Anybody see this?

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar
LMBSGV
Topix Fanatic
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:42 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: San Geronimo, CA
Contact:

Re: Anybody see this?

Post by LMBSGV »

As a long-time resident of first Fairfax and then West Marin, I’ve been in the middle of the mountain bike-hiker-equestrian wars since the beginning. My first encounter with a mountain bike was Joe Breeze riding one of the first “clunkers” on a trail in Fairfax. Due to my extensive experience with bike-hiker encounters, I am completely opposed to mountain bikes in designated wilderness. For all the reasons stated in other posts, bikes on wilderness trails is a disaster. One of the biggest problems for the Marin County Parks department are all the illegal single track trails built by bikers in areas with extensive networks of fire roads where bikers can ride legally. (Within a mile of my house, I know of at least three illegal single tracks.) Imagine what will happen in wilderness areas with bikers building illegal trails.

Unfortunately, there is a rather pushy segment of the mountain bike community that will not give up on their push to get bikes in wilderness areas. Currently, the Marin Parks department is having meetings on rules for the parks and open space and the bikers show up in force, verbally intimidating anyone who disagrees with them. They simply do not perceive the incompatibility of a bike with wilderness or even most trails. “Erosion caused by bikes? Hikers run down? What are you talking about? We should be able to go anywhere we want.”

It is time for the National Park Service and Forest Service to state that mountains bikes will never be permitted in any designated wilderness and that the discussion is closed. No further comment.
I don’t need a goal destination. I need a destination that meets my goals.

http://laurencebrauer.com
User avatar
cmon4day
Topix Regular
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:08 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Dublin, CA

Re: Anybody see this?

Post by cmon4day »

dave54 wrote:How many of those 900 comments are mike vandeman sock puppets? Given his past I would wager most.

I do not see the proposal as all that evil. The bill only requests the land agencies consider bikes where feasible and appropriate. Few trails would actually have bikes allowed as many are simply not rideable by most bikers. Mtn bikes are already de facto allowed on much of the PCT, as the FS rarely enforces the ban. The predicted chaos has not occurred. Likewise the handful of trails in the NPs have not degenerated into demolition derbies and wastelands.

The relaxation of the handgun ban in the NPs have not turned them into wild west shootouts. The proliferation of large RVs resulted in campgrounds remodeled and expanded, with dire predictions of catastrophe by the opponents. Those did not happen. I fail to see why a few mtn bikes will turn wilderness areas into desolate ghettos.

Much ado about nothing. History shows the predicted disasters do not occur.
I agree with Dave54's assessment. I really don't see the problem with MTB's in the wilderness. Everyone here on this forum loves the mountains for the solitude, scenery and adventure. What makes a person who loves to ride any different. So whats the big deal if you're hiking along and you meet a couple of guys or gals on MTB's on an adventure. I sure you'll talk to them and share some stories just like you do when you cross paths with other BPers. After the greeting you'll each go on your merry way, no experience is ruined.

As far as trail damage, that is just an excuse. Look at what horses do to the trails. Hikers also have an impact. And yes MTB's have an impact as well. The solution to this problem is trail maintenance. That system is already in place. Thousands of $$ and countless man (person) hours are spent on trail maintenance each year. So what's the big deal.

To those who oppose MTB's in the Wilderness, just get over it and not be so single minded.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
oldranger
Topix Addict
Posts: 2861
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:18 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Bend, Oregon

Re: Anybody see this?

Post by oldranger »

Commo4day

you clearly missed the point of my second concern. That is simply the overloading of trails by adding a second user group. The first few miles of any trail out of Tuolumne meadows is already packed with day hikers adding bikers can not possibly make that experience as nice. Similarly the trail up to Green Lakes in the Three Sisters wilderness experiences hundreds of hikers every weekend during the summer. If opened to Mt. Biking the number of users would surely double and what kind of wilderness experience is that? I suspect also that mountain bikers would expect me to step off the trail as they pass. Given the numbers of mt. bikers going up and down that trail it would get pretty tedious.

The concept of designating wilderness was based on preserving some lands in a wild state and to enable us to experience it in roughly the same fashion that our predecessors did. In order to do so it has been necessary to restrict numbers and thus our ability to go when and where we want to go. Using mountain bikes in wilderness is a significant game changer because it expands the number of people who want to enter the wilderness and greatly extends the range of day use --each of these will then have a serious impact on the meaning of the "wilderness experience" without even considering physical impacts. Also your pics are red herrings. Multiple trails are the result of 1. bad trail design and 2. well over 100 years of use including 1/2 of that time being almost exclusively used by horses which constitute just a minor part of use these days. The oldest Mt. Biking trail in Bend is about 20 years old.

dave 54

I think you fail to understand the skill and determination of mountain bikers. Rock steps are a challenge to them not an obstacle. Here in Mountain bike country the number of mountain bikers with a great skill set is amazing. And there are few trails in Wilderness areas in the Cascades they would not jump at the chance to ride. I could easily foresee the "Three Sisters Challenge" a race around the 3 sisters on a bike and completely within the wilderness. One thing I am certain of is that if bikes were allowed in Wilderness quotas for day rides/hikes would quickly follow.

