This isn't approved yet but it is good news. I wrote a letter supporting this recently, pretty cool that it might happen.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/271837...287/?GT1=45002
Printable View
This isn't approved yet but it is good news. I wrote a letter supporting this recently, pretty cool that it might happen.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/271837...287/?GT1=45002
This is going to be a long way from really happening. The rule, if accepted, will allow individual manager to make decisions locally instead of everything coming down from a national dictate. There are already several pilot programs that are being tested, thanks to IMBA. I imagine it will take years to really have any impact.
Currently mountain biking is being tested in 3 national parks,
http://www.americantrails.org/resour...imbanps06.html
And as an avid mountain biker, I do think there are places that bikes shouldn't be. Grand Canyon? Yellowstone?
What is more important, to me at any rate, is the memo that has been issued by some of the top folks at the Forest Service, that says that bikes are to managed as NON-MOTORIZED, with hikers and equestrians, and not lumped in with ORVs and motorcycles.
http://www.imba.com/news/news_releas...fs_policy.html
I think this is important for several reasons. 1. there are thousands of miles of trails in the USFS that are already in use by mountain bikers. 2. It's been up to the regions and districts to establish their own travel and management plans for mountain bikes, so there is a huge amount of inconsistency from region to region on how bikes are allowed on trails.
3. I don't know about Texas, but up here much of the riding is on Forest land, much of which is up for potential re-designation as wilderness. This would essentially ban bikes from areas where they are currently allowed.
I am really interested in how all this will affect the 1964 Wilderness Act, which bans "mechanized" transport. This really chaps my .... Horses do an incredible amount of damage to wilderness trails, and yet they won't let bikes in? And if anyone is worried about running into highspeed riders, they obviously don't understand what back country mountain biking really entails.
omg, I kind of drug out soap box here. Can you tell I spend a lot of time on mountain bike advocacy? Support IMBA and your local club!!
Thanks, Irulan, for saving me from having to write a really long post. You said all I wanted to say.
I do think there are places for mountain bikes and horses, and places where neither should be. But I think the same of hikers, kayaks, snow mobiles, etc.
For one thing, we've got to give the wildlife a break now and again.
just found this, the IMBA press release on the National Park thing
http://www.imba.com/news/news_releas...le_change.html
mm, I guess I was way off on biking in parks, better start keeping up to date...
http://www.imba.com/resources/agenci...rt_trails.html
Thanks for explaining.
I think in Texas it is a bit of a sore subject because of parts of Big Bend that could be used but only parts are allowed and I think it is only a small fraction when you consider how huge Big Bend is. I am not 100% sure but it was in reference to Big Bend I first heard about this being a positive change and that was from an IMBA advocate.
I do not know the whole issue since I am very new to mountain biking. Being married to a biologist (by education not trade at the moment) am a little leary of encroaching on any natural place by bike, foot, car, boat, etc..... Especially places where sensitive plants and animals may live.
Mountain Bike advocacy has an interesting history. As people powered sports go, it's pretty new to the scene. For a long time land managers weren't quite sure what to think of it, and there was a lot of misunderstanding and conflict. It's quite sad that in California, kind of the birthplace of mountain biking ( that, or Crested Butte;)) Many areas are closed to riders - they got closed by the horse lobby before anyone had a chance to really have conversations back and forth between user groups and land managers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie_Ama
The access thing is huge: many mountain bikers feel they have been unfairly locked out of areas due to misunderstandings, or excessive lobbying by other more powerful (well funded) groups.
There is a lot of science being applied to the issue now. There have been quite a few impartial trail impact studies that have looked at bike-hiker-horse trail use and which one has the most destructive use.
I could go on forever on this topic, sorry....
If it involves opening up designated wilderness to mountain biking, I'm 100% opposed.
Did you even read the information, and the links provided? Or are you just being emotional?
You are welcome to be opposed to opening wilderness to bikes, but that is just a small part of what this is about.
1. It's about individual park managers being able to make decisions based on what is best for their particular park. There are plenty of non-wilderness type national parks that this could affect. Natchez Trace Parkway, anyone?
2. There is additional commentary about the forest service universally managing bikes as non motorized
3. and a few comments about losing access to NON-wilderness areas that are currently and historically used by bikes, through new wilderness designation.
4. and yes, how this might in fact affect the wilderness act
I've ridden horses for a long time- though the only trails I ever rode were on private property. However, I can definitely see where dilemmas/conflicts could arise & understand the arguments on both sides. It sort of reminds me of conflicts between motorists & road cyclists. I'm afraid that bad apples and ignorance in both groups will prevent a "happy medium" from being reached between them.
I hope I'm wrong, though.
Whoa. Quite the snotty and knee-jerk response there. Would you have posted that question if this was a gender-neutral forum? Hmm. Doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irulan
And to answer your highly gender-biased question: Nope, this ain't about me being emotional. This is about me thinking that bikes in wilderness areas are a bad idea. Bikes and wilderness aren't explicitly mentioned in the story to which the OP linked but I know from years of knowledge it is implicit to this story/issue.
Long held belief of mine. And that's it. Period (no pun intended). End of story.
Look deeper...this ain't about cyclists so much as creating a wild west atmosphere ripe for development of our public lands by Bush and Cheney's buddies.
It's a deal with the devil.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/op...=1&oref=slogin