Since the introduction of the Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Act (S.3205), the cycling community has been, rather surprisingly, facing a heated internal squabble about whether or not we—cyclists!—should support it. My rough tally was that fewer than 10 percent of those riders who were critical of it actually opposed the notion of cyclists being allowed to ride in designated Wilderness Areas. No, the vast majority of people I have encountered oppose the act for one reason:
They don’t trust Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch, the act’s sponsors.
Universally, the criticism for them comes down to Lee and Hatch’s longstanding support for the oil, gas and mining industries, which is to say industries that believe the planet is a trove of raw materials just waiting to be extracted, not a finite resource to be preserved so that it may be enjoyed by all. It’s a philosophical divide that this one piece of legislation can’t begin to address or solve. Nor does it attempt to.
However, opponents of the legislation have consistently worried that because it is supported by Lee and Hatch, it must contain some sort of Trojan horse provision for the oil and gas industries. Their fear is that all the fire roads and singletrack we’re hoping to ride will, in fact, soon be covered by a succession of well heads, should this legislation be enacted. While I hate legalese with its nouning of verbs and verbing of nouns, S.3205 is short and direct in its language. There’s nothing in it a reasonable person (someone who doesn’t jump to unsupported conclusions) can find that could serve as a provision that will suddenly allow for motorcycles, ATVs, gas or oil wells, mineral mines or forest clear-cutting. On those subjects, it has nada, niente, nyet to say.
Yet the opposition from within our own ranks persists.
Arguing that someone who has worked on legislation for oil and gas can’t be trusted with recreation is tantamount to claiming that you can’t be a cyclist if you own a car. It’s silly.
I’ve done what I can to point out that Lee and Hatch have other reasons to support legislation that falls under the umbrella of recreation. Utah (their home state) is a state that relies heavily on tourism to drive its economy. It’s by no means the biggest driver, but it is one serious driver and it is expanding. All you have to do is examine the investment that Deer Valley is making in turning its ski slopes into a mountain bike park to understand how dedicated places like Park City are when it comes to expanding their appeal into the summer months. Lee and Hatch both have a strong constituency-driven rationale for supporting this legislation.
Yet riders still argue against it. And many have suggested that it should be withdrawn and sponsored by more trustworthy representatives. That’s dog whistle for Democrats.
In conversations with those closest to me I’ve made an argument, one that I will now make more publicly. No matter what your personal political views are, I suspect that you are dissatisfied with the infighting between the two parties that has resulted in loads of political points scored but few legislative accomplishments. I’d like to believe that we all have some sort of dissatisfaction with how little the government has done, even if we disagree on the what and the who.
The root of that dissatisfaction lies in the partisan fight. It lies in red vs. blue, left vs. right, rural vs. city. And it’s getting us nowhere. The Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Act can be a lesson in healing that divide. There’s a simple reason why this is a good place to start.
For all the delicate little daffodils who think that a Republican can’t be trusted to shepherd public lands for recreational uses, the coffee is ready. Come January, Republicans will control the House, the Senate and the White House—two of the three branches of government. Any unwillingness to reach across that aisle might as well be spent in stasis on a spaceship headed for Jupiter because you’ll be wasting the next four years. If you want to accomplish anything—anything—in bicycle advocacy, we will need to work with anyone who will listen, not just Democrats. What’s more, our sales pitch for cycling will need to be so good it sells itself. We’re going to need amazing, dramatic numbers on what cycling does as a force for tourism, for driving the livability for cities, for health, how infrastructure can power local economies.
Cycling isn’t inherently Democratic or Republican. It’s as neutral as the white cross of Switzerland. It shares its benefits without preference or agenda. All you have to do is throw a leg over and go. If ever we want to begin healing the divides in this country we need to start with truths as obvious as the love of your mother.
The bike is a way we can do that. And supporting S.3205 is a way we can begin to forge new partnerships, share the common land.
If you value independent media, please lend your support to RKP.
To learn more about our new subscription program, please read this.
I won’t be had. Follow the money. They’re not supporting our paltry bike tourism interests.
Should they ultimately pass their true motive minus the Trojan Horse bicycle access, so be it. You can’t lose something you never had. There is no more reason to be bipartisan now than the sponsors have ever been prior. I won’t be taken.
Patrick, I guess I must be in your 10% of cyclists who don’t think bikes belong in wilderness areas. I know most of the people I ride with feel the same (from one-on-one conversations while riding, often right along the edge of our local wilderness areas). When I am hiking up in the wilderness, it is really nice NOT to have cyclists coming up on me quickly (yes, most cyclists are friendly, as I like to think of myself as being too, but the perception as a walker is different). We are farther from a huge metropolis than you are, so perhaps the demands on non-wilderness trails are lower. We have plenty of trails that ARE open to cyclists, more than I could ride in a month of new trails every day, and it is really nice to have places that are quiet and slow paced. I sort of wish horses were not allowed in wilderness areas either, for that matter, but that is for the damage they do when people let them out into the meadows, and the lack of contribution by horsemen to trail maintenance. I realize that the decision on allowing cyclists in would be made by each land management entity, but the political pressures on them are difficult to comprehend or predict, and I suspect that we would end up with most wildernesses being open to cyclists. It would be very difficult to later close off cyclist access if it is deemed damaging, even under adaptive management programs. Once an environmental battle is lost, it is lost forever, unfortunately.
