Griz Expert Says ‘Mountain Bikes Are A Grave Threat To Bears’
WHEN IT COMES TO SAFEGUARDING BEARS, SCIENTISTS SAY WILDERNESS-CALIBER LANDS, FREE OF RIDERS, ARE IMPORTANT TO BRUIN PERSISTENCE
Reposted from Mountain Journal with permission of the author, Todd Wilkinson (click at original link for photos)
It’s no accident that grizzlies select for unfragmented roadless habitat and wilderness in the Gallatins is certain to accrue ever more value for wildlife as human use levels in the Yellowstone River valley, to the east, and the Gallatin River corridor, dominated by exploding development at Big Sky, continue to surge.
“Wild public lands that currently have grizzly bears present have those bears because of the characteristics of these places: visual cover, secure habitat, natural foods, and spring, summer, fall and denning habitat,” Servheen said. “All these factors can be compromised by excessive human presence, high speed and high encounter frequencies with humans. To compare places without bears, like Utah, to places with bears, like Yellowstone or all the wilderness areas with bears, is a flawed comparison.”
Mountain bikers already have hundreds of miles’ worth of trail riding options within a relatively short driving distance from Bozeman and Big Sky on public and private lands, including over 50 miles of trail at Big Sky Resort and the Yellowstone Club. Ecoystemwide, they have thousands of miles if old logging roads and motorized trails are included.
About the author: Todd Wilkinson
Todd Wilkinson is an American author and journalist proudly trained in the old school tradition. For more on his career, click here (Photo by David J Swift).
Greta Anderson is a plant nerd, a desert rat, and a fan of wildness. She is the Deputy Director of Western Watersheds Project and lives on the land of the Tohono O'Odham and Yaqui people in what is now called Arizona. Greta's opinions and world views are not necessarily reflected in the posts of other authors on this blog.
89 Responses to Griz Expert Says ‘Mountain Bikes Are A Grave Threat To Bears’
Subscribe to Blog via EmailJoin 951 other subscribers
- Pryor Mountains Horse Management Plan Revision Needs Support March 27, 2023
- The Douglas Fir National Monument Proposal March 24, 2023
- Biden Designates Two National Monuments March 21, 2023
- Biden Administration Approves Willow Project and Other Threats to Alaskan Wilderness March 13, 2023
- Blue Mountains Don’t Need Active Forest Management March 3, 2023
- Jeff Hoffman on Pryor Mountains Horse Management Plan Revision Needs Support
- Ida Lupine on Pryor Mountains Horse Management Plan Revision Needs Support
- Ted Chu on Pryor Mountains Horse Management Plan Revision Needs Support
- Ed Loosli on Pryor Mountains Horse Management Plan Revision Needs Support
- Maggie Frazier on Pryor Mountains Horse Management Plan Revision Needs Support
- David on Pryor Mountains Horse Management Plan Revision Needs Support
- Ed Loosli on Pryor Mountains Horse Management Plan Revision Needs Support
- Ed Loosli on Pryor Mountains Horse Management Plan Revision Needs Support
- Linda Horn on Pryor Mountains Horse Management Plan Revision Needs Support
- Jean Brocklebank on The Douglas Fir National Monument Proposal
- River Nomad on The Douglas Fir National Monument Proposal
- Jeff Hoffman on The Douglas Fir National Monument Proposal
- Ida Lupine on The Douglas Fir National Monument Proposal
- Ida Lupine on Biden Designates Two National Monuments
- Ed Loosli on The Douglas Fir National Monument Proposal
After “conservationists” and Wilkerson maligned Servheen for years it’s amusing they know credit him with being a grizzly bear expert.
Fantastic, and hard to ignore the facts.
He seems to be speaking a little more freely now. 🙂
I too am a “…plant [and animal] nerd, a desert rat, and a fan of wildness.” I also ride a bike. For me bicycles are an efficient, non-motorized conveyance. I don’t “kamikaze” down mountains, I don’t ride fast, and I don’t believe that the world exists to be my roller coaster. There are idiot bike riders, idiot horse riders, and idiot hikers. Lots of ’em. I’m not sure why you single out the bicycle riding idiots over the others. I have long resented that horses are allowed in Wilderness while bicycles are not. I have seen the damage that horses do. I once lived in a place that has many Brown bears and I have had the amazing experience of hiking/kayaking/biking in places where one encounters Brown bears – not every time, but often enough to keep you humble and alert. I never encountered a Brown bear while on a bike, but I certainly worried about it – especially riding at night. I have no doubt that the outcome of such an encounter would be decided by the bear. I expect that most everything humans do in Wilderness areas disturbs the wildlife. I would support the creation of human-free Wilderness areas, but truthfully, I’d probably be the first to break the rule. Rather than arbitrarily exclude some people while allowing others, I suggest forming alliances with responsible bicycle riders and working together to designate and protect Wilderness areas and to encourage responsible behavior (and appropriate humility) while visiting those areas. It’s just a thought…
Patrick, None of this is ‘arbitrary’. Wilderness was designed to protect and limit. Should we station someone with a clipboard at every trailhead to weed out the ‘bad’ bikers? There is simply no way that could happen. Your statement that “I’d probably be the first to break the rule” shows exactly what we fear, rule breaking bikers. Yeah, there are idiot hikers, but they just don’t go as fast, and speed, if you read the article, is the enemy of these wild animals. You may suffer from a bad encounter, but the animals suffer more, way more. There are literally thousands of miles of trails that exist that bikers can use right now. Have you used them all? How many times? I have personally hiked the same Wilderness trails over and over again, hundreds of times and don’t ever get tired of it. What is it with bikers and the need to conquer that leads them to break the rules and need ever more trails?
Two days ago I encountered a biker miles from the trailhead in Wilderness. I politely informed him of his mistake and he replied that ‘he didn’t see the sign’. The huge Forest Service Wilderness Area sign that everyone goes past.
To be clear, I did not say that I would break the rule on a bike. What I meant was that I would be irresistibly drawn to Wilderness – even if humans were excluded by some law. Also, I don’t believe that I have ever(knowingly)ridden a bicycle in a designated Wilderness. I am well aware of what Wilderness is, what the Wilderness Act is, and the language therein. I once testified in federal court as a “Wilderness expert” which I felt to be an arrogant assertion at the time, but it was in the interest of protecting certain Roadless areas with Wilderness characteristics. You could just as well station your clipboard carrying gatekeeper to weed out “bad” horse riders or hikers. As to the rest of your post, come on, bicyclists ride the same trails too and enjoy some for
a lifetime. Most people – hikers and bikers – seek new trails too. Don’t you? That does not mean they seek to “conquer” any more than you do. The planet is going to hell in a handbasket while we fight each other over the same ‘ol stuff.
Then stop fighting.
Patrick, you are advocating to change the highest protection we can give Federal land. Can’t you see how short-sighted that is? What’s to stop the next special interest group from siting biker access as justification for their own? For instance, motorized use. You want to set a legal precedent that would derail ALL the protection we get from Wilderness.
Wheeled mechanical devices do not belong in Wilderness. The rules should be enforced and large fines assessed. In my experience most wilderness bikers are assholes.
My apologies to those bikers who are not, but you need to stay out of Wilderness.
“If wilderness areas (and all public lands) are today nothing more than corporate subsidies and individual anarchistic playgrounds no longer meeting their legislative intent, we must stop deluding ourselves and treat them like any other vandalized throughout history and delegislate.
To keep it real so that all humans may take virtuous Instagram advantage of the burgeoning business of industrial extinction tourism.”
Chris, I am truly happy that our Wilderness is NOT as you describe. Who are you quoting?
I’m quoting myself, what you responded to was the kicker.
I think the kicker here is that you are quoting yourself.
The safety issue is huge! I have had dogs injured/hit by mountain bikers and I have almost been taken out. I am courteous to mt bikers that yield to me on the trail and ride safely, but I am vocal when mt bikers ride fast around blind corners. I will never be an advocate for mt bikers in wilderness. There are plenty of multiple use areas. I am not just targeting mt bikers. I think there should be some wilderness areas/public land off limits to all recreationists especially in prime grizzly habitat. Let’s stop treating all public land as our personal playground!