I understand the desire to have access to Wilderness when some areas previously open to Mt. Bikes have been closed. That is the reason that I have opposed the creation of new "wilderness" in roaded areas that mt. bikers and ohv users previously could access.

Mike
Mike

Who can't do everything he used to and what he can do takes a hell of a lot longer!
User avatar
chulavista
Topix Acquainted
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 6:02 am
Experience: N/A

Re: Anybody see this?

Post by chulavista »

Here's a list of National Park Service units (>50) that allow mountain biking.

https://www.imba.com/nps-trails-roads

I was confused at how places like the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone could allow mountain biking if it is banned in wilderness and I came across this map.

http://www.wilderness.net/map.cfm

It looks like the Giant Forest, Peak Lake Ranger Hut, and Bearpaw High Sierra Camp locations aren't considered wilderness. Never knew that. Most of Yellowstone is not wilderness, wow! Glacier National Park...not wilderness! Grand Canyon...not wilderness!

Would it be correct to say that the process for allowing bicycles on a trail in SEKI would be to declassify the trail as wilderness? Is there a good book that explains all the legal background why some places are wilderness/non-wilderness, national park, national monument, etc.?
User avatar
cmon4day
Topix Regular
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:08 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Dublin, CA

Re: Anybody see this?

Post by cmon4day »

OR,

I do agree with you on overuse potential. And as the article stated, that it would be up to the local land managers to designate which trails are open and those that are not. I think this would allay your fears in the Tuolumne Meadows example. This would be an area that was closed to MTB's.

I think though that your perception, along with many others, is not reality. Everyone is citing user conflict as a major issue, I beg to differ. As a long time MTB'er I understand and obey the right of way rules, as do the majority of MTB'ers. Yes, there may be, no there are, individuals who do not act responsibly. But that is no reason to exclude all. Lets say for example there are BP'ers who cut switchbacks or have fires where they are not allowed. Do we restrict all BP'ers from the Wilderness because of those who do not act responsibly? No! So why should it be any different.

On thing we should accept is nothing stays the same. Our predecessors crossed the wilderness in wagon trains, then users (prospectors) would use the wilderness for their mining interests, and now BP's, climbers, and fishermen and women are the primary users. Why not MTB'ers? Times change. How is coming across a couple of MTB'ers on your BP trip going to ruin your wilderness experience? Its no different than coming across a couple of BP'ers?

And yes, riding down rock gardens is challenging and fun. So what difference does it make whether or not a MTB'er is challenging him or herself on these trails? None!

And yes, I agree, the pictures are a bit of a red herring. You got me on that. I'm sure a person who opposes MTB can produce pictures showing trails that are not favorable. But the point I was trying to make it that all this talk on MTB's being damaging to trails is blown way out of proportion.
User avatar
kpeter
Topix Fanatic
Posts: 1449
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:11 pm
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker

Re: Anybody see this?

Post by kpeter »

I've done some mountain biking, and my preference would be not to allow mountain bikes in the wilderness unless there were double track trails available, and to restrict bikes to trails. I guess I could grow to view mountain bikes in the same way I view horses--as another member of the coalition that is necessary to keep public support for wilderness strong. I am reminded of coming across kayakers with their enormous boats strapped to their backs as they carted them up the trail on a portage.

If mountain bikes were allowed in, however, there ought to be some re engineering of single track trails. Switchbacks are not currently designed for bikes, for example. The horse packers pay fees, as I understand it, to use the trails and these fees help defray the costs of repairing the wear and tear of the livestock. (Am I wrong about that now? It was once true.) If so, similar fees should pertain to bikes to repair the additional damage they will inflict and to adjust the trails as needed. Hikers do pay their small fee, which is commensurate with the damage they do.

My greatest worry, however, would be bikers going off trail. Hauling bikes to the top of a slope and then enjoying a thrilling ride down. The soil is so fragile in parts of the Sierra that a single such downhill joyride could create a gully.
User avatar
cmon4day
Topix Regular
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:08 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Dublin, CA

Re: Anybody see this?

Post by cmon4day »

Ran across this article regarding MTB's in the Wilderness.

http://reviews.mtbr.com/the-angry-singl ... ness-issue

And here is the FB page of Sustainable Trails Coalition who supports lifting the ban on MTB's

https://www.facebook.com/SustainableTra ... fref=photo
User avatar
oldranger
Topix Addict
Posts: 2861
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:18 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Bend, Oregon

Re: Anybody see this?

Post by oldranger »

kpeter

Commercial packers do pay a fee for stock trips. Private packers are treated the same as backpackers.

Mike
Mike

Who can't do everything he used to and what he can do takes a hell of a lot longer!
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
Posts: 1327
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.

Re: Anybody see this?

Post by dave54 »

"dave 54

I think you fail to understand the skill and determination of mountain bikers. Rock steps are a challenge to them not an obstacle. Here in Mountain bike country the number of mountain bikers with a great skill set is amazing. And there are few trails in Wilderness areas in the Cascades they would not jump at the chance to ride. I could easily foresee the "Three Sisters Challenge" a race around the 3 sisters on a bike and completely within the wilderness. One thing I am certain of is that if bikes were allowed in Wilderness quotas for day rides/hikes would quickly follow. "


There will always be a Hans Rey type of rider that will try anything. They represent the minority and not the typical mountain biker. Many, if not most, wilderness trails would be difficult for the average rider to negotiate, leaving long stretches of hike-a-bike. I expect the typical trail rider would be a bikepacker, not an adrenaline fueled 20-something looking for thrills. There will be a few, of course, mostly near trailheads. Interior trails would get very light use by more conscientious riders.

I never was a big fan of the slippery slope type of argument and will not get sucked into it here. Note that carts and wheelbarrows are currently allowed under special circumstances.

I have heartburn over the inconsistencies of the Wilderness Act itself. Ipods and small portable speakers can blast rap music and heavy metal into the next canyon, lithium AA batteries with LED lanterns light up an entire campsite like a night baseball game, and bright neon day glo clothing render a party visible from the next mountaintop. All of these are legal and even defended by some. IMHO all are more disruptive of the wilderness values, destroy solitude, and violate the intent and spirit of the Wilderness Act more than a regulated bicycle.

No one is advocating turning Wilderness trails into a XC velodrome. The STC is only requesting agencies review the current prohibition (which is an agency determined regulation, not a law) on a case-by-case basis to see if some trails may be opened to bikes. Other regulations as to party size, prohibitions on competitive events, unnecessary damage to resources, etc can remain in place. The same arguments were used pro and con when the NPS opened some of their trails to bikes.

I am reminded of the experiment tried by Lassen Volcanic NP to allow snowmobiles on the main Park road, highway 89. There were the usual predictions of total devastation from the usual parties, of course. After the usual round of hearings and planning documents the NPS allowed snowmobiles on the snow covered Park road one Saturday per month. The first day the place was packed, with snowmobile clubs from all over northern California and southern Oregon in attendance. The next month numbers dropped, and slowly dwindled. By the end of the second year there were Saturdays when not a single snowmobiler showed up. The NPS finally closed the experiment with scarcely a whimper from the snowmobile community. After the novelty wore off snowmobilers realized there were better places to ride anyway. I expect mountain biking would be similar.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
Wandering Daisy
Topix Docent
Posts: 6641
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
Contact:

Re: Anybody see this?

Post by Wandering Daisy »

This fall I visited my daughter in Durango Colorado and we hiked on some trails heavily used by mountain bikers. It was very unnerving for me. If one or two mountain bikers come past me in a day, no problem. If someone comes barreling down on me every 15 minutes, that is another thing. I no longer can simply walk down the trail, but have to be constantly looking behind me. I think it is a matter of controlling the numbers of both hikers and bikers. Currently, there is no means to regulate the number of day-hikers. I would venture that most mountain bikers would be day-use too.

This is not just a wilderness problem. Here on the American River Parkway bike path, we have the same conflicts. Simply by having two uses with vastly different speeds, problems arise. I both walk and bike on the trail. Most walkers stray onto the paved path when they are supposed to stay on the "shoulder". Many walkers walk three abreast, pushing baby strollers and seem clueless to the fact that a biker cannot see them on a blind corner. Many bikers go too fast and also ride three abreast. If I now walk, I usually take the horse trail because there are very few horses vs bikes. If I ride my bike, I do it weekdays, odd times when I know use is low and rarely on weekends, which is a real zoo. It is not that bikers or hikers are against "sharing" the bike trail. Most mean well, but in practice the two uses simply are at odds given the number of users. Put all this on a narrow high mountain trail, and I imagine pretty chaotic conditions.

Maybe I have had bad luck, but I have yet to walk on a trail that allows mountain bikes that I have felt at ease. It is no fun hiking always having to look behind you. The only place I have been that both uses seem to work minimally well together are in places where the "trails" are actually very wide- usually old roads that have been closed to vehicles - such as Henry Coe Park and Point Reyes. I am not saying that it is the biker's "fault". Just the nature of the different speeds on the same path seems to defy good flow of traffic. And it does not seem to matter if I, the hiker, have the right of way- I am not going to play "chicken" with a person on a bike that could easily wipe me out and seriously hurt both of us.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests