Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should bikes be allowed in Wilderness?
NorthCascades
Posts: 10,968 Member
I'm not talking about "in the woods," I mean federally declared Wilderness Areas as defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act:
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.
(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.
1
Replies
-
Is there someone here on MFP that can change that? Or should you write your congressman/congresswoman?1
-
I'm asking for opinions. Because it's a controversial subject, and this is the fitness debate forum.
4 -
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.4 -
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)
2 -
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.1 -
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.4 -
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.1 -
@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.0
-
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.2 -
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.1 -
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.0 -
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.2
-
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
3 -
These are protected lands and the damage done from bikes is much greater than foot traffic.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?1 -
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.
2 -
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.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »These are protected lands and the damage done from bikes is much greater than foot traffic.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.1 -
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.1 -
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.1
-
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.1 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »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.
That sounds like a good argument for bikes being used to haul gear.0 -
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.
I very much agree that it should be decided on a per-trail basis, and I think most trails through Wilderness should not be open to bikes.
What environmental impact are you worried about? Bikes can damage the trail they ride on, but they don't damage the wildlife or the forest or the land. The trail itself is an artificial structure. I feel like damaging a man-made thing is different and less bad than damaging the environment.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
I very much agree that it should be decided on a per-trail basis, and I think most trails through Wilderness should not be open to bikes.
What environmental impact are you worried about? Bikes can damage the trail they ride on, but they don't damage the wildlife or the forest or the land. The trail itself is an artificial structure. I feel like damaging a man-made thing is different and less bad than damaging the environment.
Well, for one thing , a badly damaged trail can lead to quite a bit of off-trail activity. For another thing, you always have to look at the impact of more use and more intense use on the requirements of trail maintenance if in tape ecosystems.0 -
No. Nature should be able to thrive without human interference. Should squirrels be able to walk through our living rooms because it's a quicker route to the backyard? Nope. So we as humans shouldn't interfere with their home. Just a wad of chewing gum can kill a bird that eats it.0
-
@cowgoo does that mean you're against hiking in Wilderness too?0
-
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »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.
I disagree...I think for those of us that use the great outdoors for our fitness we are interested in this type of discussion. I have enjoyed reading it at least.
I use a 10 mile public trail in the city. There are walkers, runners, cyclist,baby strollers, dogs...name it and we have it. It can be difficult at times trying to train with so many different activities going on.
I am a firm believer...we need places for the walker/hiker where they don't have to be worried about stepping out in front of cyclists. Cyclists need places where they don't have to worry about us walker/runners stepping in front of them. Dogs need to be on leashes...horses need to be in areas that are designated for horses.
I went back and read the sticky...I just don't see why this discussion is not appropriate for this thread.
I am curious as to why you or anyone might find it inappropriate.
I am sure that if a moderator finds it to be inappropriate they will close the thread down.1 -
I use a 10 mile public trail in the city. There are walkers, runners, cyclist,baby strollers, dogs...name it and we have it. It can be difficult at times trying to train with so many different activities going on.
I am a firm believer...we need places for the walker/hiker where they don't have to be worried about stepping out in front of cyclists. Cyclists need places where they don't have to worry about us walker/runners stepping in front of them. Dogs need to be on leashes...horses need to be in areas that are designated for horses.
I went back and read the sticky...I just don't see why this discussion is not appropriate for this thread.
I am curious as to why you or anyone might find it inappropriate.
Well, the OP was talking about the specific designated 110 million acres of wilderness areas as designed by the 1964 legislation, and should bikes be allowed.
http://www.wilderness.net/map.cfm
I am a member of IMBA and remain in full support that bikes - at least as a blanket policy for all of that land - should not be allowed in those 110 million acres. As you see by the map link above, there is more than ample land throughout our great nation to ride one's bike without riding it in the wilderness. Are there some individual trails in certain areas that are currently closed that might be worth consideration for opening to bikes (without opening all 110 million acres)? Sure. But a blanket change to open all 110 million acres to bikes is not supported. And there may be certain trails and areas due to vegetation and wildlife that should also be closed to hikers, and equestrians as well due to endangered plants and wildlife.
IMBA's thoughts and FAQ:
https://www.imba.com/resources/land-protection/frequently-asked-questions-wilderness-and-imba
Who knows what our current government will do with regard to our protected wilderness?
I rest assured we will not solve the issue here in this forum...
1 -
You're right...it won't be solved in this forum.
I do however think topics such as this make us think more about our impact on our environment. I know that when I take my walks/hikes I see signs of where someone came along and abused areas such as the OP is talking about. Maybe by discussing our opinions even in way which won't solve anything will at least get people thinking and involved in reserving our wilderness areas.
Are we fighting a losing battle...probably. I think we call it...progress. Sadly that progress is often at the price of our environment.
Yes...I know the OP was talking about a specific area. It just made me think about the land that has been set aside throughout our country for public use such as parks throughout cities...our national parks...etc...etc. I wasn't trying to derail the thread. I think my mind wandered to how these same issues affect other areas that have been set aside to preserve nature. How we might can enjoy them and at the same time preserve them from abuse.0 -
You're right...it won't be solved in this forum.
I do however think topics such as this make us think more about our impact on our environment. I know that when I take my walks/hikes I see signs of where someone came along and abused areas such as the OP is talking about. Maybe by discussing our opinions even in way which won't solve anything will at least get people thinking and involved in reserving our wilderness areas.
Are we fighting a losing battle...probably. I think we call it...progress. Sadly that progress is often at the price of our environment.
Yes...I know the OP was talking about a specific area. It just made me think about the land that has been set aside throughout our country for public use such as parks throughout cities...our national parks...etc...etc. I wasn't trying to derail the thread. I think my mind wandered to how these same issues affect other areas that have been set aside to preserve nature. How we might can enjoy them and at the same time preserve them from abuse.
Yes, the most obvious abuses of public lands are graffiti and trash. For example, there is a state park (i.e. not a federal wilderness area) relatively close to where I live with a large cave area containing native carvings. There are stairs and a walkway to be able to walk from the parking lot right up to the cave (maybe 200 ft. distance and a few stairs). It is very easy to access, very easy to park, walk right up to the cave, carve something new, and be gone in a very short period of time. There are so many new carvings from the last several decades that it is extremely difficult to even spot native carvings from among all of the modern day carvings. That type of thing really kittens me off.
In a separate example, one of the national parks I visited last year has an area where there are petroglyphs. If you come upon the area, either by chance or because you happened to hear about it and sought it out, there are signs and even a visitor log you can sign. However, it is not something that the NPS advertises or makes it easy to know it exists. Believe it or not, there are several areas like that in national parks that contain cultural artifacts and the NPS has their own classification system. Some highly classified cultural artifacts (including physical areas in the wilderness where the artifacts cannot be removed - in my example, a rock wall in the wilderness) are kept secret and visitors are prevented from accidentally discovering it. They have to do this for preservation purposes. ETA: The site I visited has very little noticeable damage, I think because it is less accessible.
Yes, I know this goes beyond the question of bicycles in the wilderness, but making such areas more readily accessible (which is one of the results of allowing bicycles in those areas) increases the likelihood that there will be more litter or graffiti / damage. That is yet another reason to be careful not to allow bicycles in certain areas containing more sensitive things (not just vegetation, but cultural artifacts as well).0 -
This is my opinion.
When the President from time to time designates an area of as a National Park or a National Wilderness, he is telling me that I am excluded. So, I stay away and leave that area to the pot farmers.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions