HIKING AND PARK GROUPS URGE WITHDRAWAL OF MOUNTAIN BIKE PLAN

[nosmokes]

I'm split on this. I know we need more bike trails, especially in easily accessable areas, but that's also exactly where the pressure is going to be felt on the hiking trails as the population ages.
--###--

original-peer

For Immediate Release: February 17, 2009
Contact: Jeff Ruch [phone]

HIKING AND PARK GROUPS URGE WITHDRAWAL OF MOUNTAIN BIKE PLAN

— New Mountain Bicycle Trails Will Drive Out Other Users and Aggravate Backlog

Washington, DC — A coalition of national park, hiking and wilderness advocacy groups today urged Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to withdraw a late lame duck Bush administration plan to carve mountain bike trails across the backcountry of the national park system. Millions of acres of potential and recommended park wilderness would be adversely affected by the plan contends Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Association of National Park Rangers and other signatories.

Today marks the end of the public comment period on the hastily drafted plan unveiled in the last days of the Bush administration. In a teaser for an action alert last week to its members, the International Mountain Biking Association, the lead proponent of the rule change, described the stakes this way:

“…over 170 forests and grasslands administered by the NPS and a potential 130,000 miles of trails, the move is a mouthwatering prospect for cyclists.”

The proposal creates a short-circuit process for opening trails to mountain bikes. Among the concerns raised by the coalition are –

* Increased User Conflict. Introducing mountain bikes on backcountry trails will drive off hikers, horseback riders and other users, as fast moving bikers, sometimes in large groups, whiz down narrow paths;

* Introduction of Extreme (BMX) Mountain Biking Trails. The wording of the proposed rule appears to endorse, for the first time, construction of trails designed specifically for high-speed, bicycle motor-cross (BMX) racing, to the practical exclusion of other uses; and

* Aggravation of Maintenance Backlog. High volume biking on backcountry trails will multiply the demand on the Park Service for erosion control to keep unpaved trails functional. The agency already reports a $9 billion backlog in maintenance projects.

“While we endorse the use of bicycles through the developed areas of park units like the C&O Canal in D.C., these proposed rule are designed to facilitate mountain bicycles in undeveloped park areas – the backcountry, far from paved park roads,” commented PEER Board member Frank Buono, a former NPS manager. “This rule could not only negatively change the backcountry experience for park visitors, but would allow a non-conforming use in proposed and recommended wilderness.”

The proposed rule was first unveiled in mid-December, under directions of a top level Bush appointee that it be published before President Bush, an avid mountain-biker left office. Secretary Salazar has vowed to reexamine the slew of “midnight regulations” unleashed prior to Inauguration Day. Since the mountain bike rule is still in a proposed status, Sec. Salazar could simply withdraw it, as the coalition is urging.

“This mountain bike rule is a classic example of special interest influence over management of our national parks,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that mountain biking groups forged a special “partnership” with Bush park appointees. “There is no shortage of other venues for mountain bikes that would justify opening up the last, best places within our national parks.”

###

.
.
.
complete release including links to related sources here

[Shakespeare]

1. GOOD.

:thumbsup:

[4 t 4]

2. Does this have anything to do with Lance

cause I can't stand him. I may be a million miles off.

[flvegan]

3. Why not a trade off? Open some to mtbers, but make them maintain them.

Otherwise, no go. Our SWAMP club here does a great deal of the maintenance on our local state park trails.

[cliffordu]

22. Yep - work to play....Works around here.....

[Earth_First]

4. The impact that cycling has on backcountry trails is disgusting.

The deep wells that tires leave in trails prevents rainwater from running off to the sides (or sit in place in footprints). Over time the runoff is allowed to seriously impact the trail without maintenance.

Examples of mountain bike damage to trails:

[rfranklin]

5. Doesn't look cataclysmic, does it now?

In my local park that allows biking along with horses and hikers, trails are used for a while and then closed off after a while. Six months later you can't even find the old trail.

[billyoc]

6. What?! It's practically strip mining!

:rofl:

[Earth_First]

7. I'm sorry that you and I disagree on this comment,

and it's a shame that you feel the need to berate me by making outrageous metaphors to make your point.

[arcadian]

12. I know where you are coming from Earth_First

I do volunteer trail maintence. Most people have little idea how much destruction things like horses and mountain bikes are to trails. I see it first hand. One, because I am in the backcountry a lot and two, because I build the fucking trails I see the detruction. A lot of mountain bikers have little regard for Leave No Trace, they cut switchbacks and create "social trails" all over the place.

[leftyclimber]

48. Thank you for mentioning horses, arcadian.

Regardless of whether or not Aldo Leopold recommended designating Wilderness areas on the number of days one could go on a horse-packing trip, horses -- especially in large numbers -- are absolutely brutal on any ecosystem. And I say this as a rider.

[backscatter712]

13. I can live with more bike trails as long as they were properly maintained.

Yes, they cause erosion, and have an impact on the environment, but if proper trails were laid, and maintained correctly, the impact can be managed, so we can ride our bikes without trashing the parks too much

[cliffordu]

20. Complete and utter bullshit.

by another NIMBY "hiker"

[natrat]

21. so you think that park is just for hikers, fuck that

[leftyclimber]

8. (LONG) The complexity of the issue with MTBs in NPS backcountry....

The NPS has a dual mandate: to preserve lands set aside as National Parks, and to provide enjoyment of those lands to its visitors. Obviously as a dual mandate this sucks, because the balance of preserving and providing enjoyment is extremely difficult to maintain.

Generally what the NPS does is to set aside "sacrifice areas" in the frontcountry, which are areas like the Old Faithful complex in Yellowstone -- they are designed to receive high impacts and heavy visitation. Usually these are areas close to the main roads and are "hardened" for heavy visitor use. You'll see your stores here, your developed campsites, your hotels, your 40" wide trails, and so on.

The remainder of the park is set aside for preservation, which is why there are backcountry permitting processes and an emphasis on Leave No Trace ethics/behaviors (http://www.lnt.org) and the like in those areas. Many of the backcountry areas are federally designated Wilderness areas on top of being NPS backcountry areas, meaning that in those areas it is forbidden by law to have any motorized or mechanized use, including mountain bikes, chain saws, snowmobiles, and what-have-you (except for wheelchairs and emergency uses -- you can be Medevac'ed from Wilderness, for example).

The key word in all of this is "preservation." We have a tendency to use the words "conservation" and "preservation" interchangeably in the vernacular, but in legislation and among federal land management agencies they have two different meanings. "Conservation" is what the Forest Service is supposed to do -- use the resources in a manner that will leave the same opportunities of use for future generations; i.e., in a fashion that is sustainable (whether they actually do this is a topic for another thread).

"Preservation," OTOH, is pretty much shorthand for "leave it as it is, or as close as you can possibly manage." Hence LNT, small backcountry groups, sometimes limits on how many people can enter an area, and other management tactics are employed to try to reduce the impact on the resource as much as possible. In NPS backcountry areas that are not federally designated Wilderness areas, this means trying to avoid encouraging recreation activities that can have significant impacts on the backcountry area.

Mountain biking, therefore, becomes a really contentious recreation use in the backcountry of an NPS unit because of the issues that come from user-created ("social") trails and/or incorrectly sited/designed trails, even if they are maintained by a loyal corps of users. In addition, there are concerns about the introduction of invasive species (carried from other sites where people have ridden), damage to or destruction of threatened/endangered plants/bugs/reptiles/amphibians/fish/etc. or the habitat thereof, and disturbance of wildlife (and other human-wildlife interactions -- for example, several MTB-ers on National Forests in California have been attacked by mountain lions while riding), damage to riparian (next-to-river) areas, and similar impacts.

Yet another consideration is whether a decision to change permitted types of recreation in protected areas will be legally defensible should a lawsuit occur, as with the fight over how much snowmobiling should be permitted in Yellowstone in the winter. The multitudinous land-management agency folks I have dealt with are extremely gun-shy to bring about a change that might bring cause for a lawsuit, and therefore tend to be slow to adapt to newer recreational uses for fear of litigation (largely seen as an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer dollars).

Preservation versus enjoyment. I'm not passing judgment one way or the other, but as a doctoral student in Parks and Rec who both researches and teaches about this stuff I thought I'd weigh in with some of the management issues the NPS has to consider and deal with when they're dealing with backcountry recreation policy.

[leftyclimber]

9. Self-serving kick because I spent half an hour composing my previous post

and I like discussing recreation policy.

Come on, folks, weigh in! :hi:

[flvegan]

10. I can only speak from my own experience.

What has been done in my area is to take our vast state park system and design a singletrack system in some of the "worst" areas. In other words it goes through a good amount of scrub and soft sand. Most of it is man made, based around existing fire roads and power line easements through the parks, also using the "dead land" that the water plant was already taking up. There are two river crossings. One, we use the road. The second, an aluminum bridge was put in to connect two parts of the trail without interrupting the flow of water. When we get to the rainy season, it gets shut down. That's it. No riding. The damage is too great. Some of the trails also get rotated, meaning that some trails get shut down for a period of time to provide for maintenance and regrowth. There is no tolerance for straying off the course. It's mostly a loop. Also nice, is at the same time, they've paved a 7 mile loop in the park for bikes, bladers and joggers. Basically, they set aside x number of acres for people to enjoy so they could set aside a good amount for preservation (for example, one of the nice things about the area I bike in, is the huge gopher tortoise habitat much of it has become.

I don't think that it's responsible to open up a ton of trails to bikes (and god forbid any kind of motorized vehicle) that are being used for more organic human use (hiking, horsebacking, trailrunning, etc). But, I think that with great responsibility and planning, a compromise can be made in areas where there aren't any trails.

That said, no organic trail should be open to bikes if there's any form of rails-to-trails possibility.

[leftyclimber]

11. I can see that.

And it's a particularly successful approach in state parks. It sounds like your state parks people are pretty on the ball WRT trying to accommodate as many different people/uses as possible. That is very cool.

Since I played my cards close on the NPS thing the first time, here's my position: I'm not at all in favor of backcountry use on mountain bikes any more than I am with horses/mules (which have equal impacts to MTBs, sometimes more), unless there have been copious studies showing that they won't cause any more physical impacts than regular hiking use. Not likely, but if there is a place that will support that kind of use and not cause problems with either the resource or other users, go for it.

OTOH, I think responsible frontcountry use like you're describing in your post should absolutely be considered in National Parks, and implemented where it's feasible in the long term. The one suggestion I would make in that regard would be to separate MTB use from foot traffic because of the different etiquette issues (yielding to uphill on foot vs. yielding to downhill on MTB, etc) and the possibility of collisions, general misunderstandings, and so forth.

If we could have separate trails for both uses in the NPS areas already designated for high-impact use in a way that would afford both hikers and mountain bikers the experiences they're looking for it's entirely possible that National Park visitation would increase, which is ultimately a way to "breed" more environmentalists. :evilgrin:

[flvegan]

14. We have very little foot traffic on our trails.

Most foot traffic sticks to the fire roads and the concrete loop. Now, keep in mind that this is Florida so our park system is mostly flat, so there's not much hiking, but more off-road walking. I agree that mixing vehicle use and foot use is a VERY bad idea. Our trails are also largely one-way, another nice thing they thought of originally.

The only reason I bike where I do (short of the enjoyment...it's where I go to clear my head) is because I'm confident that it's been responsibly laid out and maintained. As an animal freak, I wouldn't seek to wish any further habitat destruction. Matter of fact, the last new biking area that was considered ran right along the setback lines of a new subdivision that abuts the park. The trail area was already heavily impacted from the new construction and lawn runoff, so I think they saw it as an opportunity.

[leftyclimber]

16. And I'd imagine that the MTB community is pretty active in working with the state parks people?

It sounds like you've got the best of all possible worlds -- a mountain biking community that is willing to get out and work for the opportunity for a place to ride and state parks folks who are pretty thoughtful/responsible in how they lay out the trails. We should all be so lucky.

Interestingly, Florida State Parks had a director for a while (not sure if she's still there) named Gail Norton. That's part of the reason there was some initial confusion with the BushCo Gail Norton as Secretary of the Interior -- there was some obfuscation that BushCo's Gail Norton (who IIRC is from Colorado) was FLORIDA'S Gail Norton, who would have been a very excellent Secretary of the Interior. Clearly there was some bait-and-switch involved....

[flvegan]

17. Our SWAMP club provides most of the maintenance and trail building.

SWAMP (SouthWest Association of Mountainbike Pedalers) is an invaluable resource here. Without them, our mtb resources would be very, very different. They also teach trail riding and trail etiquette. All around a huge benefit here.

[leftyclimber]

19. Cool. Sounds like a fantastic organization.

If SWAMP isn't involved with them already, you might want to hook up with the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA). They have some fantastic trail-building resources (might make your trailwork more efficient = more bang for your time investment) and would likely love to learn from your successes/share stories.

[flvegan]

23. Involved with IMBA, FBA and SORBA.

I do think they've thought of about everything...so far.

[leftyclimber]

31. Wow. You guys are on the ball. Good for you!

Once I'm done dissertating (I'm dealing with collaborative planning between recreationists and federal land management agencies for the next year and a half) and have a "real" job I might want to get ahold of your organization to talk about how to do things the right way. It sounds like yours might be an ideal model for how other groups can develop successful relationships with parks on all levels (city/county/state federal).

It's really refreshing to hear a success story like this. I get barraged with all the conflict, disagreements, and general crap that happens between recreationists and land managers. There aren't enough stories out there about arrangements that go well. Us folks who offer advice on how to be better managers need to hear these stories and pass them on instead of obsessing on what's going wrong and trying to fix it from up in the stratosphere. It's good for the people who go outside to play AND the people who manage the areas where people play.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful responses! I really appreciate it.

[flvegan]

32. Not us guys, them. They were here long before me.

I'm just a little helper bee. I, personally, had nothing to do with their planning nor successes.

http://www.swampclub.org/index.htm

[leftyclimber]

36. You have *everything* to do with their success.

Without little helper bees like you, they would cease to exist. Seriously.

Thanks for keeping a good organization going. Every little helper bee makes the whole hive happen.

[cobalt1999]

18. Great post.

However, I would hate for the NPS to adopt a "one size fits all rule". Here in Florida there are many flat and sandy trails that recover quickly from even heavy mountain bike usage. I've been mountain biking through out this state and in this environment it's not as damaging as in mountainous areas. Sand flows back quickly without the large ruts that occur in different climates.

[leftyclimber]

27. In my experience one size fits all doesn't happen in the NPS.

The real issue in the OP is backcountry use and all the internal regulation that goes with that. Frontcountry use is a lot more flexible WRT permitted uses. Most NPS units are managed on a park-by-park basis, with some general oversight from the Department of the Interior -- you can't manage Arches the same way you manage Dry Tortuga, for example. They're in completely different ecosystems.

If there are areas in National Parks near you that you think wouldn't be hit with a lot of ecological issues in a proposed riding area I strongly recommend getting to know your local NPS recreation planners and park superintendents. Let them know what you want to do, where you want to do it, then ASK them if there are places where it would be feasible to do so without causing them undue hassle. Don't go out there and play before you've talked to them -- develop a relationship with them, show them that you want to be a responsible user of their park, then work on getting the appropriate permission/trail designations/whatever it is you need to do your thing. But also be prepared for the possibility that there might be some threatened flower, lizard, or bug that you weren't aware of and that you might not be able to go where you'd like, not because these people are buttheads, but because they're constrained by federal legislation.

The most important thing to bear in mind is that these folks are beset by a load of rules and regs that make their decision-making processes a serious PITA, and if you're willing to meet them halfway most of them will be more than happy either to work something out with your "activity community" or to explain to you why there might be issues that would make it a management issue for them (this means you may be able to find a compromise) or why it may not be feasible at all within the constraints of their management framework (please honor this -- they're not being jerks; they're just following the rules from above, many of which were imposed by Congress). Assuming there's a possible solution in the future, if you are willing to volunteer time on trailwork or similar things they will be even happier to work with you.

Regardless, most of these people are thrilled that someone would come to them to find out the most appropriate way to engage in a particular activity in relationship to Park Service rules and regs, and to find out whether there's some sort of workable solution that will bring success for both you and the NPS. It may take time, but if you're willing to work out some compromises with them (and if they're in a legal position to accommodate your activity, assuming it's ecologically feasible) you'll likely end up with a pretty decent solution, even if it comes to working with them to find areas near/outside the NPS unit that meet your needs.

As a climber I'm painfully aware of access issues, as our community has them on public lands, too. One of the biggest issues is your ability to self-police. If your community can show that on the whole you can be a responsible user of a resource (regardless of the land management agency where you want to ride) and want to contribute time outside of recreating to the area, the more likely you are to have success.

If there's some area where you're having access issues, PM me. I'll be brutally honest as to whether I think it's a workable place to play, but I can also direct you to a lot of resources to help you get things done (again, assuming it's feasible), as well as offering you some tactics that can help you with a long-term plan to develop a good relationship with the people who run the show at whereever it is.

[cobalt1999]

37. So far, so good in my experience

Of course, I tend to follow the rules and I haven't have an issue with out of bounds areas to date. As long as each area is evaluated for it's specific impact, I'm happy to abide by their analysis.

I was more concerned about a blanket "no mountain biking in back country" rule, but your post seems to address that. I hope the NPS is as logical as you say.

[Shakespeare]

28. What a helpful, thoughtful post--thanks, leftyclimber.

As a frequent hiker/backpacker, I'm very privileged to enjoy some of the wilder (and most fragile) national parks in the country here in California, so this is a very important issue to me.

I also have friends who are avid MTBers here, and they utilize a lot of the state and national forest areas here (Los Padres and Angeles national forests). I know how much they enjoy the activity, but I think we have to be extremely careful about allowing them in the backcountry (I'd prefer none in the backcountry, honestly--some frontcountry allowance, as you suggest, sounds okay).

I think a lot of people don't realize how special (and how fragile) a lot of these places are, because they haven't personally experienced them. If they did, I think they'd be of a mind similar to yours.

[leftyclimber]

35. I think the LNT backcountry policy is extremely smart.

That said, I think we need to allow frontcountry use, because if we don't there will be unauthorized trails all over the place. When it comes down to the wire, people will do what they want to whether it's permitted or not, so we need to find areas where people can do what they want to do while leaving areas for people to experience solitude and relatively untouched places as well.

Whether it's Sequoia-King's Canyon, the Hundred-Mile Wilderness, the Brooks Range, or the backcountry areas of the Grand Canyon (most of these places are in the West because East Coast areas were inhabited so much sooner chronologically by Europeans, not because they aren't special, and not because I'm some kind of place-ist poophead), opening these kinds of places to big-time all-comers recreation access development would mean they would cease to be special.

We need a huge variety of recreation opportunities so that people can experience places in a huge variety of ways. Whether it's riding some insanely hardcore single-track or being the only person for fifty miles hiking on the John Muir Trail, experiencing nature is crucial for our development as people occupying a planet. Social experiences and solitude are equally important to our humanity. If we erase all the solitude in our outdoor recreational experiences, though, we have lost a little piece of ourselves.

It doesn't matter whether we actually get there personally, it's knowing that it's there that matters. (Oops, little Ed Abbey flashback, there.) That little bit of wildness in all of us. It's out there. We need that, all of us.

For those of you reading this thread thus far and putting up with my horrendously verbose ramblings, I highly recommend Roderick Frasier Nash's Wilderness and the American Mind for a great history of how Americans have developed a "general" view of nature. :hi:

[hedgehog]

15. I think there has to be some consideration of the motivation.

The National Park system is viewed by most people as a means of preserving natural beauty. Foot trails allow access to that beauty with a minimum of human influence. Motor-cross (BMX) racing is a sport that by its nature doesn't allow for appreciation of natural beauty. Horseback riding could either be for access or for its own challenge. Trails for access are one thing, trails for speed junkies don't belong in the national parks.

[cliffordu]

24. There 's no BMX racing that would require running a bunch of bikes through

national parks.

BMX is run on short tracks that would fit inside a small stadium.

I really wish people would learn what the heck they are complaining about before they do it.

[natrat]

26. they cut off thousand of miles of back country trails to jeeps and motorcycles in california

and believe me there is no way bicycles or hikers get a hundred miles in, so in essence this land is off limits to people. The sad part is dlc types pushed this so you know after a few years when times are bad they will start selling this land off to timber companies and miners. My point is that allot of you self righteous eco types miss who the real enemies are. You are so wrapped up in you own little world that you can't see that if people are slowly kicked off the land the elite will take that land and rape the living shit out of it. You think some law is going to protect our wild lands when the next bush comes in if this depression really winds up? Restricting people now is not the answer. Yes national parks are no places for motorized vehicles but kicking people off blm and nat forest land will not end well.

[Shakespeare]

30. Settle down, Francis. Nobody's talking about BLM and national forest land.

We're talking about our national parks--TOTALLY different situation.

You may consider me a "self righteous eco type," but I'm somebody who humps it in and out of those parks, and volunteers to do trail maintenance. I'm not wrapped up in anything but trying to help preserve these national treasures. I suggest you read leftyclimber's excellent explanatory post higher up in this thread.

[LastDemocratInSC]

25. Give them an inch (of trail) and they'll take a mile (of trail)

One of my favorite places is the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. I have been hiking in this park since childhood. There are several "nature hike" trails (near major roads and popular overlooks) and gravel service roads that have already been opened to mountain biking in the park.

In recent years I have seen mountain biking activity on most of the trails I have hiked ... and I generally hike in areas away from the major roads. The bikers know that there are many fewer park rangers on staff these days than in the past and and that the rangers on duty are most likely to be in the more "populated" areas.

The problem, as I see it, is that if the Park Service gives the bikers an inch they'll take a mile ... or more. The national parks are in place for purposes of preservation, not use. The national forests are for use, and there are plenty of those around the Smokies park. I have seen too much damage in state parks and the Pisgah National Forest to think that mountain biking is an activity that is consistent with the concept of the national parks.

[cliffordu]

29. Well... If

"The national parks are in place for purposes of preservation, not use..."

WTF are you doing using it???

[LastDemocratInSC]

39. You have asked a fair question.

This is a hot topic among parks managers. What are we trying to preserve and for what purpose is the preservation intended? Who are we allowing to use a natural resource and for what purpose is that use?

What good is preservation if nobody can go and see that which is preserved? What use is an area that has been used so much that it has been destroyed?

It's a balancing act but the balance is tilted in favor of those who damage least.

In most national parks there are off-limits areas. No trails (previously existing trails have been abandoned) and no overnight use. In other areas access is limited by rationing: day hiking is limited and overnight use is limited and permits are strictly enforced.

I have seen gullies and mud pits caused by hikers along trails ... the result of boots only. Mud pits so wide that one has no choice except to plunge into the thick of it. When I was young I, and my 5 friends, would hike in to a trail shelter that was already occupied by 10 other hikers. Thankfully, these things happen much less frequently because of rationing along trails that require an overnight stay for access. The excesses of the past are in the past, for the most part.

I don't have a perfect answer for your question but I do know this: Horses, bicycles, motorcycles, 4-wheel-drive vehicles do more damage than hiking boots. There are already areas of national parks that are off limits even to hikers for good reasons, and some of those areas are the ones I used to visit and love the most, but I respect the decisions to let the areas revert.

I do "use" the national parks but I when I am out overnight I am almost always in a rationed area. Sometimes I wait for weeks before I can get a permit for 2 or 3 nights out. Should I even be in that area? I don't know the answer to that. What do you say about it?

[cliffordu]

40. I think there should be a scale of use....from NO use->wilderness,

to hikers and trekkers, into bicyclists and horses and then to motorized vehicles.

I would also favor a rotation of use, to always allow a section to lie fallow, or, if you will, go wild.

[leftyclimber]

47. Good point, cliffordu.

It's important, regardless of the use and its impact, to let places go fallow. It helps with ecosystem development and also helps the users understand the importance/impact of the area that they are using (like clean water? this area helps bring it to you).

[OmahaBlueDog]

33. Could we look at taking some of the National Forests out of logging...

... and designate them as National Recreation Areas? We could allow fishing, hunting, snowmobiling, MTB and all of the things we don't want taking place in Yosemite, Everglades, Yellowstone or Denali. Use would be contingent on fairly steep user fees, which would be used for trail maintenance, enforcement, and mintaining the first aid stations.

[cliffordu]

34. That's a fine idea. I'd back it in a second.

[leftyclimber]

38. NRAs still permit logging if they're on Forest Service land.

The difference between the Forest Service and the Park Service is that the Forest Service is largely run under the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (first federal legislation to include recreation as a legally sanctioned use of USFS land, BTW), as opposed to the Organic Act of 1916, which established the preservation-public enjoyment mandate of the NPS. This means that the USFS has to include recreation in any use plan, but they are still primarily an extractive agency (hence their inclusion in the Department of Agriculture rather than the Department of the Interior -- they're, via their legislative mandate, in a position to treat trees in the same way as corn or soybeans).

National Recreation Areas are designated according to their distance from large population centers rather than their association with a particular federal agency, although they are largely associated with the USFS and NPS. I don't remember the exact numbers offhand, but it has to do with X number of people (300,000? Somewhere in that ballpark) being within so many hours' drive of the area. If a place can meet those criteria and Congress is willing to pass the bill, a place can be designated an NRA.

If a new NRA were set up on USFS land, there might be some way to set it up solely for recreation with no extraction as long as it was part of the establishing legislation for the NRA. OTOH, it would take some serious effort with Congress (as it does with Wilderness areas) to make sure the areas were set up along these lines. Advocacy, as it is with so many other things, becomes key.

