mountain biking in wilderness - the warrior's … biking in wilderness u from vol. 13, no. 1...

Mountain Biking in Wilderness

u from

Vol. 13, No. 1 Spring 2003 pp. 20–35

Published by the Wildlands Project 802-434-4077 u P.O. Box 455, Richmond, VT 05477

[email protected] u www.wildlandsproject.org

Wild Earth ©2003 by the Wildlands Project

articles ©2003 Jim Hasenauer, Douglas W. Scott, Andy Kerr, Brian O’Donnell and Michael Carroll, Dave Foreman

illustrations ©Suzanne DeJohn

WILD EARTHWILD EARTH

Wild TimeWilderness System Under Siege

The Language of LoonsMountain Bikes in Wilderness?

W I L D E A R T H F O R U M

21 A Niche for Bicycles by Jim Hasenauer

23 Some History by Douglas W. Scott

26 Which Way? by Andy Kerr

31 Don’t Tread Here by Brian O’Donnell and Michael Carroll

34 A Modest Proposal by Dave Foreman

also included: Tom Butler’s “A Wilderness View”

Some months ago I spent a glori-ous autumn weekend exploring awilderness not far from my home inVermont. Like many eastern wilder-ness areas, it is relatively small (about46,000 acres), and recovering wellfrom historical logging and miningoperations. A friend and I shoulderedpacks and hiked several miles towarda remote lake at the base of thewilderness area’s namesake mountain.After a few hours of hiking, wereached the shoreline. There, on arocky spit jutting into the lappingwaters, was another wilderness travel-er, sitting alone, enjoying the beautyof the scene.

We stopped and chatted amiably.Wasn’t the day lovely? He agreed itwas. Had he heard loons? He had.What was his route? He’d come fromthe south and would be making a loopover the mountain and out to anothertrailhead that afternoon. Was he awarethat he was in the heart of a designat-ed wilderness area, where the bicycleat his feet was prohibited? Here, theconversation grew more wary; thebiker feigned ignorance. We suggestedthat he be more careful where he rode,noting that the surrounding region

contained hundreds of thousands ofacres of non-wilderness public landwhere mountain biking is allowed. Helistened politely enough, and we wentoff to find a campsite for the night.

To be sure, my companion and I would have been far angrier to findthe fellow astride a dirt bike or ATV,throwing mud. Illegal (and legal) off-road vehicle use is indeed a large andgrowing problem throughout NorthAmerica, and the direct impactscaused by mountain biking pale incomparison. But the biker’s disregardfor wilderness convention was stillannoying, and the next day, when wefollowed his route and climbed thenearby mountain I was peeved again.The trail was steep, ascending to arocky summit with sublime views andfragile vegetation. My doughy middle-aged frame could never have pedaled a bike over it, but my anger didn’tspring from envy of the biker’s steelyquadriceps. I simply thought—this is no place for a bike.

But WHY did I think so? Am I asnobby hiker? Was the biker doingany more damage to the trail networkthan our feet? Was my attitude a ves-

tige of historically accepted wildernessrecreation that needs updating for themodern era? Or are there good rea-sons—historical, ecological, and ethi-cal—to oppose mechanized intrusioninto Nature’s last strongholds?

I’ve been thinking about thesequestions as we put together this WildEarth’s expanded forum on mountainbiking and wilderness, which beginson page 20. Every group of conserva-tionists working to see wilderness legislation introduced or passed byCongress must now factor the moun-tain biking community into the polit-ical equation. With bikers organizingto oppose some new wilderness desig-nations in California and elsewhere,the conservation community is facedwith the vexing issue of how toaccommodate a growing recreationalconstituency without compromisingthe wild places we love.

Would opening designatedwilderness areas to biking exacerbatethe “creeping degradation” of theNational Wilderness PreservationSystem that Howie Wolke decries inthis issue? Or would the wildernessmovement, swelled by millions ofmountain bikers, stimulate Congress

What Bears Want

A W I L D E R N E S S V I E W

open mind, although admit to beingskeptical about just how actively themountain biking community willwork for new wilderness designations.Moreover, I’m dubious of Andy Kerr’sassertion that “no case [against bik-ing] has been made on ecologicalgrounds.” Really? Opening thewilderness system to millions of bik-ers will bring them into the wilder-ness fold as a potent political force,but this expanded group of potentialwilderness users will have no negativeeffects on specific wilderness areas? I don’t buy it. Unless this magicallyexpanded wilderness movement canleverage Congress to dramatically andquickly build out the WildernessSystem, and the pertinent agencies(U.S. Forest Service, National ParkService, Bureau of Land Management,Fish & Wildlife Service) can efficient-ly disperse and manage the increasedrecreational traffic, the ecologicaleffects of mountain biking in wilder-ness areas are likely to be significant.Large numbers of new wildernessusers, whether hikers, bikers, or but-terfly watchers, cannot help but nickaway at the integrity and diversity of America’s last best wild places.

Yes, some research suggests thatbikes probably cause little more ero-sion and soil compaction than hikers,and likely less than horses, which areallowed in wilderness. Yes, some stud-ies suggest no discernible difference in the way hikers and bikers disturbwildlife in individual encounters.Approaching afoot or apedal, peoplewill cause animals to flush. But extra-polating those data points into anassumption of no harm ignores theway technology can amplify humaneffects on the natural world.

Which brings me back to myencounter with the wilderness biker.

My gripe was not because he hadfunny looking shorts or ripplingmuscles or even that he lied (I think)about not knowing his mode of trans-portation was illegal. It was because his bike made the wilderness smaller. Thebike’s mechanical advantage allowedhim to move farther and faster intowild country. In this case, the road-less area was relatively small to beginwith, providing only modest habitatsecurity for wildlife. Welcomingmore people on machines wouldshrink it further.

As conservationists wrestle withthese questions, it’s well to remindourselves that backcountry recreation,a foundational and still valuable argu-ment for wilderness protection, is nolonger preeminent. The overarchingrationale for preserving wilderness isto protect Nature’s diversity.Specifically, that translates to savingthe last refugia for wild creatures likegrizzly bears and wolverines that needsecure, remote areas to thrive. Itmeans helping restore and connecthigh-quality natural habitats wheremartens and otters and other sensitivespecies can flourish—and opposingextractive or recreational uses that may degrade those habitats.

Certainly everyone can agree thatinternecine bickering among muscle-powered recreationists is counterpro-ductive. We can and should avoid it.There are ways to accommodateappropriate recreational use of publiclands and maintain the integrity of the National Wilderness PreservationSystem. In thinking about how best todo that, every recreationist—whetherhiker, biker, horsepacker, or posey sniffer—should not begin by asking,“What’s best for ME?” but rather“What’s best for the bears?”u Tom Butler

to designate vast new swaths ofwilderness on federal public lands?The latter argument is argued cogent-ly herein by Jim Hasenauer, a long-time board member of the Interna-tional Mountain Biking Association.Conservation strategist Andy Kerrexpands on this point, dissects thepolitical options, and suggests thatwilderness advocates should fullyembrace cyclists in an expandedwilderness movement, propelled bymuscle-powered recreationists.

Deeply immersed in conservationrealpolitik, Kerr’s argument is, essen-tially: Congress designates wilderness.Congress responds to constituent pres-sure. Mountain bikers, who are trulywilderness lovers at heart, are a hugepotential constituency to support—oroppose—wilderness. Thus the wilder-ness movement (and wilderness areas)should accommodate them. (This lineof reasoning adopts the Bush doctrinethat “either you are with us, or you arewith the terrorists,” although in thiscase the “terrorists” are the off-roadvehicle enthusiasts, clear-cutters, andminers who would terrorize wildlifeand degrade the ecological health ofAmerica’s public lands.)

Other commentators in the forumtake a more skeptical and arguablymore traditional view of what consti-tutes appropriate wilderness recre-ation. There is far from consensus on how wilderness advocates shouldapproach the opportunity—orthreat—embodied in the mountainbiking lobby. Wild Earth’s role, ofcourse, is to help foster spirited,respectful debate. We have tried topresent a balanced spectrum of viewsand hope conservationists of all stripeswill read them with an open mind—and then keep talking.

I’ve certainly tried to keep an

20 W I L D E A R T H S P R I N G 2 0 0 3

[ W I L D E A R T H F O R U M ]

Mountain Biking

scratchboards by Suzanne DeJohn

S P R I N G 2 0 0 3 W I L D E A R T H 21

in Wilderness

A Niche for Bicyclesby Jim Hasenauer

Last year, in a conversation with a California wildernessadvocate, I suggested that a boundary adjustment placing apopular multi-use trail outside a proposed wilderness wouldenable the mountain bike community to support designationfor that parcel. She said, “but then, there wouldn’t be any trailin there to hike.”

There’s the rub. If wilderness advocates are out to savewild places and the wildlife that depend on them, the moun-tain bike community is with you. If you’re out to secure hik-ing trails or to enjoy the wilderness experience at our expense,we’ve got a problem.

There’s a natural affinity between the mountain bike andthe mainstream environmental communities. Our bond is agreat love of wild places, both the ones we visit for renewaland reinvigoration and the ones that we’ll never visit, butknow are there. We love living in a world that is still wild.According to an Outdoor Industry of America report, thereare 46 million Americans who rode bikes on a singletrack trailat least once in 2001. These are people inclined to work forhabitat, open space, and public land protection—and do.

When it comes to federal wilderness—what bike advo-cates call “Big W Wilderness”—though, mountain bicyclistsare troubled. Current regulations ban bicycles in designatedwilderness. That ban distorts the debate. Whenever a wilder-ness proposal contains a significant riding trail, cyclists workto ensure that the trail does not receive a wilderness designa-tion. We advocate boundary adjustments or alternative landdesignations. Since wilderness advocates see other land usedesignations as flawed, any whittling down of a proposal isviewed as a loss. Publicly, wilderness advocates typically dis-count the cyclists’ loss of a trail. We suspect that privately,many are happy to see us removed. This opposition positionscyclists and wilderness advocates as adversaries.

Both sides get strategic. Wilderness proponents suggestclearly unacceptable proposals in their packages so that theycan withdraw them and cite compromise with cyclists. Whencyclists fight to maintain access to trails they’re riding, they’reaccused of being selfish. Some mountain bike organizationshave already decided that the conservation community is theenemy. They’ve adopted the Blue Ribbon Coalition languageof the “environmental industry” “locking out citizens fromtheir lands.” These distortions happen at the extremes, butthose extremes bring pressures on already fragile relation-ships. Suspicion replaces trust; hostility blocks cooperation.

This negative energy and divisiveness is tragic. But thereis a daring yet conservative way out of this dilemma. The 1964

Wilderness Act did not ban bikes; it banned “mechanicaltransport” which in 1965 was defined as “propelled by a non-living power source.” Bikes were allowed in wilderness until1984 when regulations first offered in 1977 went into effect.Revising regulations to accept bicycling as an appropriate useof some trails in some wildernesses would completely trans-form the wilderness coalition and the wilderness debate.

This would not be an amendment to the Wilderness Act,nor need it be a foot in the door to allowing a number ofunwanted activities. It’s a regulatory change that recognizesbicycles for what they are: muscle-powered, human-scale,low-impact devices not significantly different from otherrecreational equipment that is allowed in wilderness. It’s aregulatory change that acknowledges that responsible bicy-clists, like other responsible wilderness visitors, can enjoy thesolitude, splendor, adventure, discovery, and awe of travelingthrough untrammeled land.

The early wilderness philosophers probably didn’t evenconsider bicycle use in the years leading to the WildernessAct. Bikes then were seen as toys. What is likely is that the1977 and 1984 bans on bicycles were rooted not so much inwilderness philosophy, but in the chilly reception bicyclistsreceived at that time when they first showed up on hiking andequestrian trails.

The mountain bike was invented in the mid-1970s andfirst mass-produced in 1981. As they became popular, deci-


sion-makers were justifiably cautious about their use.Environmental impacts weren’t known. There were com-plaints from existing trail users, especially on the urban fringe.It was often these hikers and equestrians, in concert with envi-ronmental groups, that succeeded in closing a number of trailsto bikes. The most frequent claim used to demonize bikes wasthat they were essentially motorcycles. That led to the pre-ferred management tools of separate facilities or outright bans.The dates suggest that the wilderness prohibition was merelyone of several early trail closures during this period.

Since then, bicyclists have organized and become ardentsupporters of public lands. Many of the early closures havebeen reversed. Studies show that bike impacts are similar tothose of other non-motorized trail users. Some land managersnow have more than 25 years of experience managing bikes.

Although relations between bicyclists and other trailusers have improved considerably, user conflict remains anissue. Irresponsible behavior by some mountain bikers cer-tainly contributes to this. So do media images of stunts andbike racing. Some people, not used to sharing trails, havevague concerns and fears when approached by a bicyclist.These are human problems that are manageable. Experienceand trail etiquette can mitigate this conflict.

Unfortunately, there’s a small but vocal number of trailusers for whom the very sight of a bicycle ruins their solitude.Many of the wilderness advocates who don’t want bikes inwilderness don’t want them anywhere. These folks are enti-

The ban on bicycles is an unnecessary

impediment to a wilderness

constituency and that’s an unnecessary

impediment to wilderness.

tled to their point of view, but that prejudice shouldn’t guidea movement committed to protecting North America’squickly dwindling wild land.

There’s been a lot of talk recently about new approachesto wilderness and the importance of compromise and newcoalitions. A regulation change would certainly empower thewilderness movement in a new way: it would create a newcoalition without compromising the fundamental wildernessphilosophy of wild land for its own sake, of rich and diversehabitat, of appropriate recreation, of stewardship that isthoughtful and appreciative.

A regulation change allowing bicycles would raise newmanagement issues of both biological and visitor carryingcapacity, but there are well-established ways of making thosedecisions. It would also require a kind of local decision-mak-ing that many wilderness advocates historically fear. Whichtrails in which areas should be open to bikes? How best to dis-perse visitors? These debates would be lively, but they wouldtake place inside the councils of the wilderness movement,and when decided, we could speak with one political voice.

There are other advantages. Bicyclists volunteer. Often,equestrian groups oppose new wilderness because of concernsthat trail maintenance couldn’t be sustained. One of theirrefutable contributions of the mountain bike communityhas been the commitment to trail maintenance. That’s a sig-nificant benefit. Wilderness advocates often promise warygateway communities that there are economic rewards to begained from nearby wilderness recreation. That factor wouldbe multiplied by bicyclist numbers.

In many proposed wilderness areas, there are real peopleriding real trails. They should not have to give them up. Theywill especially reject arguments that mischaracterize theirtrail use as inappropriate.

To allow the natural community to thrive, we must workthrough challenges in our social community. The ban on bicy-cles is an unnecessary impediment to a wilderness constituencyand that’s an unnecessary impediment to wilderness. Lifting theban would invigorate that constituency. It would mean bikes onsome trails in wilderness—and much more wilderness for all. e

Jim Hasenauer is a professor of communication studies at CaliforniaState University at Northridge and has served on the InternationalMountain Bicycling Association’s Board of Directors since 1988.He’s a member of the California Recreational Trails Committee andthe California Roundtable on Recreation, Parks and Tourism. Theseopinions are his own.


MacKaye, Marshall, Leopold, and the others who found-ed the Wilderness Society in 1935 saw wilderness as “a seri-ous human need rather than a luxury and plaything,” con-cluding that “…this need is being sacrificed to the mechanicalinvasion in its various killing forms.” Expressing their concernabout human intrusions that bring “into the wilderness a fea-ture of the mechanical Twentieth Century world,” the society’sfounders identified wilderness areas as “regions which possessno means of mechanical conveyance.”7

The words of the Wilderness ActAs historian Paul Sutter notes, “for Leopold the essential qual-ity of wilderness was how one traveled and lived within itsconfines,” a view shared by the other founders of theWilderness Society.8 As he drafted the Wilderness Act in1956, Howard Zahniser, executive director of the society,drew on this well-understood and fundamental concept ofwilderness. In a nationwide radio broadcast in 1949, he hademphasized that “wilderness will not survive where there ismechanical transportation.”9

As defined in the dictionary, and as reflected in this wholeline of twentieth century wilderness thinking, the term“mechanization” embraces a broader category than just theterm “motor vehicles.”10 Congress adopted this crucial dis-tinction when it enacted the Wilderness Act. Section 4(c) ofthe act prohibits certain uses, some absolutely and others withlimited exceptions:

Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and sub-ject to existing private rights, there shall be no commer-cial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilder-ness area designated by this Act and, except as necessaryto meet minimum requirements for the administration ofthe area for the purpose of this Act (including measuresrequired in emergencies involving the health and safetyof persons within the area), there shall be no temporaryroad, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment ormotorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form ofmechanical transport, and no structure or installationwithin any such area.11

The plain words of the statute distinguish between theuse of motor vehicles and any “other form of mechanical trans-port”—and separately prohibit both. The canons of statutoryconstruction require distinct meaning be given to each provi-sion and each item in a list of items, preventing the assump-tion that when Congress chose to use two different words orphrases, these were intended to have the same meaning.12


Some Historyby Douglas W. Scott

In December 1933, the director of the National ParkService floated the idea that construction of the Skyline Driveparkway along the wild ridgetops of Shenandoah NationalPark would be a terrific opportunity for that section of theAppalachian Trail to “be made wide and smooth enough thatit could serve as a bicycle path.”1

Benton MacKaye, father of the Appalachian Trail, wasapoplectic. The Appalachian Trail was to be a “real wildernessfootpath,” he told the director, and one of the prerequisites was“that it is to be a footway and not a wheelway.”2 MacKaye wasan enthusiastic bicyclist but believed that like any form ofmechanization, bicycles did not belong in wilderness. He “firstsaw the true wilderness” in 1897, he wrote in his journal, dur-ing a long ramble through the White Mountains of NewHampshire, preceded by a 10-day bicycle trip from ShirleyCenter, Massachusetts. As he and his companions set out on thewilderness hike, he wrote: “The country we are about to traverseis one, I am told, undisturbed by civilization in any form.…Wehave said ‘good-bye’ to the bicycles and civilization and willnow pursue our way on foot through the White Mountains.”3

As these episodes illustrate, from their earliest thinkingabout a practical program for preserving wilderness, wilder-ness pioneers were intent on excluding all vestiges of “mech-anization” from such areas. And that includes anything withwheels, such as bicycles or wheeled game carriers.

In 1930, Robert Marshall defined wilderness as “aregion which…possesses no possibility of conveyance by anymechanical means.”4

In 1949, Aldo Leopold wrote, “Recreation is valuable inproportion to the intensity of its experiences, and to thedegree to which it differs from and contrasts with workaday life.By these criteria, mechanized outings are at best a milk-and-water affair.”5

In 1964, the Wilderness Act set out the essence of feder-ally designated wilderness as being its “contrast with thoseareas where man and his works dominate the landscape” with“increasing population, accompanied by expanding settle-ment and growing mechanization.”6


Thus, distinct from the phrases involving motors per se, theprohibition on any “other form of mechanical transport”must mean some class of transport devices other than thosewith motors.

The Forest Service initially got it wrongDespite the clear words of the law, the first Department ofAgriculture regulations (drafted by the U.S. Forest Serviceand finalized in 1966) violated the canons of statutory con-struction on this point. This error was highlighted in the firstlaw review analysis of the Wilderness Act, published just amonth later.

Commenting on the identical wording as it appeared inthe draft form of the regulations, Michael McCloskey noted:

In its regulations to implement the act, the ForestService has defined “mechanical transport” as “any con-trivance…propelled by a nonliving power source.” As anonliving power source is the same as a motor, mechan-ical transport is thus defined as being the same as“motorized transport,” and there is no exclusion ofhorse-drawn vehicles, bicycles, or cargo carriers. Thewording of section 4(c) is that there shall be “no use ofmotor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, nolanding of aircraft, no other form of mechanical trans-port….” In an effort to give meaning to each item enu-merated, the rules of statutory construction would sug-gest that duplicate definitions should be avoided. Forthis reason, the Forest Service would appear to be inerror in saying that the phrase “mechanical transport”means no more than the preceding phrase “motor vehi-cles.” The meaning of the sentence would appear to bethat the final phrase refers to modes of mechanical trans-port that are not motor vehicles, motorboats, or motor-driven aircraft. By a process of elimination, this wouldseem to leave only items such as bicycles, wagons, andcargo carriers as the referent for the phrase.13

Responding to the draft regulations in September 1965,both the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club—the nationalorganizations most intimately involved in the drafting andenactment of the Wilderness Act—had put the Forest Serviceon notice of its error. In comments for the Wilderness Society,its executive director wrote:

The definition of mechanical transport…should specifi-cally include contrivances powered by living powersources (such as wagons drawn by horses, bicycles, andwheeled cargo carriers) as well as contrivances propelledby nonliving power sources. (See Paragraph 4(c) of the

The Wilderness Act’s prohibition of any

“other form of mechanical transport” was

deliberately written as a broad categorical

exclusion intended to prohibit any form of

mechanical transport, precisely to guard

against the later invention of new

technologies—like the mountain bike.


Act, which distinguishes between motor vehicles, motor-boats, and “other forms of mechanical transportation[sic].”) The use of various types of wheeled equipmentshould be specifically prohibited within the regulations toconform with this provision of the Act.14

To correct their obvious error and clarify exactly what isincluded within the phrase “other form of mechanical trans-port,” the Forest Service subsequently perfected its regulatorydefinition in the sections of the Forest Service Manual thatdirect its implementation of the Wilderness Act:

Mechanical Transport. Any contrivance for moving peopleor material in or over land, water, or air, having movingparts, that provides a mechanical advantage to the user,and that is powered by a living or nonliving power source.This includes, but is not limited to, sailboats, hang glid-ers, parachutes, bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons.It does not include wheelchairs when used as necessarymedical appliances. It also does not include skis, snow-shoes, rafts, canoes, sleds, travois, or similar primitivedevices without moving parts.15

Other agencies that manage wilderness never made thismistake. In its original regulations, the Bureau of LandManagement expressly listed bicycles as a prohibited form ofmechanical transport.16

Mountain bikes: Exactly the sort of mechanicaltransport the law intended to prohibit in wildernessMountain bicycles did not exist until long after the WildernessAct became law. It is understandable that drafters of the earli-est Forest Service regulations did not name bicycles as a likelyform of mechanical transport. At the time, they could not rea-sonably have been expected to foresee technological develop-ments that would adapt bicycles to mountainous terrain, bothon and off trails. In any case, the words of the statute itself arethe controlling law, not the agency’s interpretation.17 A bicycleis obviously a mechanical device and obviously a form of transport.The plain words of section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act prohibitbicycles in wilderness areas. Ditto for wheeled game carriers.

The Wilderness Act’s prohibition of any “other form ofmechanical transport” was deliberately written as a broad cat-egorical exclusion intended to prohibit any form of mechani-cal transport, precisely to guard against the later invention ofnew technologies—like the mountain bike. e

A long-time student of the history of wilderness preservation, Doug

Scott has been a lobbyist and strategist for the Wilderness Society,Sierra Club, and Alaska Coalition. He is policy director of Campaignfor America’s Wilderness. His briefing papers on Wilderness Act inter-pretation and precedents and a longer paper on mechanization andwilderness can be found at http://leaveitwild.org/reports.

NOTES1. Arno Cammerer to Myron Avery, December 2, 1933, quoted in Paul Sutter,

2002, Driven Wild: How the Fight against Automobiles Launched the ModernWilderness Movement (Seattle: University of Washington Press), 185.

2. Benton MacKaye to Arno Cammerer, December 30, 1933, quoted inDriven Wild.

3. Journal quoted in Larry Anderson, 2002, Benton MacKaye: Conservationist,Planner and Creator of the Appalachian Trail (Baltimore: John HopkinsUniversity Press), 34–35.

4. Robert Marshall, 1930, The Problem of the Wilderness, The ScientificMonthly 30: 2 (February): 141, emphasis added.

5. Aldo Leopold, 1949, A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There(New York: Oxford University Press), 194, emphasis in original.

6. 16 U.S.C. 1131(c), emphasis added.7. These quotations are from a 4-page pamphlet, Reasons for a Wilderness

Society (January 21, 1935), emphasis added.8. Driven Wild, 72.9. Howard Zahniser, script of radio broadcast, January 13, 1949, on

“Newsreel Digest” program, Mutual Broadcasting Company, 1.10. The word “mechanical” is not defined by presence or absence of a motor.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Editiondefines this family of terms: MECHANICAL: “1. Of or pertaining tomachines or tools.” MECHANISM: “A machine or mechanical appliance.”MECHANIZE: “To equip with machinery.” MACHINE: “1. a. A device con-sisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy andtransmits it in a more useful form. b. A simple device, such as a lever, apulley, or an inclined plane, that alters the magnitude or direction, orboth, of an applied force; a simple machine.”

11. 16 U.S.C. 1133(c), emphasis added. This wording was virtually identicalin the first wilderness legislation introduced at the outset of the 8-yearcampaign leading to the Wilderness Act. That first version provided that

“there shall be no road, nor any use of motor vehicles, nor any airplanelanding field or other provision for mechanized transportation…” Section3(b) of S. 4013, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, June 7, 1956, 15.

12. “It is the ‘“cardinal principle of statutory construction”…[that] it is ourduty “to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of astatute”…rather than to emasculate an entire section.’ United States v.Menasche, 1955, 348 U.S. 528, 538, 75 S.Ct. 513, 520, 99 L.Ed. 615(quoting NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 1937, 301 U.S. 1, 30, 57S.Ct. 615, 621, 81 L.Ed. 893 and Montclair v. Ramsdell, 1883, 107 U.S.147, 152, 2 S.Ct. 391, 395, 27 L.Ed. 431).” Cited in Bennett v. Spear,1997, 520 U.S. 154, 137 L.Ed.2nd 281.

13. J. Michael McCloskey, 1966, The Wilderness Act of 1964: Its Backgroundand Meaning, Oregon Law Review, 308, emphasis added. McCloskey wasreferring to the Secretary’s proposed regulation, dated July 12, 1965. Theportion of that draft quoted in the law review did not change in the finalregulation as adopted a year later.

14. Stewart M. Brandborg to Edward P. Cliff, Chief, Forest Service, September28, 1965, 3. Similar concern was expressed by the Sierra Club in a state-ment dated September 30, 1965.

15. Forest Service Manual 2320.5(3). This is the current manual provision,which was adopted sometime in the early to mid-1980s.

16. These BLM regulations were adopted in 1985 (43 CFR 8560.0-5). Theywere superceded by an updated set of wilderness regulations in 2000 (43CFR 6301.5). The revised regulations expressly prohibit “bicycles, gamecarriers, carts, and wagons.”

17. The courts have ruled that “An administrative agency is permitted tochange its interpretation of a statute, especially where the prior interpre-tation is based on error, no matter how longstanding.” Chisholm v. F.C.C.,538 F.2d 349, 364 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied 429 U.S. 890, 97 St.Ct. 247, 50L.Ed. 2d 173 (1976).


political. All are distinct, though sometimes confused in theminds of wilderness advocates and users.

HUMAN SAFETY. My casual interviews of other wildernessusers often yielded concerns about the safety of mountainbikes. Many feared collisions between hikers and careeningmountain bikers. When prodded, most did not volunteer asimilar fear about a human runner or fast-moving equestrian.Nevertheless, the interviews uncovered no actual cases of colli-sions of any kind, but “close calls” with runners or equestrians.

SOCIAL. Not unlike the social differences betweenhuman-powered pedestrians and horse-powered equestriansin wilderness, there are also differences between human-pow-ered pedestrians and human-powered bicyclists. Because it issocially unacceptable to simply state that one doesn’t like ageneral kind of people (e.g., “eco-jocks”), dislike is oftenexpressed as disdain for their activity, whether mountain bik-ing, horsepacking, dirt-biking, etc. Adding a new, popularrecreational use of designated wilderness may lead to addi-tional cultural schism between user groups.

ECOLOGICAL. Little research has been done, and the fewstudies that exist are inconclusive, with most researchers sug-gesting that the impact of heavy boots or a fat tire on a wilder-ness trail is comparable and mostly depends on how thedevices are used.1 At most, mountain bikes might cause moreerosion than hiking boots, but less than horseshoes. The con-cern that too many tire tracks cause environmental damage isno different than too many boots or too many horseshoes.

POLITICAL. The potential political contributions of themountain biking community to wilderness designation arevery significant and the topic of the remainder of this article.

Who are these mountain bikers?A national study concludes:

Mountain bike leaders are overwhelmingly biocentricin their thinking, believing that nature has intrinsicvalue exclusive of what it does for humans, that humansdo not have the moral license to infringe on this right,and that many of our environmental problems are root-ed in our societal tendency to dominate, control andexploit nature.2

Mountain bikers are essentially the same as many otherwilderness advocates. They love Nature; they hate exploita-tion of the land. They grieve when they see clearcuts likeother wilderness advocates. They simply prefer a somewhatquicker trip into and out of wilderness areas than do wilder-ness traditionalists. (The above excerpt may be somewhat less


Which Way?by Andy Kerr

In our effort to designate additional federal wildernessareas, conservationists face a fork in the trail. The politicalalliance of traditional, muscle-powered recreationists whohave historically supported wilderness preservation is split-ting. While this constituency is united in opposing motorizedrecreation in wildlands, new technology now allows theenjoyment of the backcountry using non-motorized mountainbikes, a mechanized form of transport prohibited by theWilderness Act.

The proliferation of mountain bikes in the backcoun-try—including many areas conservationists are proposing forwilderness protection—is resulting in mountain bikersorganizing to oppose new wilderness designations. If not han-dled properly, this important faction of the human-poweredrecreation constituency may be driven into the willing armsof off-road vehicle enthusiasts.

Wilderness advocates have several options to address thischallenge: (1) advocate to maintain the current prohibitionagainst “mechanical transport” in the Wilderness Act; (2) cre-ate or modify proposed wilderness boundaries to avoid moun-tain bike conflicts; (3) amend the Wilderness Act to allowbicycle use; (4) except the Wilderness Act prohibition againstmountain bikes on a trail-by-trail basis (while maintainingthe ability of wilderness managers to regulate such use); (5)propose alternative congressionally sanctioned protective landdesignations that avoid the wilderness-mountain bike con-flict; or (6) propose a new congressional designation of“wilderness lite.”

Every choice, including maintaining the status quo, hasconsequences and involves tradeoffs. However, I suggest thatalternative 4 is the best strategy and political choice to maxi-mize both the number and size of new wilderness areas and—more importantly—maximize the protection against greater,impending threats to public wildlands.

Mountain bike impactsThe impacts of mountain bikes on wilderness can be catego-rized as (1) human safety, (2) social, (3) ecological, and (4)


applicable to the equestrian community, but they nonethelessare usually allies with conservationists in wilderness politics.)

Facing the real enemiesConservationists face enough real enemies when working topreserve and protect wilderness: loggers, road-builders, min-ers, grazing permittees, and off-road vehicle users are the pri-mary destroyers of wildlands, not mountain bikers.

Mountain bikers, hikers, and horseback riders are allproducts of different times. Fewer people ride horses today,but it was once a common method of traveling through wildcountry. Lighter camping equipment and more leisure timefacilitated the explosion in wilderness hiking beginning inthe 1960s. Most recently, new technologies have facilitatedanother kind of muscle-powered access to the wilds. The“mountain bike” was reportedly invented in 1979. Their pop-ularity has since exploded. (Have you noticed the floor spacedevoted to mountain bikes at your local REI or EMS storelately?) New wilderness proposals in many states include areaswith trails increasingly used by mountain bikers. Since moun-tain bikes are prohibited in designated wilderness, it is logi-cal that mountain bike use would have become established inde facto wilderness (wildlands that are as wild and as importantas designated wilderness, but without legislative protection).

Some citizen wilderness proposals include roadless unitsof 1,000 acres in size. This doesn’t leave many remaining nat-ural recreation opportunities for mountain bikers. Do wewant the public to view the wilderness debate as one of rapa-cious loggers, voracious road-builders, gluttonous miners, andobnoxious off-road vehiclists versus water quality and quanti-ty, fish and wildlife, and future generations of young childrenor a pissing match between elitist hikers and equally elitistmountain bikers? We may be forced to choose.

Alternative courses of actionAs mountain bikers become increasingly organized andunderstandably concerned about their access to federal publiclands, the wilderness movement will be forced to respond.The threshold question for wilderness activists is: with whomdo you want mountain bikers to ally in future wilderness bat-tles? If you really don’t like them (for social reasons and per-haps concerns about human safety, because no case has beenmade on ecological grounds), and you believe that you canwin new and adequately sized wilderness areas without themountain bikers—then do nothing. Sit back and watch to seeif the ORV crowd can make common cause with cyclists.

Wilderness advocates should

embrace the mountain biking

community as full partners in

the wilderness movement.


However, if you believe that the mountain biker lobby isexpanding in size and clout and that this major pro-wilder-ness constituency must be accommodated—or if you believethat bikers aren’t now a major player but it would be politi-cally disastrous for them to join anti-wilderness forces, and/oryou believe that mountain bikers could be important allies indefeating anti-wilderness efforts—then you must chooseanother approach.

I am aware of at least one national conservation organiza-tion that has the goal of keeping mountain bikers “neutral” onwilderness designation. Usually in politics (as often in war), aconstituency remaining neutral undoubtedly benefits one sidemore than the other (the “neutral” Swiss were more useful toGermany during World War II, while “neutral” Sweden wasmore helpful to the Allies). Neutrality is easiest for the neutralif the party no has interest in any particular outcome. However,when a neutral party does have an interest in the outcome, theycan be expected to (quietly) support one outcome over all oth-ers even as they continue to publicly affirm their neutrality.

The political neutrality of the mountain biking commu-nity generally harms wilderness advocates and aids anti-wilderness forces. Indeed, how can wilderness advocatesexpect mountain bikers to remain neutral about legislationthat could exclude them from the wild places they love?

Mountain biker interests, as manifested through theInternational Mountain Biking Association (IMBA),3 havegenerally shown patience, thus far, in dealing with wildernessadvocates and their proposals that could eliminate mountainbiking from tens of millions of acres of public land.

IMBA’s strategy regarding wildlands protection con-sists of engaging mountain bikers on the issue by broad-casting popular mountain bike routes that would be lost bywilderness designation and advocating for alternative non-wilderness protective designations that would both retainmountain biking and preserve Nature. IMBA has beenrestrained in its opposition to wilderness because most ofits members are wilderness lovers. However, how long canmountain bikers support a law and concept that rejectstheir chosen form of enjoying wildlands, especially in caseswhere wilderness proposals include lots of favorite moun-tain biking areas?

Below are six alternative courses of action open to wildernessadvocates regarding mountain bikes and the cases for and against.

1) MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO. Wilderness advocates couldsimply lobby for new wilderness areas and ignore any conflicts

with the mountain biking community.Case For: The Wilderness Act bans “mechanized trans-

port.” Wilderness management agencies have interpreted thisprovision as banning mountain bikes in wilderness. Later,three agencies modified their regulations to explicitly banbicycle use. Perhaps fewer wilderness acres will be protectedunder this alternative, but the integrity of the NationalWilderness Preservation System will be maintained.

Case Against: The Wilderness Act is neither the 11thCommandment nor the 28th Amendment. It is a law withflaws that has allowed livestock grazing in most westernwilderness areas, mining in many, even road-building andlogging in extraordinary circumstances. Wilderness advocatesneed to work to concentrate on closing the loopholes thatallow bulldozers, chainsaws, and bovines into designated andde facto wilderness, rather than defend a provision that keepsrelatively harmless mountain bikes out. Wilderness needsmountain bikers as defenders, not opponents or “neutrals.”Wilderness advocates will end up with fewer areas, and lessprotected acreage, if we let ourselves be diverted by this triv-ial collateral issue.

2) MODIFY WILDERNESS PROPOSAL BOUNDARIES TO AVOID

MOUNTAIN BIKE CONFLICTS. Wilderness advocates couldpropose new wilderness boundaries that exclude popularmountain bike routes.

Case For: Excluding high-conflict mountain bike areasavoids the fight with the mountain bike community. Theintegrity of the Wilderness Act is maintained. Mountain bik-ers could then join wilderness advocates in seeking protectionfor these areas.

Case Against: Cherry-stemming and building corridorsinto and through wilderness proposals to exclude popularmountain biking routes will leave the wildlands more vulner-able to road-building, mining, logging, and off-road vehicleuse. Unless the corridors are very, very narrow (wide enoughfor a mountain bike, but too narrow for a motorbike), four-wheeled motorized vehicles could use them. In addition, ifwide enough to contain timber, the corridors could be loggedas well. Whatever the width, mischievous mining claimscould be filed and cause problems.

3) AMEND THE WILDERNESS ACT TO AVOID GENERAL

CONFLICT WITH MOUNTAIN BIKERS. Wilderness advocatescould support an amendment to the Wilderness Act allowingmountain bikes.


Case For: Wilderness advocates must focus all of theirattention on the real threats to wilderness (logging, mining,off-road vehicles, etc.). Mountain bikes are likely no worsethan hiking boots and less damaging to trails and watershedsthan horses. We need the mountain biking community to bewilderness champions—not sitting out the fight, or worse,joining the other side.

Case Against: The Wilderness Act has never been amend-ed. Re-opening the law for this issue is risky (because it couldalso result in further changes to the act) and unworthybecause mountain bikes are inconsistent with the wildernessideal. It is better to proceed on a case-by-case basis with themountain bike community to minimize or avoid conflicts inwilderness proposals.

4) EXCEPT THE WILDERNESS ACT PROHIBITION AGAINST

MOUNTAIN BIKES FOR CERTAIN EXISTING ROUTES WHEN

DESIGNATING NEW WILDERNESS AREAS. Wilderness advo-cates could agree that specific mountain bike routes be includ-ed in new wilderness areas by providing for their continueduse in designating legislation, subject to direction by wilder-ness managers to further regulate use, including banningmountain bikes if necessary to prevent resource damage.

Case For: Legislating mountain bikers’ interests intofuture wilderness areas would convert mountain bikers intoadvocates for new wilderness. It avoids a political confronta-tion with mountain bikers that the wilderness movement can-not afford. Congress now makes statutory reference to maps todepict official wilderness boundaries. A new color could beadded to depict specific existing trails that would be open tomountain bikes in new wilderness areas with specific statuto-ry language defining the width of the routes.

Case Against: Legislating exceptions to the WildernessAct is a slippery slope that could open the law to furtheramendment. It is better to designate less, but more pure,wilderness if politics dictate that mountain bike routesmust be left outside of wilderness boundaries. Conser-vationists may have to choose quality over quantity for ourWilderness System.

5) PROPOSE AND SUPPORT OTHER PROTECTIVE DESIG-

NATIONS AS ALTERNATIVES TO WILDERNESS. Wildernessadvocates could avoid the conflict by proposing existingcongressionally sanctioned alternative designations such asnational recreation area, national conservation area, nation-al scenic area, wild and scenic river, or national monument

to protect areas where mountain biker conflicts cannot beavoided or resolved.

Case For: The integrity of the Wilderness Act is maintained.Case Against: Alternative protective designations should

be in addition to (or overlay)—not in place of—wildernessdesignation and should protect and restore adjacent non-wilderness quality lands that still have natural and other pub-lic values worth conserving. Wilderness quality lands shouldbe designated as wilderness.

6) PROPOSE AND SUPPORT A NEW CONGRESSIONAL

DESIGNATION, PROBABLY NOT CALLED, BUT ESSENTIALLY,

“WILDERNESS LITE.” Wilderness advocates could propose anew conservation designation that is wilderness in every wayexcept as pertains to mountain bikes.

Case For: The integrity of the National WildernessPreservation System is maintained.

Case Against: If a “wilderness lite” category was acceptedby Congress to accommodate mountain bikes, what else couldsuch a designation allow that is not allowed in wilderness(logging, roads, mining, off-road vehicle use, aerial trans-portation)? If a weaker, politically easier compromise designa-tion to wilderness becomes available to Congress, few, if any,additional wilderness areas will be established in the future.

The debate in contextThe ramifications of any of these choices are many and varied.Below are some issues to bear in mind.

THE PRISTINE WILDERNESS ACT MYTH. Some wildernessactivists assert with pride that the Wilderness Act has neverbeen amended. Congress has periodically amended mostenvironmental protection laws such as the EndangeredSpecies Act, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act, but theoriginal Wilderness Act remains as originally enacted byCongress in the United States Code. However, while notexplicitly amending the statute, numerous provisions insubsequent wilderness bills do affect certain provisions inthe Wilderness Act on an area-by-area basis. Exceptionshave been made for water developments, livestock grazing,mining, motorized access, religious and cultural purposes,fire prevention, trail maintenance, management of hydro-logical, meteorological, and communication facilities, lawenforcement, and other uses.4

THE ROLE OF WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLANNING. Ifallowed in wilderness, mountain biking—like hiking orequestrian use—would be subject to agency management


The people who would build roads, dig mines, log wildforests, graze cows, and drive off-road vehicles in the laststrongholds of wild country on our public lands are the truewilderness enemies. They are powerful, but not as powerful asthe rest of us—if we can only avoid internecine cat fighting.

Culturally, mountain bikers are much closer to hikersthan to motorized recreationists. However, if the wildernesstent isn’t large enough to accommodate mountain bikers,what choice do they have but to oppose wilderness to protecttheir interests? The enemies of wilderness are trying to exploitthe mountain biking issue for their own gain. The BlueRibbon Coalition would love to peel mountain bikers awayfrom the wilderness advocacy camp.5 Representative JimHansen (R-UT), former chair of the House ResourcesCommittee, has attempted to amend the Wilderness Act toallow mountain bikes, and other politicians could try again inyet another cynical attempt to divide wilderness advocates.6

Wilderness advocates should ask themselves this ques-tion: Am I first a recreationist or a conservationist? If you answer“conservationist,” then you should embrace mountain bikersas political allies. If you are a “recreationist” first, then youneed to decide if you prefer automobile-filled roads, stump-dotted clearcuts, open-pit mines, cow-bombed meadows, andscreaming two-stroke engines over having to step aside for anoccasional mountain biker dude puffing by. e

Andy Kerr (www.andykerr.net) was in the fourth grade when theWilderness Act was passed. He has been involved in every one of theseven wilderness bills creating new wilderness areas in Oregon in thepast quarter century. He has a “citified” mountain bike for use intown, and has no intentions to ever bike in the wilds.

NOTES

1. M. Lanza. 2001. Trail shock: Studies weigh mountain biking and hikingimpacts. AMC Outdoors Magazine April: 19–21.

2. S. J. Hollenhurst, M. A. Schuett, M. S. Olson, D. Chavez, T. Mainieri.1995. A national study of mountain biking opinion leaders:Characteristics, preferences, attitudes and conflicts. Report PSW-93-0029CA, PSW-99-0034CA. Albany, California: USDA Forest Service.

3. See www.imba.com.4. Ross Gorte. 1998. Wilderness Laws: Prohibited and Permitted Uses.

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 98-848 ENR.5. Tellingly, the web address for the Blue Ribbon Coalition is

www.sharetrails.org (emphasis added).6. H.R. 3172 (101st Cong., 1st Sess.). This bill consisted of one sentence:

“Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)) is amended bystriking ‘mechanical transport,’ and inserting ‘mechanical transport(except for nonmotorized bicycles)’.” The purpose of this bill, cosponsoredby more than a dozen Republican representatives, was to encourage moun-tain bikers to ally with conservatives and adopt their views on wilderness.This legislation died in committee; no bill has been introduced address-ing bicycle use in wilderness since 1989.

planning. So, if mountain bikes are too numerous and causeharm where they are legally allowed, then managementrestrictions would be appropriate to preserve wilderness char-acter (just as for hikers and horsepackers).

OVERPOPULATION. An often unacknowledged factor inwilderness issues is the excessive number of people who usedesignated or de facto wilderness areas. Population growth isincreasing while wildlands are decreasing. Our attempts topreserve more wilderness, without simultaneously addressingpopulation growth, will preclude our efforts to protect, as theWilderness Act calls for, “an enduring resource of wilderness.”The reluctance of wilderness advocates to also be populationcontrol advocates results in our appearing elitist by attempt-ing to limit the number people who enjoy wilderness areas.

RecommendationWilderness advocates should embrace the mountain bikingcommunity as full partners in the wilderness movement. Likethe hiking and equestrian communities, mountain bikers arenatural wilderness supporters.

Edward Abbey famously noted that wilderness needed nodefense, but only more defenders. It is a disservice to the wildand to the future of wilderness advocacy to get embroiled in apetty dispute between hiking and biking interests.Wilderness has real enemies that must be defended against.



Don’t Tread Hereby Brian O’Donnell and Michael Carroll

Recently a number of mountain bike organizations, afew members of Congress, and even some long-time wilder-ness activists have suggested that mountain biking shouldbe permitted in congressionally designated wildernessareas. Such a change would require Congress to amend theWilderness Act. Even if such exceptions to the WildernessAct’s prohibition on mechanized use were narrow, and nota wholesale opening of the National Wilderness Preser-vation System to cyclists, we believe the notion is danger-ous: Mountain bikes are simply incompatible with desig-nated wilderness.

We may seem like an unlikely duo to be making thisargument. After all, we live in what is arguably the mountainbike capital of the world—Durango, Colorado. Our friends,colleagues, and neighbors are mountain bikers. Both of us areavid trail users and one of us is an active mountain biker.Neither of us comes from the “purist” camp of the wildernessmovement. That being said, this debate has implicationsbeyond mountain bikes and wilderness. It addresses a morefundamental question: Will we keep some parts of theAmerican landscape natural and wild and free—or must everyacre be easily accessible to people and their toys?

Mechanization is not consistent with wildernessWilderness areas not only protect Nature, but also provide anopportunity for people to experience and connect with wildplaces at a basic level, using muscles, not machines.Wilderness values—the reasons for protecting wilderness—go far beyond the traditional recreational uses of wildernesssuch as hiking, hunting, fishing, and camping, despite theseactivities’ importance to millions of Americans.

We need to keep in mind what the Wilderness Act says.In its definition of wilderness, the act refers to protecting the“earth and its community of life” and “outstanding opportu-nities for solitude” before mentioning the word “recreation.”Further, it refers to “primitive recreation,” not just “recre-ation.” This is no accident or oversight, but the very heart ofthe Wilderness Act.

Protecting a portion of our land from mechanized recre-ation was one of the main reasons that the NationalWilderness Preservation System and the wilderness move-ment were created. As Aldo Leopold (a founder of theWilderness Society) wrote in A Sand County Almanac in 1949,“Mechanized recreation already has seized nine-tenths of thewoods and mountains; a decent respect for minorities shoulddedicate the other tenth to wilderness.” While mountainbikes were not around in Leopold’s era, dramatically increasedmechanized use in the backcountry was. Wilderness areasoffer an escape and provide a primeval experience for thewilderness visitor.

Some argue that allowing mountain bikes in wildernessis a decision that is open to the discretion of area managers.However, Section 2 of the Wilderness Act of 1964, whichestablished the National Wilderness Preservation System, wasclear about the intent of the system:

In order to assure that an increasing population, accom-panied by expanding settlement and growing mechaniza-tion [emphasis added], does not occupy and modify allareas within the United States and its possessions, leavingno lands designated for preservation and protection intheir natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the pol-icy of the Congress to secure for the American people ofpresent and future generations the benefits of an enduringresource of wilderness.

Once wilderness areas are designated, the Wilderness Actrequires that the areas be managed in a manner that “willleave them unimpaired for future use” and ensures the“preservation of their wilderness character.” The mechanizednature of bicycles runs contrary to the concept of “wildernesscharacter.” This is especially true with today’s high-perform-ance, off-trail mountain bikes.

Not your father’s mountain bikesMountain bikes’ impacts on the land are large and gettingworse. Since mountain bicycles were invented, technologicalchanges have completely transformed the cycling industry.These changes include the development of lighter and strongermaterials for frames, wheels, and components; suspension sys-tems similar to those on dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, andSUVs; and gearing that enables riders to conquer slopes oncethought too steep to ride. This new technology has made ter-rain previously open only to experts accessible to average rid-ers, enabling more than just top athletes to ride through high-ly technical terrain deeper and deeper into the backcountry.


Political landscapeMountain bike organizations have on several occasionsproven adept at organizing their members against newwilderness areas when they have feared a loss of access forbicycles. It would be a mistake, however, to believe that this

Mountain bikes are simply

incompatible with

designated wilderness.

While most mountain bikers have continued to ride ondirt roads and well-established multiple-use trails, technologi-cal innovations have enabled bicyclists to engage in off-road andoff-trail activities similar to those of dirt bikers and off-roadvehicle users. This new style of riding has resulted in a dramat-ic cultural shift in the mountain bicycling community towardsthe “extreme” aspects of the sport including “downhilling” and“freeriding.” This shift from the “backpackers with wheels”image to the extreme is apparent in all aspects of the sport. Oneneed only to flip through the pages of the latest mountain bicy-cling magazine to see examples of this shift—a shift in how and,more importantly, where people are riding. From downhillersdropping off cliffs to freeriders skidding down steep washes likeextreme skiers, the image and direction of mountain biking isbeing shaped by this new trend.

Coupled with this shift toward extreme riding, manymountain bicycling organizations have also launched aggressivetrail construction programs. Like other trail-building groups,mountain bikers identify one-way loop trails as the ideal sys-tems for their users. Loop trails are designed to have one controlpoint or trailhead where the system begins with a wide varietyof trails built off of that point that vary in length, terrain, anddifficulty. The aggressive push of mountain bike organizationsto build ever-growing webs of trails poses serious problems ofhabitat fragmentation, increased erosion, and wildlife conflicts.

As interest in extreme riding continues to grow, as trailnetworks burgeon, and as new technology makes it possiblefor ever-more mountain bicyclists to participate, even themost remote wild landscapes may become trammeled—andtrampled—by knobby tires.

Mountain bikers are not excluded from wilderness areasIn a recent letter titled, “Mountain Bikers Beware,” formerU.S. House Resources Committee Chairman Jim Hansen (R-UT) wrote, “Mountain bikers would be prohibited to visitthese areas if they are made wilderness.” Not true.

While admittedly the technology has advanced, moun-tain bikers are not yet cyborgs. They are not welded to theirbikes. Wilderness designation does not exclude mountainbikers, wilderness only excludes mountain bikes. This is animportant distinction. Most mountain bikers pursue numer-ous recreational activities such as skiing, climbing, and hik-ing. They are not shut out of wilderness. Wilderness is meantto remain free from mechanical recreation, whether it is con-ducted on an ATV, motorcycle, or mountain bike.


organizing work would be transferable to advocacy forwilderness should the Wilderness Act be modified to permitbicycles in wilderness areas.

Would this new biking constituency swell the ranks ofwilderness advocates, directly leading to congressional desig-nation of significantly more wilderness? We contend thatmountain bikers are, for the most part, more passionate aboutbiking than creating new wilderness areas. They have organ-ized most effectively when their individual riding opportuni-ties on specific trails are at risk of being eliminated. It is amajor stretch to argue that bikers, when not facing the imme-diate threat of closed trails, would participate in the politicalwilderness process (in favor of wilderness) with equal passionand effectiveness as they have previously demonstrated inopposing wilderness.

We must not forget the current political climate. Somecongressmen who would amend the Wilderness Act or changeits original meaning have an ambitious anti-wilderness agen-da aimed far beyond the issue of mountain bike access.Opening the Wilderness Act to amendments that allowmountain bikes would provide a smokescreen behind whichall manner of extractive industries and off-road vehicle organ-izations—think Blue Ribbon Coalition—would sneak intheir own gutting amendments.

There is a better approach to resolving this issue thanamending the Wilderness Act. Leaders of the mountain bik-ing community and grassroots wilderness advocates havebuilt a solid and mutually respectful dialogue. After a seriesof meetings, key leaders of the International Mountain BikingAssociation and of state and national wilderness groups haverecently issued a joint statement of agreements. While wewill not agree over every acre sought by both bikers andwilderness advocates, we can talk and find a reasonable meet-ing of minds. All over the country, local dialogue is provingsuccessful. As a result, mountain bikers are a part of coalitionssupporting numerous wilderness proposals, while key trails(often along the edges of the wilderness) offer access for bikersto enjoy wilderness vistas.

Increasing emphasis on habitat protectionWith the growing sophistication of the ecological scienceswe have learned a great deal in recent years. Conservationbiology has rightfully entered the wilderness movement. Inmany states conservationists are prioritizing the protectionof biologically diverse places over areas with scenic or recre-ational qualities. Wilderness areas are now seen as cores in

connected networks of wildlands that serve many values, butwith ecological integrity as the central goal.

The destruction of wilderness and the fragmentation ofhabitats and ecosystems is death by a thousand cuts. Willintroduction of mountain bikes—and their penetration far-ther into wilderness—promote additional fragmentationand human conflicts with the natural world? Yes. In a timewhen ecosystem protection and wildlife habitat conserva-tion has become the overriding rationale for saving wilder-ness it is inappropriate to consider weakening wildernessprotections. The need is for more wilderness, protected allthe more strongly.

Wilderness requires humilityDave Foreman has written, “No other challenge calls for self-restraint, generosity, and humility more than Wildernesspreservation.” Protecting wilderness is truly about humility.Public lands policy should not be driven by a “what’s in it forme?” ethos—for backpackers or bikers or any other recre-ational constituency. It should be about sustaining the healthof the land community.

An ecological revision of President Kennedy’s famouswords should guide us: “Ask not what wilderness can do foryou, but what you can do for wilderness.”

Some have argued that the Wilderness Act needsupdating. Yet this one piece of legislation has been a pow-erful, effective bulwark for nearly 40 years. It is folly toimagine a wilderness law that simultaneously protectswilderness ecosystems and provides the opportunity for aprimeval wilderness experience but does not exclude mech-anized uses.

A line must be drawn somewhere between which activi-ties are appropriate in wilderness and which are not. TheWilderness Act correctly drew that line based on mechaniza-tion. We will grant that mountain bikes are much closer tothat line than dirt bikes and other off-road vehicles.Nonetheless, a strong line has been drawn in the WildernessAct, and it must be strongly defended. e

Brian O’Donnell is associate director and Michael Carroll

is communications director for the Wilderness Support Center in Durango, Colorado. The Wilderness Support Center(www.wilderness.org/ourissues/wilderness/wsc.cfm) works with grass-roots groups across the nation to build and implement successfulwilderness protection campaigns.



A Modest Proposalby Dave Foreman

Some things are obvious: mountain bikes do moredamage to the land than hikers. To think otherwise ignoresthe story told by the ground. Although I have never ridden amountain bike, I am very familiar with their impacts. For thelast seven years I have regularly run three to six miles severaltimes a week on a network of trails in the Sandia Mountainfoothills two blocks from my home (recently, I’ve been walk-ing these trails because of a back injury). These trails receiveuse from walkers, runners, and mountain bikers; they areclosed to motorized vehicles.

Because I’m clumsy, I keep my eyes on the trail in frontof me. I run or walk in all seasons, in all kinds of weather. Ihave watched the growing erosion on these trails from moun-tain bike use. The basic difference between feet and tires isthat tire tracks are continuous and foot tracks are discontinu-ous. Water finds that narrow, continuous tire tracks are a rillin which to flow. Also, because many mountain bikers areafter thrills and speed, their tires cut into the ground.Slamming on the brakes after zooming downhill, slidingaround sharp corners, and digging in to go uphill: I see theresults of this behavior weekly.

Some advocates claim that mountain bikes don’t causesignificant erosion on trails designed and engineered for theiruse. This may be true. On the one trail I run that seems tohave been built for bikes, there is much less damage fromtires. But what percentage of trails meets such standards?Few. Moreover, I regularly see mountain bikers cutting offcross-country, even on steep slopes, for more of a challenge.They seem blind and deaf to the damage they cause.

Admittedly, backpackers and horsepackers can causedamage to wilderness trails. But this is a poor argument tosuggest that we add another source of damage to those trails.

Are mountain bikers conservationists, a powerful politi-cal constituency ripe to become wilderness advocates? I smellwishful thinking here. I suspect that most bicyclists don’t gointo the backcountry for contemplation or to experience self-willed land. They want an outdoor gymnasium. They’re afterspeed and thrills. This doesn’t mean they are bad people or

can’t be responsible when they pay attention. Some mountainbikers are conservationists and even support wilderness areas.I know a few of these folks. They are perfectly happy to walkin wilderness; they do not want to open wilderness areas tobicycles any more than they want them open to snowmobilesor ATVs. This is another point. Wilderness areas are notclosed to mountain bikers any more than they are closed tome. Any mountain biker can hike in wilderness as easily as Ican. (On the other hand, some of the macho fellows who ridemotors in the backcountry have arteries that look like cheese-filled manicotti. They might be able to walk into wilderness,but will they walk out?)

Then there are active mountain bikers who are part of theanti-wilderness movement. One southern California moun-tain bike website spouts the John Birch Society lies about theWildlands Project. One prominent mountain biking maga-zine is published by Hi Torque Publications, which also pub-lishes five dirt bike and ATV magazines with strong anti-wilderness editorial policies.

Nonetheless, the growing number of backcountry bicy-clists is an important political issue, and one that conserva-tionists need to handle with care. (Other editorials in thisforum show that wheels of any kind have never been con-sidered appropriate in wilderness areas. I need not repeattheir arguments.) We are faced with the possibility of manymountain bikers opposing additional wilderness areas. Canwe continue to maintain the integrity of the wilderness idea,protect tens of millions of ecologically important acres asnew wilderness areas, and keep most of the mountain bikingcommunity from joining motorheads and other opponentsof wilderness? I suggest an open discussion within thewilderness community on the following strategy:

1) Existing wilderness areas must remain completelyclosed to bicycles and other human-powered wheeledcontraptions.

2) No amendments should be made to the Wilderness Act.

3) In legislation establishing new wilderness areas, certaintrails currently in use by mountain bikers and whereresource damage is minimal may be specifically desig-nated as open to continued mountain bike use in verynarrow corridors excluded from the wilderness, butclosed to motorized vehicles and extractive use. Thereare precedents for such corridors. For example, theCebolla Wilderness Area under Bureau of Land


In new wilderness areas, certain

trails currently in use by

mountain bikers and where

resource damage is minimal

may be specifically designated

as open to continued mountain

bike use in very narrow corridors

excluded from the wilderness.

want to propose designations such as national recreationareas or national conservation areas, instead of wildernessareas. (We do not need a new special designation.) Thesedesignations should still close the area to motorized use,timber cutting, and other extractive uses. We should bevery conservative in making these alternative designa-tions, however. Wilderness—not “wilderness lite”—isstill the best option for protecting wild places for Natureand traditional backcountry recreation.

These guidelines could form the basis for honest talksbetween wilderness conservationists and responsible moun-tain bikers on how to protect and restore the ecological healthof our public lands while allowing reasonable access for mus-cle-powered recreation. e

Dave Foreman is publisher of Wild Earth and chairman of theWildlands Project.

Management jurisdiction in New Mexico has severalnarrow vehicle corridors with locked gates open only tothe grazing permittee. Such nonwilderness corridors arenot ideal, but they are better than no new wildernessarea being designated.

4) Such trail use should not be permanently mandated inlaw, but allowed at the discretion of the relevant manag-er so long as damage does not become excessive.Enforcement against motorized trespass and self-policingby the mountain bike community will be linked to con-tinued access.

5) Where there are public land roadless areas laced withexisting and popular mountain bike trails and where theimpact is within acceptable limits, conservationists may

mountain biking in wilderness - the warrior's … biking in wilderness u from vol. 13, no. 1...

Documents