there is challenge and thrills that all of us experience at
one time or another while wandering wildlands. I get a thrill from a
nice downhill run in fresh powder on my skis. I've been challenged by
a sea crossing among big waves in my kayak. I enjoy running rapids in
my canoe. My skis, kayak and canoe are how I travel in wild places,
the activity itself is not the prime purpose of the trip.

MOUNTAIN BIKE DO DAMAGE THE LAND

Mountain bikes do damage the land. They cause soil erosion, soil
compaction, create tracks that alter water drainage, and spread weeds,
among other impacts. Mountain bikers, because of the greater ability
to travel further with less effort, have a greater opportunity to harm
wildlife and plants, particularly sensitive species like grizzly
bears.

Of course, one can argue that other uses, some permitted in wilderness
like horses, also damage the land. But the argument that other uses do
damage is no reason to permit the introduction of more damage. It
might be reasonable to debate whether mountain bikes do less harm than
say horses or hikers, but that is not the issue so it is irrelevant.
Hiking is always permitted, and horses are permitted in some places
(but not all). The issue is whether mountain bikes damage the land and
whether we should expand the areas open for more ecological damage by
enlarging the areas open to mountain bikes.

Secondly by the greater distances they can travel in a typical day or
outing, even if things like soil erosion were similar between say
hikers or mountain bikers, the greater distances that are traveled
greatly increases the damage to trails.

MOUNTAIN BIKERS DESERVE ACCESS

This is a spurious argument since mountain bikers already have
access*just like everyone else*they can walk. It's just their
thrillcraft that are not welcome everywhere.

UNDEFINED LANDS WILL CREATE NEW LEGAL CHALLENGES

Assuming that Congress would create a new "Wilderness Lite" category
as Schneider suggests, I can guarantee that it will invite endless
legal challenges. No matter how well thought the legislation might be,
there will be attempts to push the boundaries. If the law didn't
expressly deny use by say skateboards, would skateboards be legal?
Every new invention or modification of an existing use would invite
yet more legal wrangling and administrative law. We'd see a lot of
energy going into defending the land instead of working towards new
wilderness areas. We don't need another distraction.

POLITICANS WILL OPT FOR THE "LITE" END OF WILDERNESS

I also fear that such a new category will provide a convenient way for
politicians to avoid controversy by opting for a less protective land
status. Bill even concedes that this may be the case in his essay*that
we might see the end of new wilderness areas. I'm not yet ready to
give up on wilderness designation. The Omnibus Public Lands Bill
proved, if it proved anything, that we can still pass meaningful
wilderness legislation without permitting mountain bikes in
wilderness.

MOUNTAIN BIKERS LACK RESPECT FOR OTHER USERS, REGULATIONS OR THE LAND

Like their counterparts in the motorized thrillcraft world, mountain
bikers often lack any respect for regulations and the land. I've had
countless encounters and seen the tracks on trails of mountain bikers
which have ignored closure signs. Worse, I've seen numerous new
trails and routes pioneered across the landscape without any prior
agency review or permission. There's a reason why the Forest Service
and BLM plan things like roads and trails -to avoid degrading
sensitive environments. But like their thrillcraft cousins, mountain
bikers don't seem to care how their activities affects the land or
other users.

SPIRITUAL VALUE OF WILDLANDS

There are many reasons why many of us support wilderness designation,
but certainly one of the reasons is that it is place where people can
connect to the natural world. By going slow and through careful
observation, one can gain respect for the surroundings one sees, and
is aware of things that we often miss in our daily routines. Certainly
not everyone that goes into wilderness is looking for a spiritual
revelation or even to experience the natural world, but that doesn't
mean we should give up on the possibility for the realization of those
values to accommodate other uses. Just as we would be applauded if
someone decided to get their kicks doing tricks on the pews in a
church, many of us are revolted when we see mountain bikers performing
feats on mountain trails. Not that I don't think those acts of bravo
are not amazing or lack skill, but I do not think it's something that
one needs to do in wildlands.

WILDERNESS STILL BEST IDEA

This brings me back to the issue of wilderness designation. I realize
as Bill Schneider does that broadening support for more wilderness
designation or at least protection from industrialization is critical.
There is a strategic advantage to neutralizing the opposition to
wilderness by mountain bikers. Nevertheless, hard core mountain bikers
(as opposed to causal bikers like myself) are still a minority, though
vocal. Just like their motorized thrillcraft cousins, they make a lot
of noise, far more than their numbers would suggest. For myself, I
would rather continue to fight for pure wilderness designation than
change the wilderness act to accommodate mountain biking. I surely
believe it's worth discussing wilderness proposals with mountain bike
activists to avoid conflicts where that is possible. However, where
their usage compromises the integrity of a larger protected area, we
should not give up on advocacy for the wildlands values, even if that
engenders opposition from that quarter. Hopefully over time mountain
bikers will recognize that there are reasons for protecting lands that
goes beyond their personal desires for an exciting backcountry ride
and they will join with wildlands defenders to advocate for the
highest possible land protection--namely designated wilderness.




Comments

By T Lewis, 5-12-09
George, yours is the voice of reason on this contentious topic. Well
done.
By bearbait, 5-12-09
George: Given the USFS can regulate just about anything on land in
their care, why is Wilderness the be all and end all of land
protection, and if land is not designated Big W Wilderness, alas, all
is lost?

If the USFS wanted to keep mountain bikes out of an area, they can. If
they want to keep horses out of an area, they can, although they
themselves use packers and pack strings seasonally for all sorts of
purposes to haul freight to back country projects and administrative
sites. Or ATVs, what have you.

Roadless is pretty much a finite limitation on use. Roadless has
protected the special places quite handily for quite a while. And so
has the National Park designation, but NREPA is written to put
National Park lands inside its purview and regulation. If I were in
the Park Service, I would see this as an indictment of the agency's
stewardship. That inclusion is tainted with the language of zealots,
and from those I tend to shy.

Mountain biking is a youth deal. It is about speed, about adrenal
glands. And it is about the defiance of youth to authority and
regulation. Sixteen year old kids die going too fast in cars, on skis,
ATVs, and even bicycles. A sixteen year old on a mountain bike, with
little or no serious law enforcement regulation to control his or her
judgement, could give a damn about your hiking in solitude. That is
who they are. Some are 40, and still trying to be 16. No matter.
Mountain biking is not about to be a staid sport, ever. It is the
outlaw mentality of macho-man. I have witnessed it. I have been right
there at the property line, with the landowner, who asked that the
mountain bikers stop, turn around, and not cross his land. 40
something professionals. University, high tech kinda guys. They just
glared, said "F-you," and rode right by the landowner. Noon time in a
college town, and public land everywhere. Evidently they are special
people. Entitled. "I am fit and on a bicycle, therefore I am better
than your property right." I learned a lot about that crowd that day.
And what is better, the guy built a mineral surface trail that would
not create fall line erosion, signage and all, and the mountain bikers
ignored it and rode right down the ever increasing ditch created by
their tires. If it were my property, a keg of roofing nails would be
spread to put iron in the soil.

Yeah, George. I don't like mountain bikers. But they should have
access to USFS land. It is, after all, public land. But not in
Wilderness. In roadless, sure. But there has to be respite from their
presence somewhere in the forest. One would think that all the cat
tracks and clear cuts, and old jeep and fire roads would provide a lot
of opportunity. Some old guy once told me that the sure way to kill a
deal is to want it all. He said to me "Hummer, if you can get 95% of
what you think you should, jump on it. The whole deal could disappear
like a fart in a windstorm, and you get all of nothing. Part of
something, Hummer, is better than all of nothing." (The Hummer
nickname came from a joke I told about a little martini bar, a few
stools, a cool jazz pianist, and great drinks. So this guy was sitting
there, and a monkey ran down the bar, stopped, and sat on his glass,
his monkey balls soaking in the best martini he had ever tasted. The
bartender pretended not see. So the drinker asks the cool jazz pianist
if he knew whose monkey just dropped his balls in my martini and the
pianist replied "No, man, but if you can hum a couple bars, maybe I
can pick it." The siderod called me Hummer forever after.
By George Wuerthner, 5-12-09
--
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

Another Kook,

Who happens to be a famous and well-respected writer, unlike any
mountain bikers.
--
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