Should bikes be allowed in Wilderness?

NorthCascades

I'm not talking about "in the woods," I mean federally declared Wilderness Areas as defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act:

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

Mechanized (not motorized) travel is illegal in Wilderness.

In the western US, there are many large Wilderness areas, but there is also a great deal of public land that is not Wilderness. Trails thought Wilderness areas are less well maintained than through other places. For example, when dead trees are blown down in winter storms, they can be cleared with a chainsaw in most places, but a hand saw much be used in Wildernesses; as a result, more trees block the trails here. Many people seek out this type of primitive outdoor experience instead of using paved and tame trails elsewhere.

Hikers like the situation as is. They worry that wheels will "shrink" the wilderness, like ultralight hiking gear has, allowing more people to travel deeper into it, harming the solitude that can be found. Mountain bikers are unhappy to be excluded from choice lands and great scenery. Many cyclists feel that human muscle powered transportation is in line with the "primitive and unconfined type of recreation" these places were set aside for.

Elise4270

Is there someone here on MFP that can change that? Or should you write your congressman/congresswoman?

NorthCascades

I'm asking for opinions. Because it's a controversial subject, and this is the fitness debate forum.

T1DCarnivoreRunner

I know everyone is going to have different opinions on the subject. Mine comes from the viewpoint as a backpacker, hiker, & trail runner. I am not a cyclist and I do not use livestock to ride or carry stuff.

Personally, I would like to see some trails restricted to foot traffic only. This keeps areas less crowded, quieter, and with lower wear. It also keeps me from having to watch out / step aside for cyclists or stock. I've been on trails so saturated with cyclists that I had to stop and step aside for what seemed like almost half of the time I was on the trail.

I'm also open to allowing bicycles on some trails. They need to have areas to use as well, as long as there are still sufficient spaces for hikers only.

What bothers me most are horses. They really tear trails up. There is a park nearby, for example, where a multi-use trail gets torn up so much during muddy times that the dirt dries and freezes with large spots filled with holes. In a few areas, I would easily (and have) sprained an ankle trying to hike through that spot. There is no place large enough on the trail itself to set my foot without falling into a hole made by a horse hoof. Each of these hundreds of holes is several inches deep in what is now hardened dirt. So I just have to go around those spots off-trail, which does additional harm to the wilderness eco-system. That particular park is a state park and not a federally designated wilderness area.

I can see both sides of the argument, though I believe more bike trails can exist while still providing hikers plenty of available destinations. I sure do enjoy going out dozens of miles or more from the nearest road / vehicle / building where few others are willing to venture so that I can spend time away from other people. Allowing bicycles makes that journey easier and therefore, such areas become more crowded.

electrickazoo

midwesterner85 wrote: »

What bothers me most are horses. They really tear trails up. There is a park nearby, for example, where a multi-use trail gets torn up so much during muddy times that the dirt dries and freezes with large spots filled with holes. In a few areas, I would easily (and have) sprained an ankle trying to hike through that spot. There is no place large enough on the trail itself to set my foot without falling into a hole made by a horse hoof. Each of these hundreds of holes is several inches deep in what is now hardened dirt. So I just have to go around those spots off-trail, which does additional harm to the wilderness eco-system. That particular park is a state park and not a federally designated wilderness area.

I agree with everything you said - have some space for hikers only and some mixed use trails. I definitely agree with your comment about horses. They tear up the trail and leave poop everywhere. Not a fan. Interestingly enough, where I live, horses are allowed on trails and cyclists are not because apparently bikes somehow erode the trail more (hahahaha)

Cylphin60

Hiker here. If "my" rules mattered, I would allow it following many of the same laws that I would imagine are in place now.

1. No littering
2. No altering of the landscape (think chopping trees down, building shelters, as opposed to setting up tents) etc
3. Be respectful of others using the same trails/areas
4. Reflective clothing should also be worn.
5. Fires - biggie here for obvious reasons and to avoid me having to type a full dissertation on the irresponsibilities people have demonstrated I'm just going to leave it alone...

Common sense rules:
2. Have adequate provisions
3. Adequate training
4. Carry an ELT if at all possible...

There's more, but I'm of the mind that men, women, children are native to this planet as much as any other animal, and should have access to enjoy that natural beauty. We also need to do our utmost to be as good a steward of what we have as humanly possible.

Ok, off of my soapbox now lol.

cwolfman13

As an avid cycling enthusiast as well as avid hiker and "retired" backpacker I like that wilderness is reserved for foot traffic...my biggest concern would be having to watch out and give way to cyclist while I'm out hiking...most of the trails I hike are pretty narrow...and frankly, even the best mountain biker would find the trails rather impossible to pass without having to get off their bikes a lot to scramble over and up rocky outcroppings, fallen trees, etc.

I could possibly be talked into the idea of dedicated bike trails though...maybe.

girlinahat

Here in the UK we have a variety of rights of way across land. That land may include active farmland. Bridleways are clearly defined, and bicycles are not included in this. However we also have a system of cycleways (mostly on disused railways). Mountain bike trails are mostly on defined routes, but not always. It doesn't seem to be a big problem as we had access over so much of the land (in Scotland the right to roam is extensive, in England less so, but most national parks have full access, meaning you do not have to stick to a defined path (you may be requested to)). General countryside is covered by a network of footpaths, through fields or even someone's back garden.

In real terms, walking through a farmer's field takes a measure of intelligence. You don't ride a bike through there (is not allowed) and dogs should be on a lead. Every year people are killed by cows, usually because they are scared by dogs, and worse, sheep get worried by dogs. Walking through a field of cattle is a skill and not everyone understands the rules of the countryside.

I'm sure mountain bikers would like more trails, but they aren't the only ones who cause degradation.

T1DCarnivoreRunner

@girlinahat I was just thinking about whether to say something about dogs or not. I would allow a cyclist in most places before a pet. Some pets are really well trained and behave, but some pets can really create a big problem for wildlife by killing small animals or provoking larger animals.

NorthCascades

midwesterner85 wrote: »

Personally, I would like to see some trails restricted to foot traffic only.

You're coming from a hiking background. I'm both a hiker/backpacker, and cyclist. I'm not sure how I feel about bikes in wilderness, frankly. A big part of me would like to see this, there are some choice trails I'd love to ride but can't. Another part of me feels like cycling might be fundamentally incompatible with Wilderness.

With all that said, I would never ask for all of the Wilderness to be opened to bikes. If we're ever allowed in, it will have to be done wisely and selectively.

midwesterner85 wrote: »

What bothers me most are horses.

Me too! The Pasayten Wilderness is torn up by horsemen with semi-permanent camps. Horses are not native to this continent. Their feed has been responsible for the spread of invasive species in the backcountry. I don't enjoy their poop all over the trails.

kenyonhaff

Well, wilderness by that definition seems pretty sensible. It's a good idea to leave some areas for peaceful hiking.

I'm all for mountain biking and biking trails in other areas. There are other green space areas that are better suited to this sort of exercise. That includes state parks, town parks, privately owned forest (like universities), and so on.

nvmomketo

I think they should be allowed in the wilderness but perhaps kept off of some foot trails and those trails that will be eroded and wrecked from the bike traffic - yes, bikes do erode trails a lot especially when wet.

I don't mind moving over for some cyclists. No biggie. I do dislike when cyclists leave bike trails all over in criss crossing patterns although this is more of a problem in, and near, our city.

CSARdiver

Speaking from a mtn. bike/backpacking background I'm against this. These are protected lands and the damage done from bikes is much greater than foot traffic. Opening wilderness up to the masses would be a mistake. As much as I would like to ride these as well, I know there are too many people who don't abide by leave no trace.

ninerbuff

I look at it from a preservation point. If cycling were allowed, you'd have responsible ones, but then you would have some irresponsible ones who may want to speed or wrecklessly try jumps or tricks that could destroy some of the ground. And usually the paths are shared by both hikers and bicyclers.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

NorthCascades

CSARdiver wrote: »

These are protected lands and the damage done from bikes is much greater than foot traffic.

ninerbuff wrote: »

I look at it from a preservation point.

The damage (from wheels and from feet) is to the trails, not the land. Riding a bike doesn't harm the trees and boulders and the bears and elk and marmots living nearby. It erodes the trail bed.

Trails are man-made structures. They're incredibly useful and I love having them, but man-made structures are on loose footing themselves in Wilderness. ("retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements" ... "generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable")

Trails are damaged by use, like roads, and need to be maintained. A lot of mountain bike clubs out here have volunteer trail maintenance parties, and accomplish a lot to keep the trails they're allowed on in good shape.

Does any of that affect your thinking?

xmichaelyx

NorthCascades wrote: »

Mountain bikers are unhappy to be excluded from choice lands and great scenery.

But they're not excluded; their bikes are.

I don't mind bikes on heavily traveled trails, but as a backcountry backpacker, bikes would cause more damage than is necessary. The whole goal of what I do is to leave zero trace to the best of my ability.

NorthCascades wrote: »

Trails are man-made structures. They're incredibly useful and I love having them, but man-made structures are on loose footing themselves in Wilderness. ("retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements" ... "generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable")

Trails are damaged by use, like roads, and need to be maintained. A lot of mountain bike clubs out here have volunteer trail maintenance parties, and accomplish a lot to keep the trails they're allowed on in good shape.

Does any of that affect your thinking?

No, because the vast, vast majority of wilderness has either no trails, or has trails marked so slightly that you'd never see it on a bike.

Maybe we're talking about different things.

Cylphin60

Keep in mind that a lot of the trails and land that are defined per the Act posted in the OP may not be land that cyclists are willing to risk. I'd like to think common sense and knowledge of ones limits would be put to use, much like hikers ought to.

CSARdiver

NorthCascades wrote: »

CSARdiver wrote: »

These are protected lands and the damage done from bikes is much greater than foot traffic.

ninerbuff wrote: »

I look at it from a preservation point.

The damage (from wheels and from feet) is to the trails, not the land. Riding a bike doesn't harm the trees and boulders and the bears and elk and marmots living nearby. It erodes the trail bed.

Trails are man-made structures. They're incredibly useful and I love having them, but man-made structures are on loose footing themselves in Wilderness. ("retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements" ... "generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable")

Trails are damaged by use, like roads, and need to be maintained. A lot of mountain bike clubs out here have volunteer trail maintenance parties, and accomplish a lot to keep the trails they're allowed on in good shape.

Does any of that affect your thinking?

Honestly I'm a bit torn - not so much with the idea of trails in wilderness areas, but the overreach the Bureau of Land Management has taken on recently and the lack of utilizing the National Monument designation. There needs to be a balance in the needs of local users and federal law. I do not want to see another Boulder-White Cloud situation.

spiriteagle99

As a long distance backpacker, I like the fact that bikes are not allowed in wilderness areas. There should be places where hikers don't have to worry about someone zipping by at 20 mph. There are a lot of trails in the national forests, state forests, and BLM lands that are open to bikes. I've hiked in places where I had 20 or more bikes pass me (and only one stopped to give me the right of way). Especially when horses or pack animals are on single track, bikes are a hazard.

I agree about the damage that horses do, but in some places the only way that trail work can be done is if tools are carried in by horses. When trail sections are 20 or more miles between roads, workers aren't going to carry in their gear. The PCT and CDT would have even more problems if not for trail workers on horseback.

tomteboda

As a hiker, I think there should be provision for multi purpose use trails, and the topic needs to be handled on a trail by trail basis, with side regard to environmental impact, user safety, trail maintenance and use benefit-cost analysis. There's just too many areas to paint this topic with a one size answer.

SingingSingleTracker

NorthCascades wrote: »

I'm asking for opinions. Because it's a controversial subject, and this is the fitness debate forum.

Yes - this is the Health and Fitness debate forum.

I think you should read the sticky to this particular forum with regard to your post.

Access to protected wilderness lands on a bicycle? Sounds like a topic and post way off the mark based on the guidelines of this forum.

And I am an avid mountain biker, member of IMBA, Director of a state mountain bike race series, yada, yada, yada. There are tons of proper forums all over the internet totally devoted to debate and discussion of wilderness access.

I just don't think it is here.