The question of fairly steep user fees, however, is one of equity. There are some USFS NRAs that have no fee at all, and some that charge whatever the fee is on the rest of the National Forest where they are located (usually about five bucks, which is for the most part manageable for most people). The question in this case becomes how you define steep, and therefore whether you are willing to deny poor people the opportunity to recreate in areas based on their ability/inability to afford a user fee.

I agree that this kind of setup would be faboo. The question becomes, within a legislative framework, how to make it happen. I wish I knew, because if I did I would be all over it.

I welcome any suggestions in this regard. Let's make some stuff happen -- I'll be right out there in front on it. For Pete's sake, FDR included recreation as part of his new bill of rights. If we're going to push this kind of America forward, let's make sure recreation happens for EVERYONE. (Which means those of us pro-recreation need to be pro-labor, but that's for another thread. :evilgrin:)

[OmahaBlueDog]

42. I had no idea. Thanks for that.

This is the something new I learned today.

[1]

41. excuse me, but when did the rights of hikers surpass those of bikers?

when did they pass that law?

we share the trail. hikers should step to the left. what is the problem?

[Shakespeare]

43. We don't have more rights, we just have less of an impact.

The problem is that you might want to read the other (longer, more thoughtful) responses on both sides of the issue in this thread before snarking and running.

[1]

44. "snarking and running" in the 3 minutes it took you to respond?

your agenda is clear.

and if the argument is about impact, maybe a general ban on hikers is in order.

well maintained trails are well maintained trails. hikers or bikers. why can't we have both without hikers always trying to shut us out.

the trails are not your sole province...

[Shakespeare]

45. I don't think you bothered to read where I stand on the issue.

There are already vast areas of backcountry that are off limits to hikers, too--and I'm absolutely fine with that.

NF, BLM and *maybe* very, very limited NPS use for MTB. That's my position. It's not an "agenda," it's how I feel, based on the combination of research/knowledge, and what I've personally experienced.

[leftyclimber]

46. It's one of those "old use" vs. "new use" situations.

Not that one is more valid than the other, but that resource management agencies are more accustomed to dealing with the group of folks that have been around for a longer period of time than the folks that came around more recently.

I don't think this is just an issue of when to pass, 1. I think it's a matter of education. It's not just "step to the left," but that hikers are used to yielding to feet-people going up the hill (a greater physical challenge when you are on foot, so you want to spare them having to stop their momentum) versus bike-people going down the hill (harder to stop when gravity is making your wheels spin faster). Regardless of who's been there longer, you're dealing with two different sets of norms -- when do you yield? Why? What's the appropriate behavior in a particular situation? Why?

So this becomes a matter of education. If you want to share a trail with hikers, it's crucial to communicate with the people who are sharing that trail with you. It sucks that in some ways you're the "new guy," but if you can explain to them how hard it is to stop when you're going downhill and why it's a good idea to step aside for the dude on the bike, you've won points and educated people in the process.

But yours is an interpersonal question. If we talk to each other and can educate each other about why we do things a particular way (uphill vs. downhill yielding), we can settle the hikers-mountain bikers divide on a person-to-person level. And I sincerely hope we do.

So that's great. If we take my proposal of education between users as a serious project for both hikers and mountain bikers as an actionable item and both (hikers and mountain bikers) make an effort to understand each other, we've on our own dealt with one of the myriad management issues the NPS has to deal with (relating back to the OP).

We still, regardless of how we choose to visit the backcountry, have to figure out how to help the NPS balance their legislative mandate of providing public enjoyment and preserving the resource. I strongly suggest that working with the NPS to find ways to ride the frontcountry (perhaps on MTB-exclusive trails, which are more easily self-governed) and helping the NPS preserve the backcountry for less intensive uses may be a viable solution for everyone. In this way the MTBers get to ride, but the NPS still has a way to preserve the park's less accessible areas for future generations.

[1]

49. you are right. you are right. what a a lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out post...

i do have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about this that i am more than happy to discard.

(and my apologies to shakes above too)

leftyclimber, you are a rare poster on du. one actually interested in discussion on the issues. if it were left to me? i would put you in charge and abide by your decision.

peace, my fellow du'ers...

[hedgehog]

50. My husband has come up with the perfect compromise - we let mountain bikes

have full access to all national parks, national forests and BLM land.







It's the riders we'll ban.






:hide: