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?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.1 -
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.0 -
NorthCascades 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.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions