Designated wilderness areas go by a variety of names around the globe, and in the US they have been protected by federal law under the Wilderness Act since 1964. The thousands of trails in Wilderness areas spaghettied across the US are currently closed to mountain bikes. We would like to hear your thoughts on whether those tracks should be opened up to bikes, or if they should preserve their current “hikers- and equestrians-only” status. Here is how the US Wilderness Act defines its namesake.
“A Wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” from Wilderness.net
For readers living outside of the US, let us know how land access laws affect trail access in your country.
48 Comments
Jun 30, 2019
Jul 1, 2019
Jun 30, 2019
However, I don’t see why biking specific trails can’t be made in SOME wilderness areas, especially if the local area supports it.
A lot of people that foam at the mouth about bikes in the wilderness don’t realize how hypocritical they sound while supporting horses in those same areas. Horses are non-native, significantly damage trails and many seem to be VERY poorly trained at this point making them dangerous to all parties on the trail.
Don’t know about you, but I would rather have a bike packer pass me on the trail than inadvertently stepping in a twenty pound dump left on the trail by a horse...
Jul 2, 2019
I still have time to go hiking and do trail building and maintenance.
Which, by the way, your organization, STC has never sponsored
a trail building or maintenance event.
Jul 2, 2019
Jul 2, 2019
other than motorized transportation." Thanks for proving MY POINT. It shows that Congress
was concerned about more than just motorized transport. The fact that they wrote "no other form"
also shows that they were concerned about more than just motorized transport.
2. The Forest Service screwed up. It's not the Wilderness Act's fault that the Forest Service screwed
up. The Wilderness Act has been the same throughout. If you really think the Forest Service's 1966
rule was correct, then you can your group STC should be suing to have it reinstated. But no, Ted Stroll
has said that they would probably loses that lawsuit, with of course means the current rule is correct.
3. Again, the reason snowshoes, skis and oarlocks are not consider mechanical is because they
were originally made out of wood and leather. All versions of bicycles from the beginning have
had metal parts,
4. Again, some flowery wording in a lesser Bill does not usurp the Wilderness Act. The lesser
Bills don't get scrutinized for language as much as a major piece of legislation. Also, in the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness it says that the Wilderness made by that Bill must
be administered based on the rules established by the Wilderness Act. So, right there, the
Bill concedes that the Wilderness Act is the main document to go by.
5. I would like to remind John and Jeff of a quote by Ted Stroll. In a Dec 2015 Singletracks podcast
Ted said “The way Congress works is if you have the Democrats controlling either house, then inevitable opponents of what we are doing could always find some senator or member of Congress who will find a way to block the kind of Legislative change we’re seeking, with two Republican houses, that becomes much more difficult” At that time, Ted was giddy because the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Since then, the Republican have had complete control of Congress and the Administration for 2 years. During that time the STC Bill did not pass. That was the best chance for the Bill to pass, but now, the Dems control the House of Representatives and as Ted said "...opponents of what we are doing could always find some senator or member of Congress who will find a way to block the kind of Legislative change we’re seeking."
John and Jeff, you guys just need to face it, your Bill is dead. Your organization, the Sustainable Trails Coalition has burned through $250,000 on this issue. It's time you guys call it quits and use your
talents for a better cause.
Jul 1, 2019
other than motorized transportation. John Fisch knows this is an absolute fact.
The most famous case of that is when Compton White Jr ask said “What about the
mechanical device behind the horse?”
Yep, and if you read the response you understand that he, nor anyone else in Congress at the time, had any intention of banning anything not artificially powered.
2. Mountain biking wasn’t even a thing until the late 1970s, early 1980s. The Forest
Service did make a ruling then which was a clarification of the Wilderness Act, not a
change to it.
And when biking came up, it was included, not excluded.
3. Other forms likes Snowshoes, skis and oarlocks are not considered mechanical transport
because they were invented and used long before the mechanical age. A ski was found a
few years back that was dated 6000 years before christ.
The best example of ignorance ever... whether or not something is, by definition, mechanical, has absolutely nothing to do with when it was invented. Moreover, man was applying mechanical concepts and mechanical devices long before the mechanical age. Yet further, modern ski bindings and snowshoes include are not the same as those invented before the mechanical age, but include very modern and highly refined mechanical devices.
4. The language you describe was in a Bill for a National Recreation Area and a Wilderness Area.
The Wilderness Act was the major piece of legislation. Some flowery language in a lesser bill
does not usurp the Wilderness Act.
Yes it was. The text of that bill had two sections; one addressing the Wilderness and one addressing the Recreation Area. Bikes were included in the portion of the bill specifically referring to the Wilderness area, NOT the Recreation area. Moreover, it doesn't matter where in the bill that took place because specifically said "used as a wilderness for .... cycling" and further said "primitive recreation" which is a stated purpose of the Wilderness act.
Jul 1, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/upshot/a-timely-call-for-bike-trails.html
Jul 1, 2019
1. In the hearing Congressman did ask about other forms of Transportation
other than motorized transportation. John Fisch knows this is an absolute fact.
The most famous case of that is when Compton White Jr ask said "What about the
mechanical device behind the horse?"
2. Mountain biking wasn't even a thing until the late 1970s, early 1980s. The Forest
Service did make a ruling then which was a clarification of the Wilderness Act, not a
change to it.
3. Other forms likes Snowshoes, skis and oarlocks are not considered mechanical transport
because they were invented and used long before the mechanical age. A ski was found a
few years back that was dated 6000 years before christ.
4. The language you describe was in a Bill for a National Recreation Area and a Wilderness Area.
The Wilderness Act was the major piece of legislation. Some flowery language in a lesser bill
does not usurp the Wilderness Act.
John Fisch has a long history of shovel a bunch of crap on this issue. Here is my response
to one of his articles in 2016
https://preservingthepct.blogspot.com/2016/08/responding-to-john-fischs-responses-to.html
Jul 1, 2019
If you’re trying to say someone is proving someone else’s point, you flat out admit that bicycles were not on their minds when writing the rules. Then to assert that no adult would ride a bicycle in the 60’s!
I stand by it being an overly broad statement being applied to bikes. That was an attorney covering bases when they assumed by the year 2000 we would all have jet packs...
They went over items that create large amounts of noise, pollution and damage to trail systems or largely require roads. None of this applies to bicycles.
As you say, very few people actually ride horses. Yet those few ruin the experience for everyone with trail damage, expel massive amounts of non-native waste, have the potential to eat large amounts of native vegetation and on top of that pose many safety concerns. You know, just about everything they say they are trying to avoid on the trails...
Again, you can’t support horses while railing against bikes that don’t have nearly the trail and environmental impact simply because they have gears.
Jul 1, 2019
Which ignores
1. The fact that Congressional use of that language was at the time specifically focused on keeping motorized vehicles out of Wilderness, not anything human powered. A reading of that text in full context confirms that. A reading of the testimony in the Congressional record during the writing, debate, and passage of the act further confirms that.
2. That bikes were indeed allowed for the first 20 years of the Act, before a powerful, unopposed anti-bile lobby successfully pressed for a self-serving blind blanket ban.
3. That other forms of human powered mechanical transport have always been, and are currently allowed. Again, these are low impact, human powered, just like a bike.
4. That once the mountain bike issue became known to Congress,t hey addressed it head on, calling mountain biking a wilderness use, right alongside hiking and horseback riding, specifically referring to it as "primitive recreation" just as was provided for in the original Act.
But then again, Todd the troll already knows all this.
Jul 1, 2019
And as far as horses are concerned, horse riders are the true user group where their access is dwindling. Plus, only about .25% of the population goes horseback riding which is 10 times less than mountain bikers. Quit complaining about horses for pete's sake.
Furthermore, you have to read the Wilderness Act in the context of the day. It was back in the mid 60s when bicycles were considered a child's toy. It wasn't considered something an adult would actually ride on. The truth is the adult bicycling revolution happened in the 70s because of two things. There was the movie "Breaking Away" that popularized biking, and there was the gas shortage which also made some adults do more biking. And, since the bicycle was considered a child's toy, nobody would want a bunch of children to go out riding in a remote and wild Wilderness Area.
Jul 1, 2019
Jul 1, 2019
Horses have a much higher potential for damage and problems than ANY mountain bike could ever have. Therefore, if horses are allowed, you sound like an imbecile even trying to argue why bikes can’t be allowed.
As for the “no mechanical...” I don’t for one second think they had a bicycle in mind when that was written. It was simply an over broad term for automobiles and engine based transportation being applied to bicyclist.
If they were truly trying to keep it as simple as possible horses never would have been allowed.
I don’t need people training their horses around me when I’m the one put at risk. I’ve been flat out driven off of a trail by horses before because they could not even handle me walking by them!
Even well trained horses are a nuisance to everyone else trying to use the trail. Trail damage and massive turds are not in anyway beneficial to the wilderness. They can reach fast speeds just as easily/easier as a bike and are FAR more dangerous at speed.
So again, if you think a horse belongs on the trails, you don’t have any logical leg to stand on to support keeping bikes off of them.
Just to be clear, I think bikes SHOULD be off of hiking trails in the wilderness. I just also think horses should be off them as well!
If they want to cut horse trails and bike trails along with the hiking trails, then we can all stick to our designated spots!
Jul 1, 2019
Jun 30, 2019
Jul 5, 2019
Jun 30, 2019
It is a complex issue complicated further by:
1. Most people don't understand the issues. It's not simple and we are talking WSA's as well.
2. For many people outside of the western US, it's not an issue at all as they haven't had trails taken from them.
3. I continue to be surprised at how many people have a knee-jerk reaction to this. I too don't want bikes in most Wilderness areas, but certainly there are many that are very appropriate.
4. It's more of a politcal issue than a logical one. I.E. you often can't use common-sense arguments and that's frustrating.
Jun 30, 2019
Jun 30, 2019
Jul 1, 2019
Jul 5, 2019
The Trail really isn't cut in two because there isn't that much trail south
of the wilderness. There is only something like 20 miles that mountain bikers
can ride south of the Wilderness. So, Mountain bikers have the majority
of the trail that they can ride on. But of course, that's not good enough
for mountain bikers like Jeff.
Jul 4, 2019
Jul 3, 2019
Jul 1, 2019
I'd be ok having some places where bikes aren't allowed (Half Dome Downhill?) but blanket bans that ignore context and the rightful user population are not how we're supposed to do things in this country. Blanket bans are also ineffective, and counterproductive. If we expect people to value and respect these lands we need to offer a reason for the to care about them. If these lands become just a private playground for bureaucrats and their favored, privileged friends, don't be surprised when people throw up their hands and want to sell it off to oil companies, loggers, and real estate developers.
Jun 30, 2019
Jul 4, 2019
Todd, you are a narcissistic sociopath! Go get some friends in Wisconsin to talk to! There has to be at least 1 other lonely hiker in your town that will chat with you!
Jul 3, 2019
chat with me. I'm sure the folks at singletracks are thrilled, too.
I have never heard of a horse crashing into a bear on a trail.
The problem with mountain bikers is they consider horseback riders
the evil ones. The problem with that is horseback riders consist of
about .24% of the population and the ones that actually ride on trails
would be way less than that. Meanwhile, the amount of mountain bikers
is ten times great than that at 2.9% of the population.
And again, the Wilderness Act bans "mechanical transport" and horses
are not mechanical transport. There has been some nutcase mountain bikers
that claim that since horses have a metal bit in there mouth and metal horse
shoes on their feet, that they are mechanical transport. But neither the bit
or the horseshoes are doing the transporting, it's the horse.
Jul 3, 2019
I think horses should be banned from all trails because of the risk of crashing into a bear, don't you think? Or should we ban the bears?
We should ban all wildlife from these areas. Problem solved
Jun 30, 2019
Jul 4, 2019
You're just making my case for me. If you cannot be civilized
here in the comment section, well, meeting you out on the
trail isn't going to be all that pleasant either. You're making a
great case for separate trails for separate uses.
Jul 4, 2019
Jul 4, 2019
Plus, you have no idea where I will be hiking in the future.
Jul 4, 2019
Jul 4, 2019
Jul 3, 2019
Jul 3, 2019
and I have been in plenty of Wilderness Areas
including doing some trail work
Jul 3, 2019
Jul 3, 2019
“no mechanical transport or delivery of persons or supplies”
still bans mountain bikes.
As you know, at the Wilderness Act Hearings in 1964,
Congressman Compton White Jr asked the
following question to Forest Service Lawyer Mr Florance.
"I'm talking about the mechanical contraption behind the horse,
the spring wagon. This is considered and is this not a mechanical device."
Mr Florance responded by saying "no, it is not a motorized vehicle"
Mr White responded by saying "Well, thank you, Mr Florance, for your
explicit explanation"
To me, when Congressman White said "Well, thank you, Mr Florance, for your
explicit explanation" that meant that Congressman White didn't agree with
Mr Florance. Furthermore, after the exchange between Congressman White
and Mr Florance, the Wilderness Act was changed to read "no other form
of mechanical transport." That cleared up any doubt about whether
non-motorized transport was banned, too.
You say "It means no horse carts, no wagons, no trailers, no tankers."
But what is a wagon? It is some wheels attached to a metal frame.
What is a mountain bike? The same thing, wheels attached to a metal frame.
Mountain bikes are basically the same thing as wagons and should be banned
from Wilderness Areas.
And if only the "rugged and intrepid" mountain bikers will be going into
Wilderness Areas, why even bother. Mountain bikers are less than 3% of the
population and the amount of "rugged and intrepid" mountain bikers would be
way less than that. You actually pointed that out really well by saying that I wouldn't
be taking my mountain bike into Wilderness Areas. But I still contend that if allowed
there will be all sorts of mountain bikers going into Wilderness Areas that really
have no business doing so. Thanks for making my point for me.
Jul 3, 2019
"Probably the most significant finding is what Congress meant when they referred to “no other form of mechanical transport” in the Wilderness Act. It’s ambiguous because they don’t mean just the mechanical transport of humans; so even a fishing reel is technically implicated by the statute. But when you go into the legislative history, which nobody has ever done before, you find that all Congress meant in the original language was no “mechanical transport or delivery of persons or supplies.” Both House and Senate used that language originally and what they’re really talking about is large, load-bearing conveyances that would either carry humans or cargo, and this is what the prohibition on mechanical transport means. It means no horse carts, no wagons, no trailers, no tankers—things that, though they’re not motorized, probably were propelled behind a motorized vehicle or mule train and would impact the landscape."
You should probably read his law review: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55a5b885e4b01aa3dd8fd254/t/55c611aee4b03257969c9291/1439044014588/Penn+State+Law+Review+TS.pdf
Your constant comments about "intrepid mt. bikers" is hilarious. Ted is generalizing about the type of rider that will tackle the rugged backcountry. Certainly you, Todd, won't be going anywhere in the rugged backcountry (even outside of Wilderness) on one of your 2 mountain bikes. You'd crash and hurt yourself before you were a mile from your car. Keep pretending mountain biking in rugged terrain is easy! Why is it that so few hikers percentage-wise visit Wilderness, and especially deep Wilderness vs. local parks trails? Is it because they don't have the skills, fitness, comfort level to explore deep into the primitive landscape? Who is making sure the unprepared don't go in the backwoods?? This point you continue to bring up shows what a lunatic you are.
Regarding trail maintenance, I hate to break it to you, but STC and its supporters don't conduct birthday party events either... but that doesn't mean they don't attend birthday parties on a regular basis. You sir, are simply an idiot.
Jul 3, 2019
And here's another one of Ted's theories that I love and this one he actually said in his testimony to Congress. Ted said that only the most rugged and intrepid mountain bikers will be gong into Wilderness Areas. Ted never explained how he would enforce that. Perhaps you need to take some sort of "rugged and intreped" test. But I don't think that's the case. If you open up Wilderness Areas to mountain bike, then all sorts of mountain bikers will be going into them including the shredders and the people who want to become the "king of the hill."
I continue keeping track and commenting on this issue for a few simple reasons. I have already researched this issue and it's not hard making a few comments once in a while. Why should I stop now when I have been doing such a good job so far. I still have time to go hiking quite often and do trail work and maintenance. By the way, I have over 1500 volunteer hours on National Scenic Trails including clearing trails in Wilderness Areas. So, far I have never seen anything to suggest that the Sustainable Trail Coalition has sponsored trail maintenance, etc.
These message was not copied and pasted like most of my messages.
Jul 2, 2019
Jul 2, 2019
Thanks for calling me names.
It's at that point I know I have won the debate.
Jul 1, 2019
Jul 1, 2019
riddle me this
When was the last time a hiker was hiking down a trail and CRASHED
INTO A BEAR???
THAT WOULD BE NEVER
Crashing into a bear is totally different that having a bear charge you, etc.
Brad Treat was going at a high rate of speed and crashed into a bear.
That doesn't happen with hikers.
And, Jeff and John, I hate to break it to you.
But your little "bikes in the wilderness" movement died with Brad Treat.
Your group the Sustainable Trails Coalition has wasted $250,000
on this issue. Money that could have been used to build perfectly great
mountain biking trails outside of Wilderness Areas.
Let's give Wildlife some space to roan
The Brad Treat case shows exactly where mountain biking is different from hiking.
Jul 1, 2019
Something Todd in his ignorance and prejudice may not know:
There have been 78 human fatalities from black bears and brown bears (which include grizzly
bears) since 1990 in North America. Of those, 37% were associated with hiking or walking,
12% hunting, 4 % fishing, and 1 % tending fence on horseback. Another 19% were associated with camping and 4% were trail runners. Like each and every other argument Todd makes about banning cyclists, this one equally or more so suggest banning hikers.
Jul 1, 2019
Jul 1, 2019
"There have been 78 human fatalities from black bears and brown bears (which include grizzly bears) since 1990 in North America." Of those:
- 37% were associated with hiking or walking (slow, quiet rec)
- 19% camping (food storage)
- 12% hunting (slow, quiet rec)
- 8% at residence (home invasion)
- 4% fishing (slow, quiet rec)
- 4% trail running (moderate speed, quiet rec)
- 3% mountain biking (moderate speed, quiet rec)
- 1% tending fence on horseback (slow, quiet rec)
--
So, 54% of the fatalities were associated with slow quiet activities like hiking and walking. "This information at least begs the question of whether limiting folks to enjoying only slow, quiet activities in areas where bears are present provides any greater safety for people or bears."
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/missoulian.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/0e/50e4cb76-09d6-5238-87d9-36c671121869/5d169ff202638.pdf.pdf