Should bikes be allowed in Wilderness?

NorthCascades

SingingSingleTracker wrote: »

I rest assured we will not solve the issue here in this forum...

To be fair, we also won't solve a lot of other problems that are debated on this forum, like the great conspiracy to make people think calories exist, people getting and not getting flu shots, the evil of sugar addiction, etc. At least this is something new to talk about.

For me, this has been enlightening. I've spoken about the issue to many hikers, and to many cyclists. As you can guess, both groups have somewhat polarized opinions. Now I've heard from regular people on a weight management and fitness web site, folks who don't have a horse in this race. Their opinions are frankly more interesting than the ones in the echo chambers.

NorthCascades

Annie_01 wrote: »

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.

midwesterner85 wrote: »

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).

It's been my experience that 99 % of the people who want to protect our public lands are people who visit them. Which makes sense, people care about protecting things they love. People usually need to experience a thing to love it. Bringing more people into nature means showing more people why it's special and worth preserving.

CSARdiver

NorthCascades wrote: »

Annie_01 wrote: »

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.

midwesterner85 wrote: »

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).

It's been my experience that 99 % of the people who want to protect our public lands are people who visit them. Which makes sense, people care about protecting things they love. People usually need to experience a thing to love it. Bringing more people into nature means showing more people why it's special and worth preserving.

This is a key point. There will always be that small percentage of the population that feels the need to vandalize and not observe a Leave No Trace philosophy. While we may want to believe that those in our camp (hiker/biker) would do this, polarizing and judging the activities of others, as I see we are all doing to the equestrians, is not particularly helpful.