“Something will have gone out of us as a people if we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed…” — Wallace Stegner
The goal of the Wilderness Act, now celebrating its 60th birthday, was to set aside a small proportion of public land in America from human intrusion. Some places, the founders said, deserved to be free from motorized, mechanized and other intrusions to protect wildlife and wild lands.
But now, a handful of mountain bikers have partnered with a senator from Utah to gut the Wilderness Act.
This June, the Sustainable Trails Coalition, a mountain biking organization, cheered as Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee introduced a bill (S. 4561) to amend the Wilderness Act and allow mountain bikes, strollers, and game carts on every piece of land protected by the National Wilderness Preservation System. Stopping these intrusions would take each local wilderness manager undertaking a cumbersome process to say “no.”
The U.S. Congress passed the Wilderness Act, and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law on September 3, 1964, to “preserve the wilderness character” of 54 wilderness areas totaling 9.1 million acres. Today, this effort has become a true conservation success story.
The National Wilderness Preservation System now protects over 800 wilderness areas totaling over 111 million acres in 44 states and Puerto Rico, making it America’s most critical law for preserving wild places and the genetic diversity of thousands of plant and animal species. Yet designated wilderness is only 2.7% of the Lower 48, and still just about 5% if Alaska is included.
The protections of the Wilderness Act include a ban on logging, mining, roads, buildings, structures and installations, mechanized and motorized equipment and more. Its authors sought to secure for the American people “an enduring resource of wilderness” to protect places not manipulated by modern society, where the ecological and evolutionary forces of nature could continue to play out mostly unimpeded.
Grandfathered in, however, were some grazing allotments, while mining claims were also allowed to be patented until 1983. Many private mining claims still exist inside designated wildernesses.
Senator Lee’s bill is premised on the false claim that the Wilderness Act never banned bikes, and that supposedly, the U.S. Forest Service changed its regulations in 1984 to ban bikes. But bicycles, an obvious kind of mechanized equipment, have always been prohibited in wilderness by the plain language of the law. (“There shall be…no other form of mechanical transport….”) The Forest Service merely clarified its regulations on this point in 1984 as mountain bikes gained popularity.
Unfortunately, bikers in the Sustainable Trails Coalition are not the only recreational interest group that wants to weaken the Wilderness Act to. Some rock climbers, for example, are pushing Congress to allow climbers to damage wilderness rock faces by pounding in permanent bolts and pitons rather than using only removable climbing aids. In addition, trail runners want exemptions from the ban in wilderness on commercial trail racing. Drone pilots and paragliders want their aircraft exempted from Wilderness Act protections, and recreational pilots want to “bag” challenging landing sites in wilderness.
The list of those seeking to water down the Wilderness Act is growing.
Most of these recreational groups say they support wilderness, understanding how important it is when most landscapes and wildlife habitats have been radically altered by people. At the same time, they want to slice out their own piece of the wilderness pie.
Must we get everything we want in the outdoors? Rather than weakening the protections that the Wilderness Act provides, we could try to reinvigorate a spirit of humility toward wilderness. We could practice restraint, understanding that designated wildernesses have deep values beyond our human uses of them.
Meanwhile, in response to growing demand for mountain biking trails, the Bureau of Land Management invites over a million mountain bikers each year to ride its thousands of miles of trails. And the U.S. Forest Service already has a staggering 130,000 miles of motorized and nonmotorized trails available to mountain bikers.
Do mountain bikers and others pushing for access really need to domesticate wilderness, too?
Let’s cherish our wilderness heritage, whole and intact. We owe it to the farseeing founders of the Wilderness Act, and we owe it to future generations.
Kevin Proescholdt is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He is conservation director for Wilderness Watch, a national wilderness conservation organization headquartered in Missoula, Montana.
Denali Wilderness, Alaska, courtesy Wilderness Watch
This column was published in the following newspapers:
| 07/22/2024 | Vail Daily | Vail | CO |
| 07/22/2024 | Craig Daily Press | Craig | co |
| 07/22/2024 | Explore Big Sky | Big Sky | MT |
| 07/23/2024 | Mountain Journal | Bozeman | MT |
| 07/23/2024 | Tucson Star | Tucson | AZ |
| 07/23/2024 | Denver Post | Denver | CO |
| 07/23/2024 | Whitehall Ledger | Whitehall | MT |
| 07/23/2024 | Salt Lake Tribune | Salt Lake City | UT |
| 07/24/2024 | Jackson Hole News & Guide | Jackson Hole | WY |
| 07/24/2024 | Durango Herald | Durango | CO |
| 07/24/2024 | Montrose Daily Press | Montrose | CO |
| 07/24/2024 | Cortez Journal | Cortez | CO |
| 07/24/2024 | Aspen Times | Aspen | CO |
| 07/24/2024 | Grand Junction Daily Sentinel | Grand Junction | CO |
| 07/24/2024 | Steamboat Pilot | Steamboat Springs | CO |
| 07/24/2024 | Sterling Journal-Advocate | Sterling | CO |
| 07/24/2024 | Glenwood Post Independent | Glenwood Springs | CO |
| 07/26/2024 | Wyoming Tribune Eagle | Cheyenne | WY |
| 07/26/2024 | Aspen Daily News | Aspen | CO |
| 07/26/2024 | Durango Telegraph | Durango | CO |
| 07/29/2024 | Summit Daily | frisco | co |
| 07/23/2024 | Taos News | Taos | NM |
| 07/26/2024 | Laramie Boomerang | Laramie | WY |
| 07/26/2024 | Pagosa Springs Sun | Pagosa Springs | CO |
| 07/24/2024 | Methow Valley News | Twisp | WA |
| 07/29/2024 | South Fork Tines | South Fork | CO |
| 07/26/2024 | Monte Vista Journal | Monte Vista | CO |
| 07/26/2024 | Center Post Dispatch | Center | CO |
| 07/28/2024 | Mineral County Miner | Monte Vista | CO |
| 07/27/2024 | Del Norte Prospector | Del Norte | CO |
| 07/29/2024 | The Newberg Graphic | Newberg | OR |
| 07/29/2024 | Beaverton Valley Times | Beaverton | OR |
| 07/29/2024 | Columbia County Spotlight | Scappose | OR |
| 07/29/2024 | Sherwood Gazette | Portland | OR |
| 07/29/2024 | Hillsboro Times News | Hillsboros | OR |
| 07/29/2024 | Valley Times News | Portland | OR |
| 07/31/2024 | Conejos County Citizen | Monte Vista | CO |
| 07/31/2024 | High Country Shopper | Paonia | CO |
| 07/24/2024 | Saddlebag Notes | Saddlebrook | AZ |
| 08/04/2024 | The Mountain Mail | Pagosa Springs | CO |
| 08/06/2024 | Missoula Current | Missoula | MT |
| 08/09/2024 | Sky-Hi News | Granby | CO |
| 08/01/2024 | Daily Interlake | Kalispell | MT |
| 08/03/2024 | Greeley Tribune | Greeley | CO |
| 07/29/2024 | Your Oregon News | Portland | OR |
| 08/10/2024 | Santa Fe New Mexican | Santa Fe | NM |
| 08/13/2024 | KVNF Radio | Paonia | CO |
| 08/18/2024 | Daily Montanan | Helena | MT |
| 08/23/2024 | Ravalli Republic | Hamilton | MT |
| 08/21/2024 | Miles City Star | Miles City | MT |
| 09/14/2024 | Cycling West | Salt Lake City | UT |
I am an avid mountain biker and I am 100% opposed to bikes of any kind in designated wilderness areas and WSAs. There are endless miles of trails available for us to ride. There is absolutely no reason to open wilderness areas to mountain biking. I’m going to fight this idiocy.
We will fight you too. Blanket bans on anything are not the way, you shouldn’t be denied access to public land because you want to roll instead of walk.
It’s 2.7% of public land. That’s it.
Please re-read the comment you responded to. He says he is a mountain biker AND he says he is 100% AGAINST bikes of any kind in designated wilderness areas! He’s on our side!
The self centered individualist opinion.
It’s not about “rolling”. It’s about destruction of wilderness values. Get a clue.
No one is denying access to anywhere. Placing your ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ above others gets you to your conclusion. If you wanted to ride your bike on a sidewalk or some other place it isn’t permitted would you really be putting up a fuss? Stick to trails that are maintained for bikes. We’ve got plenty.
Dont you see how it could, and will, mushroom? next is motocrossers, soon is logging trucks, idiot.
So, you want to destroy every last inch of land so you can have your perverted fun? As to blanket bans not being “the way,” does that include blanket bans on murder, to list just one example? You should really rethink your attitude toward the Earth and the life here, it’s really unevolved and self-centered.
Then go ride your bike into the grocery store to shop, into church to worship, and into your workplace to work. There are thousands of trails on public land where you can ride, so quit with your dumb argument that you are being “denied access to public land “. I’ll fight you every step of the way, along with millions of supporters. Get a clue dude. You are a very small misguided minority.
Protect the landscape prevent bikers from destroying it !
Thank you Kevin Proescholdt for this informative piece. I am grateful to have learned about this Senate bill and have already written to my senator asking him to oppose the bill as a result. I am a cyclist who understands the need we have to protect our wilderness for perpetuity and to not chop away at the WA for the pleasure of the mostly privileged few. I encourage all readers to write their senators imploring them to vote no on S4561.
Banning bikes for your own privilege is more like what you’re doing.
Its everyones privilege. Cyclists have lots of opportunities.
It’s all about your privilege at the expense of others.
Wilderness areas are not public lands. They are protected from encroachment and kept roadless for very good reasons. Generally having to do with self-entitled humans who think they should be able to do whatever they please wherever they please simply because it’s “fun” and to hell with the wildlife who have no place else to go.
That’s why it is WILDerness
It sounds like you might not completely understand the subject, Beth. Federally designated Wilderness area, the places being discussed, occur exclusively on public lands.
The ban is not for anyone’s privilege. It is in fact YOU who’s privileged by getting to ride your bike ANYWHERE except on roads, which is the only place they belong. Contrary to the opinion of you human supremacists and self-centered fools, humans aren’t the only ones on this planet. The rest of life has a right to be free of unnatural human crap like cycling. Nothing else to say about this.
What a stupid argument… Typical wildernut. Self centered selfish hikers who think that they somehow don’t disturb nature, as they shit literally everywhere while on their multi day hike. Long live mountain biking in Wilderness, like it used to be pre 1984. Speaking of which, I am gonna go for a quick ride on my favorite Wilderness trails. See ya there!!!
PS: the ignorance displayed in the article and comments here is something else. It’s a who’s who of dumbs and dumber.
When you post a comment you leave your IP address. Now that you’ve admitted guilt to a crime, will Writers on the Range turn you in? I hope they do and you pay a fine and maybe some jail time with people of your same ilk.
It’s worth noting that IMBA, the main MTB advocacy organization, does not support efforts to roll back the wilderness bike ban. It’s dishonest for the author to label mountain bikers as anti-wilderness just because of one tiny faction. Personally, I think it’s unfortunate that Wilderness Watch seems so committed to promoting misinformation about other user groups, almost as if they want to make enemies rather than build their coalition.
Alex…Please read past the title…in the third paragraph down, “But now, a handful of mountain bikers have partnered with a senator from Utah to gut the Wilderness Act.”
HANDFUL….
Hi Alex,
Thanks for noting that the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) “does not support efforts to roll back the wilderness bike ban.”
As Will already pointed out, our piece clearly states:
“But now, a HANDFUL of mountain bikers have partnered with a senator from Utah to gut the Wilderness Act. This June, the Sustainable Trails Coalition, a mountain biking organization, cheered as Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee introduced a bill (S. 4561) to amend the Wilderness Act….”
What you called “one tiny faction” we called “a handful.” Same Same.
Using the word “handful” once does not change the tone and perspective of the entire piece. The whole article viewed in total uses a broad brush to unfairly paint many user groups as anti-wilderness – not just mountain bikers for that matter, but also trail runners, rock climbers, and more.
Yes, all the groups you mention are trying to destroy the Wilderness Act. You nailed it. The mountain climbers are a hord of self-involved children who want what they want right now. And they want it all. That said, I’d trade wilderness access for the climbers to keep the bikers, e-bikers, off-road vehicles, aircraft people and the trail runners out. At least they are clinging to rocks and not shoving walkers off trails at high speeds.
Alex: Just like we said “a handful of mountain bikers, we also clearly said “Some rock climbers” and then we went a step further and provided an actual link so people could explore the issue further and get more information to make up their own minds. We did the same thing (ie provide links with more information) for trail runners, paragliders, and recreational pilots. I guess we could’ve put the word “some” in front of each of those user groups, but the editor likely would’ve cut it because it would be so repetitive in this context.
Regardless, thanks again for pointing this out:
“It’s worth noting that IMBA, the main MTB advocacy organization, does not support efforts to roll back the wilderness bike ban.”
So, does that mean that you and the IMBA will be publicly advocating for mountain bikers to resist STC’s push to roll back the wilderness bike ban? If not, why?
I can’t speak for what IMBA will do but I publicly oppose the STC/Lee proposal. I also oppose wilderness advocates taking a sanctimonious tone attacking other user groups. Your advocacy will be more effective if you build your coalition by bringing people in. Instead of attacking mountain bikers, lift up the voices of mountain bikers who oppose STC.
Alex, Thank you for publicly opposing the STC/Lee proposal.
If you would like to write a blog post on why you oppose the STC/Lee proposal, I’d be happy to lift up your voice as a mountain biker who opposes STC. You can find my email on the Wilderness Watch website.
As a senior citizen i see human wilderness encroachers as thrill seekers, caring not about the impact their “sports” have on quiet trail users. Not to mention wildlife, scenic values and plant communities.
Did for me. No broad brush. Pointed to the facts. . . Which is what the piece is based on. Sometimes the truth is unfair, once you get past that, in this case, you may see it for what it’s worth versus expressing an unconscious bias from the get go.
We aren’t a handful. Many of us plan on supporting this legislation so we can end hiker’s gatekeeping of our public lands. MTB has next to no additional impact compared with hiking, the only people that think it does are hikers.
If you aren’t out there camping in a bear skin and moccasins, canvas tarp, no GPS, no synthetic water proof clothing then you have no business claiming that bikes are too much technology for wilderness areas.
It’ll be so rad when mountain bikers rule the trails. Now that’s wilderness!
“MTB has next to no additional impact compared with hiking”
That is crap. Physical impact aside, passing a herd of mountain bikers is a world of difference from passing other hikers. I’m a mountain biker, I know.
You are missing the point.
I can’t believe what a self-serving, untruthful statement that last is! What don’t you understand about preservation of wilderness? The bikers around where I live have never failed to make whatever piece of land they encounter carved up with tire tracks. I have never observed them to take any account of conditions on the ground where they ride or to consider what sort of damage their tires inflict on soft forest trails.
If muddy tire tracks on your trails are your thing, just let a bunch of dirt-bikers loose on it. I assure you, they will never be the same, afterwards.
I read this article in the AZ Daily Star, Tucson, AZ and want to know if this bill will go through the U.S House first, or the U.S. Senate. While working at the Santa Catalina Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest I remember an attempt to forge a new biking trail in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness of the Santa Catalina Mountains. A group of airmen from Davis Monthan Air Force Base were riding on a hiking trail and they systematically started cutting trees to form ‘jumps’ on the trail and to reroute small sections of that trail. The Forest Service only found out about it after a hiker made a complaint about being pushed off the trail – this is very dangerous considering the steep terrain in the ‘Pusch Ridge’.
Also, E-bikes look very much or identical to regular mountain bikes.
What is the number on the bill that is being presented to Congress?
Thank you,
James Sutton
Hi James,
Thanks for your note. The bill at this point is only a Senate bill, S. 4561. It hasn’t yet had a hearing, though Sen. Lee could conceivably try to attach it to a bigger must-pass bill near the end of the session or in the lame-duck session after the election.
Kevin
Kevin, Thanks for the article. I saw it linked from Center For Western Priorities and published in my local Jackson WY paper. I’m an “Outdoorsman”, including riding Mtn. bikes, skiing, backpacking & hunting. As other comments noted many mainstream orgs. DON’T support weakening the Wilderness Act, but we must always be vigilant for rogue politicians and selfish, misguided groups who believe Wilderness will still be sacred after they get the access/ changes they want. I do agree with other comments which encourage enlisting the support of ALL folks who love Wilderness. Most hunters who hunt in Wilderness (I do) are not looking to use a game cart or get an easy hunt! They might use an outfitter or their own stock to pack out a kill; but that’s not a cake walk either! Going to the Wilderness is serious, make sure yer ready!
I agree with Alex Bond that the wording in this article is needlessly vague. Its likely worded that way to ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge’ stereotypes about mountain bikers. This lack of specificity is also used by person/groups (take your pick) that attempt to “other” another group of humans.
A good test of whether you, as writer, are falling into that trap is this: switch out the subject noun(s) in your sentence to be another group, maybe a group who more traditionally has had more recognized animus against them. Re-read the sentence. If you get the icky feeling in your stomach, that is a sign your rhetoric needs to be changed.
Here is the larger point: You can tell what people think about something based on the way the talk about about it. Your uncle who keeps talking about “those people” and that bad thing some of them do at your Thanksgiving dinner doesn’t think rainbows and unicorns thoughts about “those people”. He hates them. He just isn’t going to say that because its uncouth, so he talks about a few that do a bad thing to paint them all with that brush. Same above. Saying “a handful” and “some” without specificity is a weaselly way to allow that group to lumped together, based on the bias of the audience.
The fact is, if the authors had weren’t try to ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge’ a viewpoint of mountain bikers as land rapists, they would have included IMBA’s (and if we being honest, most mountain bike groups – local, regional, national) opposition to Sen. Lee & STC legislation. It would have reinforced just how far outside the norm this proposal is. Mentioning, and being specific, about this opposition would then have allowed a more nuanced discussion about the values underlying Wilderness lands. (While I am talking about mountain biking here, I suspect the same is true of the other groups mentioned in the article – that is only small minority want changes to the Wilderness designation.)
Also, if you believe that Wilderness is something that should remain as currently defined, excellent. Now advocate for places for the people that enjoy the activities mentioned above outside of Wilderness areas. IMBA, for example, has been making that push for years under the moniker “Trails Close to Home”. This is a push for trails legally open to mountain bikes in urban, suburban, and exurban lands that aren’t Wildernesses. Add your voice to that chorus, because every mile that gets built there is a mile not desired in a potential Wilderness. (Note: I do trail design, specifically urban/suburban shared hiker/biker trails.)
Unfortunately, Wilderness Watch and Mr. Proescholdt don’t have the best track record supporting non-Wilderness trail access. Mr. Proescholdt is from my state and boy, does he seem to find himself on the anti-trail side of the equation a lot (and by “a lot” I mean always). That history tells me that the lack of specificity is there for a purpose – to let Mr. Proescholdt to have his cake and eat it too. If someone (like Alex Bond) says, “Hey, wait a minute…” it allows the retort that said verbiage was specific enough. If some recreation segregationist reads it, they will hear that dog whistle like a fog horn and know its really saying, “all those bastards”.
Hi Joshua,
Thanks for your comments. The focus of Wilderness Watch, and my work for nearly a half-century, has been on wilderness conservation. The introduction of Sen. Lee’s bill is one small indication that that work of wilderness conservation is never done. I certainly use and support trails outside of designated Wilderness here in Minnesota, for hiking, biking, x-c skiing, etc., but supporting the important work that you do is not the focus of my work nor of Wilderness Watch.
Kevin
Yes we know your work consists of bad jacketing anybody that deigns to enjoy nature in a way that you don’t.
I didn’t how to respond respectively before, but I think I do now. Mr. Proescholdt, how I came to learn about Wilderness Watch and your role within the organization wasn’t via anything done by the organization or yourself positively regarding Wilderness in Minnesota or the USA. It was via the opposition to the Lone Lake Park trails. Since then, I watch the submittals regarding trails in Minnesota and see what personal or group names appear regularly.
I understand that you (& Wilderness Watch) don’t desire to promote trails outside of Wilderness areas. But its hard to square that statement with times when there has been promotion of opposition to trails outside of Wilderness areas. Especially here in Minnesota where, we (collectively) have written the book and methods to include trails without undue impacts to the environment and to users. Methods which other places are falling over themselves to learn and emulate.
If yourself or Wilderness watch don’t want to be in the wheelhouse of promoting trails, great. But then also don’t be in the wheelhouse of opposing trails.
Most importantly, however, when writing about this issue (mountain bikes in Wilderness), be specific and don’t fudge who is supporting this. Its not an amorphous “handful” of mountain bikers, its very small subset who are politically being used by a larger anti-public lands group. Every major mountain biking organization is opposed to the goals of the STC and Sen. Lee.
“Gutting” the wilderness act? Get a grip, my man. We all know this isn’t about “solitude” or “conservation”, it’s simply gatekeeping. Keeping people that might not have 2 weeks off work to hike into the back country from experiencing it. Stopping mobility challenged people from getting out and seeing the world. But above all, it’s pretty obvious that some hikers just have a disdain for anybody that chooses to experience nature in any other way than the way they choose to.
There’s millions of acres of wilderness, to pretend that reversing the blanket ban on bicycles will somehow make it impossible to enjoy solitude is clown talk. I live in Salt Lake City, full to the brim of nature enthusiasts and guess what happens on our trails? 15 minutes from the trail head and I can go hours without seeing another person. To pretend that these often extremely remote areas will somehow become inundated with mtb traffic should the ban be reversed is absolute poppycock.
Reverse the blanket ban and let land managers apply a more nuanced approach to bike access in wilderness.
Ya, no one is gate keeping. You’ve got it backwards acting like you’re the victim here….which would be called gas lighting and even using mobility challenged people in your rant is pretty shameful.
Sounds like you don’t need any changes to the WA will all the opportunity you have close to home. Probably best that entitled attitude stays right where it is.
NO bikes in the wilderness, protect the environment at all costs!
Please PROTECT the magnificent WILDERNESS!! The country would be poorer without it!!!! Whatever it takes, we must ACT
Leave the wilderness untrammeled! Hikers only on trails. I support the Wilderness Act.
We’ve taken over much of the land. Let’s stop the continuous encroachment of the land from our wildlife.
Stop being selfish. Not everything you deem fun for your own personal enjoyment is good for the ones who live there. Not only do the animals live there, they eat there too, and sleep, and raise their young. How would you like mountain bikers riding through your living room, your dining room, your bedroom, your bathroom?
I am opposed to bikes of any kind in designated wilderness areas and WSAs. We know such use has led to unintentional sparks and fires and we have to protect these lands.
Wilderness brings about thoughts and emotions inspired by quiet, peaceful, forested and sometimes open landscapes where people slowly and respectfully breathe clean air and leave no trace of their presence when heading home. It’s rare anymore to find places of solitude and wildlife and the quiet that nature brings
When I’m forced to move aside (and thus trample sometimes fragile native plants) on a hiking trail to leave room for loud, boisterous bikers, my entire experience changes – and not for the better. My desire for peace is completely disrupted. I can’t imagine the impact on wildlife and their attempts to forage.
We, as a society, owe it to lands, waters, wildlife and ourselves to protect Wilderness for the reasons the designation was developed. There are places for bikers to ride – please go there and let me – and my fellow walkers/hikers – have a place, too, that feels us up with joy.
Mountain bikers have ruined many of my opportunities to walk in nature. Rudely flying around blind corners, shouting an one another, etc. there are numerous trails where I no longer ride a horse. Mountain bikers have no idea about respectful behavior for horse riders. Mountain bikes have already run me out of many trails where I have hiked and ridden for year. I don’t mean to offend, but by and large they are not educated to courteous behavior
There are so many opportunities for them to ride, the remaining wilderness should be left alone.
No bikes, competitive runners, rock climbers
Keep wilderness wild and free!
Wilderness needs to remain wilderness. I don’t like meeting a biker on the trail on his bike. He can walk it through or choose a trail that appreciates bikers.
O hell no. Absolutely no more encroachment of our dwindling wild spaces! If you actually care about your children’s future on this overpopulated planet, then it’s time you stop thinking like some 18th century colonialist and realize that our fellow creatures deserve the same rights to life and liberty and living space as we do. As a (city) cyclist myself, I have more trail and riding options than I know what to do with. This is nothing but a sneaky attempt to get roads built where THEY DON’T BELONG!
I think that wilderness areas should generally remain off limits to any motorized or mechanized vehicles. Perhaps there can be a small minority of trails in a wilderness area that can be specially designated for Class 1 electric bikes as well as hikers, since they are less harmful & pose less danger to hikers & wildlife than motorized or higher class mechanized vehicles.
I’m an avid biker, hiker and outdoors person. I am all for adventure, challenges, some derring-do. What I don’t have is a sense of entitlement, that the government should empower me or allow me to go wherever I can. If some bikers get a few limited tracts of wilderness open to them, it may not be long before they are riding in other areas with fragile plants and habitat wildlife, causing erosion and damage that may take years, decades or longer to heal. It doesn’t take 100 riders, or 50. Maybe 5, or even just 1. It’s a matter of principal. Forever means — forever. With such a tiny percentage of untouched land remaining, why this demand to put wheels there?
“Do mountain bikers and others pushing for access really need to domesticate wilderness, too?”
Domesticate is a polite word. Enslave is more accurate.
I say no.
I do not believe any motorized vehicle should be allowed in any wilderness area. We need to preserve the wilderness for perpetuity. We do not need to add any more pollution in these pristine areas.
I mountain bike and think that designated wilderness areas are not suitable for trail riding. Let’s ensure humans have access to these last vestiges of pure nature, but keep them free of human development and damage.
Agreed whole heartedly. No reason to open mountain biking through wilderness when there are literally hundreds if not thousands of trails that do not destroy ecosystems or harm wildlife.
they can ride everywhere else…why bother the animals and wildlife just because they can….tell them they have enough places to ride. leave the wildnerness alone for animals only. they will only damage the wildnerness with garbage left behind.
Mountain bikes tear up the terrain, destroying habitat for insects that feed the forests
I am a 30-year mountain bike rider. I was riding on approved trails before mountain biking was a big thing. I am thoroughly against mountain biking in Wilderness Areas. Some wilderness land needs to remain closed to all vehicle use of any kind, including mountain biking. Call Mike Lee’s office to express your concerns about destruction of wild lands. Lee is a crusader against any and all conservation of lands in any form. Let Lee you don’t approve of his stand against degradation of our country’s most valuable wild lands.
Wilderness is wilderness. Mountain bikes don’t belong.
The Wilderness Act has helped save our public lands and our biodiversity by allowing only foot, horse, llama travel. Non mechanized means just that, no machines. Bikes are machines. It’s as simple as that.
Humility and restraint are the two qualities missing in sufficient measure in our species. The lack of these two capacities are the fatal flaws that cause us to destroy everything we love. Is it possible that we might change? It remains to be seen.
Judging by the plague of narcissism, arrogance and hubris currently infecting the species, it is going to take a heroic effort to keep our wild lands wild. The legacy of wild and unspoiled lands is one of the greatest bequests that one generation can bestow upon another.
With the advent of E-bikes, this push to ride in the wilderness is even more appalling. Who is going to police these bikers? Who is going to make sure the bikes used aren’t motorized? Bikers speeding on the trails sans electric propulsion are already menace enough. Just ask the crushed snakes and flattened lizards and other wildlife. You may as well open up the trails to dirt biking.
The mountain bikers who are advocating opening up the wilderness to bicycling obviously don’t care about their impact on wilderness trails. This is a self-involved bunch who can’t see the forest for the trees. All they want is to pursue their activity and if it harms habitat or negatively affects others on the trail, well . . . Ain’t that just too bad?
As Jim O’Donnell stated: There are endless miles of trails already available. Opening up the wilderness to mountain biking should never even be under consideration.
Let the few wilderness areas left be free of the wheel where possible. A quote I heard a few years back read “there is no more middle of nowhere anymore.” Let’s try to make that a reality again, through preserving wilderness in its purest sense.
When, are we going to have enough to makes us whole and to be satisfied with what we have and have destroyed to serve our own wants, NOT NEEDS, wants.
This planet keeps being destroyed by humans.
We consider our species the “highest thinking” species, but yet we DESTROY WILDERNESS, other species have been able to survive without destroying irreplaceable wilderness.
Its amoral and irresponsible to keep destroying wilderness to give ourselves a “thrill”
We need to gain consciousness the damaging effect these mountain bikes pollute and destroy nature.
I seen injured animals by bickers as these animals are struggling to live in their own home, while “mountain bikers” run and stump through their home, wilderness.
The injured wildlife is left behind to suffer in agony, while the bikers keeps pushing through their “thrill” ride.
Also, the food supply for the animals living around these mountain biking trails is cut.
It’s absolutely wrong to keep destroying, damaging, injuring wilderness for our own pleasure to full fill our broken ego.
God created nature with the same LOVE he created us, we need to stop being ungrateful to him by stop destroying nature for pure self serving pleasures.
“The Progress of The Moral of a Nation CAN be Judged by the way It Treats IT’s Animals.” Gandhi
Let the wilderness remain wild! There is too much emphasis on all these activities and not enough or NONE on the fact that the land and the animals on it need the peace of gentle use. Stop making everything commercial and “exciting” and leave the land alone please. There is a reason it is called “the WILDERNESS Act
Just as we have designated areas and opportunities for biking and other outdoor recreation, we need the same areas and opportunities designated specifically for wilderness.
I am relieved to read that the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) “does not support efforts to roll back the wilderness bike ban.” There is plenty of public land that allows bike use. The wilderness is too valuable a resource for wildlife (whose very existence is under threat due to human activity to further threaten it by allowing bikes and other mechanized vehicles in areas designated wilderness.
Only feet should be on wilderness ground. There are more than enough other trails for bikes.
Mountain biking defeats the purpose of wilderness. Anybody who’s had to dodge bikers on regular trails knows what I mean. It’s “fine” on shared trails, but there’s LOTS of shared trails.
Wilderness is meant for wildness, whether human immersion or nature, and zippity machines plowing the trail do not have a place in that.
I am completely opposed to permitting mountain biking into any designated wilderness areas. These areas need as much protection as possible from additional human encroachment. As posted by another individual who professes to be a mountain biker, many miles of trails already exist to provide terrain for mountain bikers. Opening up these lands is not necessary.
I am not for mountain bikes in wilderness at all. We have taken too much away from animals that need a peaceful place to live. We as people have used and abused land too much. We must leave everything we can to support the animals that live there.
I understand the “desire” of “mountain bikers” to enjoy the “wind in their hair” as they pedal about the 🌎🌍. It is nevertheless paramount to respect wilderness in all its glory. Mistakes made in the past such as felling the largest trees in sight, virtually eliminating species such as bison, beavers and many, many more have cost future generations handily. We have the opportunity to see a bit into the future as we observe the damage from cloudy, short -sightesls decisions. Let’s NOT repeat these gaps in clear, forward thinking.
I am an ex-pat who has been mtn. biking for 40yrs. I spent 25yrs working in the fabrication plant at RMB.
Mountain biking in Wilderness Areas is just wrong.
I will not do business with any manufacturer of bicycles or accessories who supports S4561.
My experiences with the riders of mountain bike are that they are loud, rude, and careless of the peace and safety of anyone else using the trails. I doubt they are any more concerned for wildlife. I dislike sharing park space with them for the reasons above. Their presence in wilderness areas would be deleterious to wildlife and anyone who desires the peace and quiet wilderness offers.
I am a 77 (+3/4) year-old woman who values the wilderness and implores the honoring (and even strengthening) of protection of the too-scarce wild places. Do as you can and should: Support the Wilderness Act for all creatures who deserve a place on earth. (Bikers and other human groups have places already!)
Interesting. A very skewed article.
Did you know that the most impacted trails, the trails in the worst condition, are the trails that are restricted to foot-based travel? Across the country. Bikes are lower impact. They have been called the most efficient means of crossing broken ground ever invented. Bikes have the conservation advantage.
Did you know that much of the West and across lands that are managed as Wilderness, bikes were used as exploration and transportation long before the 1964 Wilderness Act was proposed? Bikes have the historical precedent.
That effectively everyone that accesses Wilderness does so with mechanical means. Boots have laces which are a pulley system, one of the original mechanical devices. Saddles depend on the same mechanism. Ski binding is use several different mechanical systems. Same with snowshoes.
Almost nobody accesses Wilderness barefoot. Especially in winter. Don’t think that these mechanical systems really count? Try go hiking barefoot. Or in moccasins. No backpack because those also use mechanical systems… So why is it ok to draw the line of mechanical transport with boots and bindings and saddles on one side, and bikes on the other?
They can’t be justified through historical precedent. Because bike have that. It can’t be because they are lower impact. Because, again, bikes are better. So really it just comes down to the prejudice or old white people. Bikes scare them. Horses and hiking seem nostalgic.
Ultimately, I want bikes returned to Wilderness because I think we need to recruit and forge as many defenders of Wilderness as we possibly can. Most people never experience it and see it only as a line on a map that someone else decided should be there and a place where they are told NO. This system will fail. There will come a time when there are not enough people who will stand up and say “I love that place and want to preserve it as a special place.” Because the Capitalists are coming for the land. And right behind them are the hordes of people consuming the world. We need brave defenders of Wilderness and cyclists should make up those ranks.
Sorry Dave, but mountain bikers and for sure their bikes, never leave the land they roll over the same as before they were there.
Have you hiked a foot-only trail recently?! Like ANY 14er in Colorado? Or any National Park?! Braided, eroded mess. Because hikers, runners, equestrian users cut corners, find the easy way around something like a log or rock, or cut the corner because they think they can walk wherever they want. Mountain bikers ride singletrack not for the destination, but for the experience of riding the trail. So although hikers/runners/horseback riders THINK they walk lightly over the ground, the EVIDENCE proves otherwise. I say this not as a mountain biker, but as someone who has carefully observed, managed, maintained, designed and built trail for all types of trail users. I started the Grand Valley Trails Alliance, a 501c3 organization devoted to bringing trail user groups together to understand, support, and collaborate on protecting our landscapes and public lands through carefully planned, built and maintained trails. And to do it in an inclusive manner instead of fighting with one another and weakening ourselves in our fight against the real enemies of these precious places. I did this in a county that has 1.6M acres of BLM land including multiple areas of dedicated Wilderness and Wilderness Candidate Areas. Drawing a line around an area and effectively preventing 99% of people from the opportunity to become advocates for a space is a losing proposition. Prohibiting the use of bikes in Wilderness is unjustified, morally corrupt, and counterproductive.
Why are we “setting aside” these natural areas? Just for humans benefit? Why do we automatically look at natural areas as either something to be used for recreation, development or resource extraction? Why can’t we set aside natural areas purely for the benefit of native species to exist, reproduce and thrive? We are not the only species that exist on this planet. We are facing an existential crisis of mass extinction and you guys want to protect your “right” to make sure you can ride your mt. bikes or climb anywhere you want. Wake up and think about other species besides yourselves.
The wilderness is for the wild. It’s not a theme park. There are so few of those areas left that humans can very well go have fun elsewhere.
try to get it in more. WSJ? Epoch Times, Rolling Stone, etc.
THE Refuge, The Arctic Refuge, the undisputed king of American Wilderness! One of the most awesome places on earth. I know. I’ve been there on SIX expeditions. 4 of them alone with my German Shepard. Amazing!
An amazing place. But certainly not “untrammeled” as you just illustrated quite clearly. Bringing your dog to a biologically fragile environment is irresponsible. But see how visiting a place and having an experience there has helped you fall in love with it and become an advocate for it?! Limiting that to foot-based visitors hurts the landscape and the goal of setting aside a place as Wilderness.
These lands are currently among the few places where wildlife (animals and plants) are protected from the harms of vehicles (and yes, mountain bikes are vehicles) and humans can get away from all of the knuckledragger derbies inflicted on us by the selfish bullies every day. Quiet and lack-of-harm must continue to be protected on them.
You realize that if you were hiking on a trail that has mountain bikers, it was most likely designed, planned, paid for, built, and maintained by “knuckledraggers” who are generous enough to allow other trail users on the trail. And even though foot-based trail users make up the largest number of trail users and have the largest impact on trails and landscapes, they do far less trail maintenance and contribute far less money to trail projects than mountain bikers (although some equestrian groups are very engaged in trail projects). So. You are welcome. Enjoy the trail.
Bandit trails created by mountain bikers looking to jump and get more stoke from an otherwise normal trail is endemic to any trail open to bikers. Most don’t even know they do not have right of way when approaching walkers. I doubt your honesty Grossman.
I want to jump in here. I design trails as a side gig here in Minnesota. (Civil engineering is my 9-5. job.)
First, bandit trails are a failure of management, not a specific user groups. Hikers are the worst in going off trail, for instance, and create social trails. If bikes follow those new social trails, that creates higher impacts. With proper management, however, this issue can be removed. Here in MN, we (trail groups) are required to shutdown social trails with prejudice. This creates a feedback loop that helps “train” trail users not to go off trail.
Second, depending on the User Management Technique being used, right-of-way on trails can vary. Its not correct to say that right-of-way is always in favor on hikers.
Show me a foot-based trail and I will show you dozens of braids and shortcuts. That is not the case on MTB trails. Yes there are “bandit trails” created by mountain bikers. I don’t condone those. But again, foot-based users exhibit this bandit behavior many times more often. As evidence I point to any and every 14er in Colorado. Any national park. All those are off limits to bikes.
You can doubt my honesty, Will, but you cannot deny the validity of my statements because they are all verifiable and not based on biased assumptions. But let’s revisit honesty, too… I provided my full name because I stand behind my position. You?
Consider your honesty doubted. Where is the citation? You claimed to have it. Did you lose it? Or perhaps it was never there in the way you claimed.
Recent wildlife disturbance data from Colorado Parks and Wildlife show that wildlife can be more disrupted by hikers than mountain bikes because hikers move slower and their impact in an area is more prolonged.
You should post the link. What you make sound open and shut against hikers is not how CPW wrote it. The big concern is off-trail hiking, not hiking.