I’d love to see some reaching across the aisle on transportation initiatives, making the roads a safer place for all – pedestrians and cyclists and auto-drivers. The infrastructure improvements Trump talks of as one of his big initiatives (as did Clinton) need to have safety improvements included in them. That is definitely place where Republicans will lead (if it happens) and we need to work with them. A Democratic proposal would be dead in the water.
10%er here too…
MIchael, Thank you for articulating your perspective. You just saved me an hour of writing. I’m an avid cyclist. I’ve also hiked, backpacked and kayaked wilderness areas throughout Northern California, experiencing them in as close to their natural state as possible. I don’t want to be “get off my lawn” guy, but there absolutely must be a place set apart for those who wish to travel at a slower pace, without the wear and noise of mechanical devices to interrupt communion with nature. Patrick, I don’t know your experience with Wilderness, but, with respect, the argument for casting these treasures away is short sighted at best.
Before you or anyone argues for opening Wilderness areas to bikes or motors, you need to understand what you would be giving up for this and all future generations. You need to experience the Wilderness. Earn the peaks in Desolation (an area already heavily impacted). Step softly past the wildflowers in Mokelumne. Relish in the silence of paddling the ghost forests in Carson Iceberg. Brave the sands of the Lost Coast.
Once you’ve done that, get back to us and tell us you still feel your argument is valid.
Author
Who said anything about “casting these treasures away”? My experience with the outdoors goes back some 40-odd years. I’ve camped, hiked, rock climbed, canoed and more through a number of wild places, and yes, I’ve ridden through them where legal. These reductivist either/or scenarios that people pose are dispiriting. I can’t fathom why giving a local land manager the opportunity to grant cyclists access to a space automatically means that it will be ruined to hiking. And no one is arguing that they should be opened up to motors, but I’m becoming accustomed to people drawing unsupported conclusions. I’ll still push back against it. It’s funny to me that no one even addresses the inability of cyclists to access fire roads in these places. Sharing a fire road with cyclists won’t ruin a hiking experience.
I also need to note that even if cyclists were granted access to a given Wilderness Area, it’s still possible to restrict just where they would have access. This complete unwillingness to share these spaces, especially in the face of losing some remarkable trails, is unfathomable to me.
Cyclists are probably the most diverse of opinion (both political and religious) a group I have ever known.
My position is simple. I am opposed to all but foot traffic in wilderness areas. By my personal definition, lack of bikes and horses is what makes them wilderness. Trojan horse or not, allowing mountain-bikes and horses is detrimental to that wilderness. That allowing access can assist in raising awareness and support for preservation of wilderness is the confounding factor, but in my mind, just allowing that access in the first place destroys the wilderness.
I get that there are places where lack of (and removal of – See Mt Seymour on the North Shore of Vancouver) access to existing trails is placing extreme pressure on the mountain biking experience/community. I simply don’t care as much about that as I do about the preservation of places that are currently devoid of bikes and horses.
On Instagram the HikeArizona feed had a post about this Act and the hikers commented that mountain bikers should not be given access and horses should be banned also. I felt, well what gives hikers the right to be in Wilderness area, why not all human traffic be banned since it suppose to be Wilderness, keep the Wilderness Wild, only animals and plants!!
Just seems silly. We can mountain bike hundreds of miles of the Arizona Trail in NF land but when we get up on top of Superstition Mountains we can not keep following the Arizona Trail because it crosses through a Wilderness Area. It is the same desert. I understand the need for Wilderness areas to keep mining, and OHV out. But I would like to see mountain bikers have access to Wilderness areas. I also feel some trails in Wilderness areas just do not make sense to be open to bikes, I think from my understanding on the Act that land managers can make this call, one trail I can think of is Siphon Draw, it is in Wilderness Area and very popular with hikers but also has a lot of rock scrambling, only Red Bull Rampage riders could even make it down, yeah that one I think the local mtn bike community would be okay with not having access too.
I’ve been an on again, off again wilderness user since 1974. I guess it would depend on exactly which wilderness we are talking about. I don’t think I’d be in favor of swarms of mountain bikes on the John Muir Trail for instance. I do find the opposition to horses interesting, since horses have been used in wilderness areas for 3000+ years. Horses will never go away – the Forest Service and National Park Service use horses, as does the Sierra Club.
Author
I’m dismayed that for so many this conversation is so blunt, so black or white. One of the best examples of the need for this act and the complicated and nuanced situation that exists is the Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness Area in Idaho. This was a Recreation Area for decades that allowed mountain biking. Once it was designated a Wilderness Area in a purely political move, all mountain biking ceased. I agree that there are places where mountain biking shouldn’t be allowed. And the Wilderness designation is a powerful way to preserve public lands in perpetuity, but every time a new Wilderness Area is designated, all cycling must cease. Your local fire roads and singletrack on public land is at risk. Rather than looking at landscapes like the one used in the Redbull Rampage—an event that could stop tomorrow and we wouldn’t suffer a lick—let’s talk about how the cycling community will suffer a loss every time a public space is designated Wilderness. I suspect many people would feel differently the moment they lost their local trails.
To me it is black and white, at least with respect to what I personally consider wilderness and why I care about it. For me, hiking through a wilderness area is the minimum level of activity that allows access. It’s the lowest level of compromise possible that still allows access. It is the experience and appreciation of the area that is important to me, not the activity that I am undertaking. The walking is a means to an end. On the other hand I consider that mountain biking and horseback riding are primarily activities, undertaken largely for the enjoyment of the activity itself, The experience of, and appreciation of the areas in which they are undertaken, certainly enhance those activities, but my personal view is that it is unnecessary and unhelpful to be on a mountain bike or horse to experience wilderness.
I want both. I want to be able bro-down with my flannel-encrusted, fist-bumping bros on my sick dualie 29er ride (with the 2m wide handlebars and knees hitting my chin when I pedal) but to also to be able to simply walk off into the wild. I don’t want to do them together. And I have an irrational hatred of all things horsey.
I’m with you Patrick. This is a good bill and we are showing the closed-mindedness that we so delight in condemning when it is on the other side of the aisle. If we resort to rhetoric such as “follow the money” we must pretend corporations didn’t donate more to Hillary’s campaign than The Donald’s. We keep talking about working together and yet when given the chance we regress to partisan sniping and smugly fold our arms. Claiming enlightenment and entitlement is one way to find ourselves protesting what we didn’t get when we could be riding what we did get.
I think the lack of support shown in the comments here in both an indictment on both the cycling community and American society in general. It seems to boil down to being unable to trust other groups of people to share these natural resources and being unable to trust land managers (whoever would get to make access decisions) to be able to balance the desires of hikers, horse riders and mountain bikers effectively.
It’s not that I don’t think these concerns are valid, but by basing your decision on assuming that people cannot successfully work together in this matter we miss an opportunity to strengthen the combined cycling, horse riding and hiking communities.
Wilderness, the environment and our planet are only degrading. If we can actually co-operate to fight for increased cycling access, then maybe we can work together to fight against everything that continues to damage and erode these areas in the first place. More people using these areas adds voices to the fight and increases the chance that there will be people in important positions that will share our concerns to preserve these areas.
In the long term I am absolutely sure that a larger unified community fighting for the creation, protection and effective management of wilderness areas can result in positive outcomes which would more than offset some potential damage done by mountain biking.
I do not think of this from Winky is really a “black and white” opinion, as the depth is in the compelling explanation for the opinion.
“For me, hiking through a wilderness area is the minimum level of activity that allows access. It’s the lowest level of compromise possible that still allows access. It is the experience and appreciation of the area that is important to me, not the activity that I am undertaking. The walking is a means to an end.”
Also I do not trust the future. Invade the wilderness with a little “reasonable” access for bikes and star-destroyers now, then in the future they might get fudged in a little more, and a little more, and a little more, so that in the more distant future bikes will be careening down the most pristine of wilderness trails. Keep mechanical transport out, plain and simple. “Black n white”, if you must.
And really, I least of all would trust local-yokel managers to manage sustainably or with any level of wisdom.
Author
I gotta say that the “local yokel” tag is fabulously insulting to people who, in some cases, have advanced degrees in fields like forestry management and hydrology. The judgments I’m reading are colossally ill-informed and, from this audience, wildly depressing.
Of course, the more we assume the gate keepers are our enemy, the more they are.
This new post-truth era is not going to be much fun.
My commentary here does not claim to be “informed” Patrick. It is simply my personal opinion and preference. If you are right, and access to wilderness by bikes and horses is essential to its continued preservation, then I will be extremely sad about that reality, but I won’t deny it.
What a bunch of intolerant, conspiracy theory kooks commenting on this intelligent blog. I used to think that (intolerant) way when I was a member of Augusta National GC, especially when the board was considering allowing females to join. Them ladies were gonna ruin the dynamic of my church. Then my sister made it known that she wanted to join the club.
Apples and oranges.
I am really sorry to see these accusations being thrown around. There are good reasons to want wilderness trails open to bicycles and good reasons to NOT want them open to bicycles. Many of the commenters have made sincere attempts to explain their reasoning. I personally do not want bicycles in the wilderness. As I said in my comment above, where I live, there are plenty of trails already and I like having trails where I can walk or run where I do not worry about bicycles. I work with the USFS a lot, and recognize the huge political pressures they labor under. I see poorly justified decisions being made at the local level in many places because of this. I think we should be thinking about trails that are for bicycles only, perhaps even one way, so that they can ride without worries of encountering a horse around the corner. But how to pass that rule?
On the subject of wilderness and human exclusion, the Soviets set up zapovedniki right after the revolution. If they were going to make the earth flower and the people prosper, they needed a control setting. They created zapovedniki in pretty much every ecosystem they had, and then excluded all human entry into them (except for occasional, strictly controlled entrance by researchers and by guards to keep others out). After the USSR collapsed, the zapovedniki have evolved in many different ways – to resource-rich areas to be exploited or beautiful places for tourism, or new land to settle. Our original wilderness concept (well before the wilderness act) was set on the idea of being an area one could ride a horse for many days (two weeks was the common length used) without re-tracing trails and not seeing signs of human development beyond the trails themselves. The wilderness concept has not ended up that way at all – many are much smaller than that, and have a clear view of large cities.
The concept of wilderness has changed over time, here and in other countries. I have my preference for its future evolution, and others have their ideas. These reflect different priorities. Cool. But no need to be intolerant or claim others are.
All indications are that the upcoming administration will place all wilderness and other federally protected areas in peril especially given that current names for the next Secretary of the Interior include Sarah ‘Drill Baby Drill’ Palin and oil executive Forrest Lucas. Trojan Horses appear to be only the beginning of our worries. I have to agree with some of the others posting here, let’s not give these demagogues any wedge that will allow them to despoil our most environmentally natural places. Write to your representatives in Washington and support organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense fund.
” One of the best examples of the need for this act and the complicated and nuanced situation that exists is the Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness Area in Idaho. This was a Recreation Area for decades that allowed mountain biking. Once it was designated a Wilderness Area in a purely political move, all mountain biking ceased. ” – I’d certainly like to see areas that were ” multi – use ” National Forest that had been made into Wilderness, considered being opened up to limited additional uses such as mountain bikes. Perhaps we need additional clarification from the bills sponsors and actual land managers. There are areas that could be appropriate for mtn. bike use, and areas that are not. I’m willing to consider this, even though I’ve been a Wilderness user / mountaineer since the mid 1970’s, and I don’t mountain bike at all. Certainly if public input was required by land managers on areas being opened to bikes, it would help. I read the bill, and it seemed a bit light on details.
I am opposed to wilderness areas on existing bike trails. Enough is enough, we are losing the best of the best trails. This bill will help save access to those trails. It has my 100% support.
Losing bike trails isn’t the biggest issue here to my mind. The issue I am concerned about is that we are losing the wild planet to human activities.
So Winky, surely you’ll be first in line to push for keeping our protected Wilderness areas free of all human visitation, right?
If not, you’re a hypocrite.
I’m guessing this group doesn’t spend much time in Wilderness areas. Horses are expressly permitted in these protected areas. They are not frequently seen because not many people can afford the time and expense involved.
Also, the idea of wilderness goes way beyond the the pursuit of recreation and leisure activities. I’m more than a bit disappointed to hear no clear recognition of this from so many of the “wilderness users” responding to this post. I live in one of he mountain biking meccas of the USA. It’s Big business here. But I also live between two USFS Wilderness areas. To loose the protected areas to what the other public lands in this county have become in the last 25 years would be an irreplaceable loss and a tragedy.
So because you live between 2 wilderness areas, you believe all American citizens — regardless of where they live — should not have any access to any wilderness trails anywhere in the USA… because of some 32 year old, arbitrary rule? I think I know what “D.B.” stands for…
p.s. Allowing non-motorized recreation does NOT remove the protections the Wilderness Act affords these lands. Do your homework, D.B.
With all due respect, federal Wilderness is and shall remain off-limits to mechanization. Bicycles are mobility machines, hence disqualified.
There are plenty of routes available for bicycle riding that are not federally designated as Wilderness due to their intrinsic wildness value.
For the record, I sell mountain bicycles at my shop, BikePartners.net in Santa Rosa, CA. I would be happy to discuss riding options, and the value of Wilderness.
Geoffrey Smith
Mr. Smith – So let’s say The Wilderness Society and associated organizations set their sights on Annadel for Wilderness designation. You’ll just lay down and support such protection, despite it alienating your core clientele? Where would your customers primarily mountain bike then? On the privately owned Angwin trails???
Nevermind. Looks like you only sell “mountain bikes” that fold up. Yeah… you, like many people commenting here DON’T GET IT.