Mountain Bikers Lobby to Get Bikes Allowed in Wilderness!

Jim Hasenauer teaches Rhetoric -- the art of effective lying.... Not
too effective, huh?

Mike


Vol. 35 No. 4 | March 3, 2003
Essay
Printable Version

Let bikers in, and we'll stand behind wilderness

by Jim Hasenaur


I'm a mountain bicyclist. The pleasure of my life is pedaling through
wild places, experiencing the views, the changing colors and textures
of the plant life, the occasional animal sightings. On the trail, I'm
renewed, and my commitment to public-land preservation is
strengthened. I think that's the way most mountain bikers feel, and
historically, we've been eager to back conservation efforts.

We're troubled, though, that designated wilderness, the highest level
of protection, is encumbered with regulations that ban bicycling.
Across the country, wilderness advocates are advancing new proposals
while mountain bicyclists struggle to find a meaningful place at the
table. It's a wedge issue with a capital W.

The 1964 Wilderness Act is a remarkable tool. Once Congress acts,
wilderness areas are protected in perpetuity for their own sake and
for the recreational and spiritual sustenance they provide visitors.
Wilderness recreation offers adventure, discovery, solitude and awe -
exactly the kinds of exxperience most valued by bicyclists like me.

But wilderness advocates, like kids with a jackknife, are inclined to
use the tool at hand. They mark their accomplishments in acres
designated and their losses as anything less than wilderness as
proposed. Though bicyclists should be natural allies of the wilderness
movement, because of the bike ban we're understandably reluctant to
embrace proposals that would kick us off cherished trails.

It would certainly be easier for cyclists to oppose wilderness
outright, but that's not who we are. We value wild places. We've
endorsed preservation of all roadless areas as the foundation of real
resource protection.

We try to support wilderness where possible, and when proposals
include significant bicycle trails, we work to find ways to protect
the land and still preserve the riding. These tools include boundary
adjustments, cherry-stem trails and land designations that provide
wilderness-like protection from roads, motors and extraction, but
still allow bikes.

Unfortunately, many wilderness advocates see these measures as losses,
discounting alternatives as "wilderness-lite." They characterize
bicyclists as selfish and uncooperative. The cost of this infighting
has been acrimony, poisoned relationships and lost time, energy and
trust. Meanwhile, the Blue Ribbon Coalition and other anti-wilderness
groups court cyclists.

The 46 million U.S. mountain bicyclists are a giant constituency of
public-land enthusiasts. They're increasingly committed to wild land
protection, but they're understandably wary of wilderness
designations. That's why it's clear to me that there ought to be a way
to work for wilderness protection that doesn't ban bicycles. If the
regulation were changed, and bikes were allowed on some trails in some
wilderness, the entire nature of this debate would shift.

Most wilderness advocates are astonished to learn that the Wilderness
Act did not ban bicycles. It banned "mechanized transport," which was
defined in Forest Service regulation as "powered by a nonliving power
source." Bicycles were allowed and ridden in some wilderness until
1984, when a ban first introduced in 1977 was made final. This is
significant because it means the bike ban is regulatory, not
statutory. It was imposed 20 years after the Wilderness Act by folks
who mistook mountain bikes for motorcycles.

It's time to get past this. Bikes are muscle-powered, human-scale,
quiet and nonpolluting. The tradition and history of bicycle use on
the wild lands of the West goes back to the 1880s. Bicycling is
trail-based recreation. We may range as far as horses and runners, but
our impacts on the trails and on plants and animals have been shown to
be similar to those of hikers. Yes, bikes do provide a mechanical
advantage, but it's only a degree of difference from oarlocks,
suspension poles, skis and the high-tech alloys and composites
associated with other outdoor equipment.

I believe that if mountain bikers were allowed on some wilderness
trails, cyclists would overwhelmingly endorse new wilderness. Rest
assured: Trails would never swarm with bikes; most would still be
earmarked for hikers. Yet in the same way that backpackers cherish
wilderness regardless of whether they ever visit it, mountain bikers
would support more wilderness, both in principle and at the ballot
box.

It's time to make a niche for mountain biking in the push to preserve
wild places. Cyclists, with their commitment, passion and numbers,
could swell the ranks of a new, more inclusive movement. The only
difference between wilderness now and wilderness future would be the
presence of bicycles on some trails and much, much more wilderness.


Jim Hasenauer is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of
High Country News in Paonia, Colorado. He is a professor of
communication studies at California State University at Northridge and
a board member of the International Mountain Bicycling Association,
though his opinions are his own.



© copyright 2002 High Country News
High Country News* Box 1090 * Paonia, CO 81428 * 1-800-905-1155
To receive two free copies of High Country News, call 1-800-905-1155
--
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