It’s not just bears but also Mtn. Lions. Imagine biking in Lion country, at night, as fast as you can, then BAM! collision. The Lion loses no matter what. Keep bikes out of Wilderness, period.
I expect that more lions (and bears) are killed by cars in one month than by all the bicycles since the beginning of time. I know that this is an emotional issue, and I know that folks who read this blog are passionately pro-Wilderness – as am I. I know that it is comforting to believe that solutions come in “black and white.” I have seen this bicycle/Wilderness debate go on for many years. It does not seem to be any closer to resolution. Maybe try something different?
Limiting bad encounters as much as possible, to protect these wild animals, should be the goal of every pro-Wilderness advocate. Not selfishly demanding the rules be changed to suit themselves.
We all know the world is changing rapidly. These wild animals need as much space as possible so they have a chance, however small, to survive. Is that too much to ask?
Patrick, It’s not that bikes kill Wildlife, it’s that Wildlife sometimes get killed after they try to defend themselves. Also, when I lived in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, for over 10 years, I heard about Moose, Elk, Deer, and Bison getting hit by cars. Predators seem smarter than that because I rarely heard about them getting hit.
If you cannot put the welfare of another creature above your selfish needs, then you are not passionately pro-wildlife, you are passionately pro-mountain biking. Riding at night seems to really be pushing it.
Ida, I have seen, in my own backyard, bikers riding at night. To me it just seems selfish, what can they see? It’s just part of the thrill of speeding down the trail.
The facts are against these people, if they cannot even care about a death of a fellow bike rider.
As far as the fate of the planet goes, this is small potatoes for decision makers. We cannot ethically justify killing every animal that gets in the way of a mountain biker, nor serious injury or death of riders.
What about camping at night in the bear’s habitat? Wilderness backpacking, camping, fishing, hunting, campfires, cooking, washing, and going potty seem pretty selfish… but you folks won’t ever advocate for prohibiting those intrusive and impactful activities. Cause it is the bicycle that will ruin wild lands and wild animals. Lol.
Although I agree with your sentiment, I must disagree with your statement, Johnny:
“OIA statistics indicate 290 million people recreate in the American West and there are 32 million cattle to share the land, including Bundy’s in Wilderness, and 1.7 million oil and gas wells in the U.S. to support them all. It is both trammeled and increasingly less primeval and the only new infrastructure we legally need on public lands are gates placed to keep humans of all kind out during the 6th mass extinction and state of climate crisis.”
So if bikes can’t go no one should? Is that the extent of your argument? All those things you listed can be done carefully, with no impact (except the hunting and fishing), if done right. The same CAN’T be said for bikes. Study after study has shown this, but I guess science has no place in your argument.
Hiker, I’d be perfectly content if there were areas, of what’s left of wilderness, set aside just for wildlife – no humans allowed except to maybe monitor the health of the land and keep out human trespassers.
So would I. I don’t need to trammel every spot on earth.
Oh, and your namesake, John Muir, would disagree with you. He wrote that as many people as possible should experience true Wilderness and he camped in the most unlikely places.
He was also a bum from my WI, his benefactor Harriman.
And, it is true, as while Muir and the SC hated Hetch Hetchy, he did advocate for industrial recreation (and the removal of the Miwok), seen throught their cherry stemmed cities in the YOSE wilderness that still exist today.
“No doubt Industrial Wreckreation still ranks high on Trump’s list regardless of political persuasion, as business is business and all will still make money as they collaborate to extract their profits from you with joint, slick, marketing campaigns in Outside Magazine.
Only in small part funded by your working class donations (as there aren’t many working class members) the Sierra Club will still have their High Sierra Camp cities serviced and traversed by their shit carrying mules that are cherry stemmed in the Yosemite wilderness.”
Chris, John Muir had many jobs, one of which was a writer, does that mean you are a bum as well?
Anyone who needs to quote themselves to make a point is sorely lacking in creativity.
One point I would agree with is that many of these enviro. organizations have sold out. Contribute to them at your own risk.
I was there ’99-03. My spouse the AO from ’99-’09 – the longest serving in YOSE admin history – during the Valley Plan where Zinke’s Mihalic and TWC’s Watson sold out CC/Qs.
We were happy to leave.
OK Chris I don’t know your lingo. What’s an AO and CC/Q?
What job did you have 99-03? I was seasonal interpretation 08 and 09.
Chief of Administration.
Carrying capacitiy / quotas.
I worked in the Office of Strategic Planning in the Superintendent’s office. Current YOSE Super Mike Reynolds was my then supervisor.
Ah, thank you, now it makes sense. Limiting numbers in Yosemite has always been contentious. One has only to hike the Mist Trail to see why. You are right, money is often the driving factor, even for an organization like the NPS.
It’s interesting that bikes generate so much debate. On the one hand you seem to want quotas and limits. On the other hand Johnny Muir wants to open Wilderness up to even more use. I find myself in the middle. I am afraid that once laws are changed, for any reason, the potential for problems increases. So, even though many Wilderness areas are busy, I feel that things should not be changed. There are still many Wilderness areas that receive little use. In my backyard the trails are crowded until Wilderness is entered. The further you go the fewer people there are.
When I was working for the NPS in Yosemite many of the High Sierra Camps had to close due to Norovirus! Shit carrying mules and blood for mosquitoes, part of the price for these camps. Maybe that price is too high.
How does anyone know who the responsible or irresponsible bikers are? How can it be assured that people of all recreational choices prepare for wildlife encounters?
Especially when it is so dangerous, and the wildlife are made to pay the price. It really can’t work.
Of course, facts and ethics don’t always guide the decision makers, so you never know. I really hope the right decision is made.
Speaking as an ardent hiker – speed is the issue, and I am personally happy with the legal trails already available to me, which show me something new and different every time I hike them. I don’t need more, especially when other creatures need their space too. I’m more than happy to sacrifice for them.
Thoreau wrote: “In wildness is the preservation of the world.” I agree. And bicycles are not wild, they are a mechanized intrusion.
Well said, thanks.
Oh boy, these silly rationale – even if more wildlife was killed by cars, that doesn’t justify additional killing by mountain bike or killing for a dangerous encounter. It’s all cumulative. Why add to it if you don’t have to?
And what a sacrifice!!! /sarc I should have put ‘sacrifice’ in quotes in my previous post, because it really isn’t one at all – especially since mountain bikers and other recreationists are not barred completely from other trails and areas.
Why spoil additional, untrammlled places unless for the usual reason, money?
Ida, it feels to me like there is a disconnect between some bikers and hikers. You and I seem to have no problem with the current, highest protection called Wilderness. Not so some bikers, they constantly want more and more. We are so fortunate that we have true Wilderness in our country. Go to other countries and even the most remote areas are used extensively by humans. Why can’t they see the importance of keeping our Wilderness lands intact? It all seems very simple to me, want to go to Wilderness, get off your bike!
@Hiker – is it not true that Wilderness advocates want more and more Wilderness, even at the expense of existing public land users, and even if that historic use doesn’t degrade the Wilderness character of the land? Talk about being selfish!
Wilderness needs no defense, it only needs more defenders. You selfishly are going the opposite direction.
Mr. Muir, No it’s not true, none of what you just said is true. Talk about twisting facts! What “existing public land users” are you talking about? What “historic use” are you referring to? Please be more clear in your accusations in the future. Otherwise we must guess at your meaning. My guess is that, based on your other statements, you are wrong about your assumptions.
“Wilderness needs no defense, it only needs more defenders.” If Wilderness needs defenders doesn’t it need defense? Your statement makes no sense.
Have you heard of the Boulder White Clouds? Are you following the Custer Gallatin NF Forest Plan Revision? Are you aware of the Blue Joint and Sapphire WSA’s in the Bitterroot Travel Plan? Conservationist who enjoy experiencing rugged places on bikes, as well as maintaining the trails within them, have gotten eviction notices due to the inability of Wilderness purists to compromise… and what happens is less land is protected at the highest degree.
Do you think Wilderness advocates are not interested in protecting more land as Wilderness? Are you being coy or ignorant?
So, Mr. Muir, without saying so, you have revealed that your “historic users” that don’t “degrade the Wilderness character of the land” are bikers! What BULLSHIT!! Bikes degrade the land, way more than hikers. In my backyard I am constantly closing shortcuts made by bikers. They make new trails then brag about it. They are always making the trail wider and creating jumps as if the land is their own personal gym. It’s so simple, keep the Wilderness laws the same, preserve the land, protect the wildlife. Or did you forget what this article is all about? Speed kills!
Hiker – You just agreed that hikers degrade the land. Case closed, just like your mind is. If it were as open as your potty mouth, we might actually get somewhere as like minded people. Oh well.
Keep twisting words, then give up. You have already lost. You CAN’T bike in Wilderness.
Mr. Muir, where might we actually get if we disagree at such a fundamental level? I am not like minded with you. Can’t you tell? Yes, potty mouth, I call it like I see it. If my mind is closed, so is yours.
This society has become too well trained by the constant capitalistic and technological propaganda. Examples: California used to ban hunting with air guns and cross bows. Air guns were not considered powerful enough for a “clean kill” and cross bows being silent, were the perfect poaching weapon. After constant lobbying by manufacturers and the user groups they form, it is now legal to hunt with the above weapons at the expense of wildlife. So called hunters even want to use drones now to spot their prey.
The pet trade is another example. Those pythons in the everglades did not get there by accident. They were once “pets” that got too big for the owners safety and were irresponsibly released. The federal government made it legal (I think under the Bush administration) to import and sell foreign species because it supposedly brought dollars into the economy. Electrical workers in Florida have even been bitten by green mambas. Capitalism has become a religion and our agencies no loner stand up for the animals/habitats they are supposed to protect.
I will not be an apologist for off road bikers or bike manufacturers. I have hiked on trails in and around Missoula and not once has a biker ever gotten off his or her vehicle to allow pedestrians to pass. They expect having the right of way. They do not respect their fellow citizens much less wildlife species. They do not belong on hiking trails. They are another strain of the capitalistic plague- a disease process which is interfering with a basic right to enjoy the basic vibrations of nature. I am much more afraid of getting hit by some arrogant biker than ever getting attacked by a bear.
I made a spiritual commitment years ago- not to the buy and sell paradigm as others have done- but to the land- I will not leave behind anything more than foot prints, a tobacco offering and prayers for the other beings I share the planet with.
The people that are not interested in the simple, calming, healing peace and quiet of nature have no business being there to ruin it for the rest of us with their self important arrogant capitalistic attitudes and technological weaponry.
As a Montanan who travels frequently as a State employee, I get to hike in a lot of different places. I’ve been up in the Yaak, the Beartooths, the Cabinet Mountains, the Bob, the Pryors, the Snowies, and many others (even up on the high-line in the Bears Paw). There is huge tracts of land open to cyclists, it’s amazing. Yet I have never heard a mountain biker say, “we have so many places to ride, we don’t the wilderness areas.” Not once. And that’s after hanging out in bars in Missoula (ground zero for MTB in MT) and elsewhere, after fly fishing the incredible creeks and rivers and having a cold one somewhere. I don’t understand. If the Forest Service or BLM closed off an area to hikers and horses, the folks would just go elsewhere. There would be no revolt, and no pissing and moaning. Mountain bikers want it their way, total easy, local access to virtually every piece of federal and state land. If you tell them no, you have to drive 100 miles from Missoula to tear up the backcountry they go through the roof. They want it accessible right outside their door, regardless of the impact or inconvenience of others
Thank you, good points. I have respected trail closures all my life. If it’s closed (and that happens a lot around J. Hole in the winter) I don’t go hiking there. I go elsewhere. Why? Because I know those winter closures are protecting wildlife and that is far more valuable to me then needing to hike.
@MAD – You wrote, “If the Forest Service or BLM closed off an area to hikers and horses, the folks would just go elsewhere. There would be no revolt, and no pissing and moaning.”
This might be the most comical comment in this already hilarious discussion. Can you provide an example of an area closed to hiking that didn’t result in poaching, trespassing and revolt?
How many examples of revolt would you like me to share with you?
Interesting Mr. Muir. So, your argument is that it’s ok to break the law because others do? I already provided your example above. In the winter, in the forest around J. Hole, MANY trails are closed to give wildlife a break. These closures are respected. As you said above, ‘case closed’.
Now please, respect the law that gives the greatest protection to our Federal lands. Keep bikes out of Wilderness, protect the wildlife.
Air gun hunting? And any laws there are to restrict invasive wildlife coming into this country are not strong enough.
It is dismaying that people think that any restriction at all on any kind of behavior is a supreme sacrifice! We are at a point I feel where we have become terrifically overindulged, and do not know what real sacrifice is anymore. And I agree with you, I try very hard to have a minimal footprint.
That horses (or motorized vehicles) are worse than mountain bikes does not make mountain bikes good. Instead join me in lobbying to restrict horses from some areas. In fact we need to restrict humans from some areas at some times (as they do in the Mission mountains in the summer where Griz densities are the highest, and very predictable). In some (low-use) wilderness I’ve been in perhaps there should be no trail building. It just makes the place de facto smaller. In parts of the Pasayten, Church, Missions, Absaroka my brother and I avoid the human trails – it’s wilder where they are absent. Follow the ways the elk or goats go.
Walking off trail, too, has great impact dispersing wildlife. It is as harmful as any other human intrusion. Why any group thinks they have little or no impact vs another (therefore, acceptable) is entirely the philosophical problem, not just today’s preferred antagonists on bikes.
Well, Chris, I don’t know about everyone else here, but I’m off to hike my local Wilderness area. It’s the only time that I really am happy. Also, I’m looking forward to going off trail and avoiding the crowds and bikes. Sure am glad the law is on my side. What makes you happy?
The ‘law’ as improperly implemented like so many other extractive uses, is ‘on your side’.
As I said:
“Natural rights in political thought means humans are above nature and have a property right to it, including any labor and fruits from using it. Central to capitalism, the fruits include resources extraction, factory farms, real estate and industrial recreation. It is indoctrinated early as earthly anarchistic freedom. And, it is used by Cliven Bundy theoconstitutionalists to justify their stance on public lands, Instagram influencers when they ask for more infrastructure as they geotag, and enviro.orgs when they accept Outdoor Alliance or Patagonia tainted grants. They all lay natural rights claims to public lands, truly a tragedy for the commons.”
What do I do for ‘fun’?
Many things these days, mostly live a family life and garden (organic) to feed my family. Something that most humans used to do to fill their ‘free’ time. It expends less carbon and gives back, a bit, and makes us all forget about the apocalypse.
Me, particularly, given my ongoing sensitivity to the state of modern environmentalism.
I didn’t ask about fun, I asked about happy. Big difference.
I would argue that the law that protects my right to use the land (in a non-extractive way) is NOT “improperly implemented” but suitable and needed in this hectic, computer-driven age.
Regardless of science indicating direct impacts to flora/fauna even from hiking (esp in aggregate), how is your use…any use…not extractive?
It is the semantic root of conservation vs. preservation. Note environmentalism today prefers to be referred as ‘conservation’.
Do you not count your carbon (transportation, gear) as impact? Do you discount growing scientific evidence that even an activity like hiking has a significant impact on nature?
Of course, these questions are rhetorical, for the crowd.
So I should go live in a cave? But that would just mess up the cave. What is your overall impact? What is your energy use? How much square footage do you live in? Instead of imposing your guilt ridden ideas about the impact of hiking maybe step back and examine the pure joy I expressed to you about hiking and ask yourself…is it worth hassling this person about HIKING???
Fam of 4, we pay $60/mo.
It is even worth ‘hassling’ Wuerthner, Wilkinson, WW, Choinard and crews.
Another, from 3 years ago.
Bravo Chris, you pass the test, you may now pass judgement on those you deem lacking.
Chris, you left out this part from the article you quoted yourself from. It’s at the end.
“Chris Zinda complains that Wilderness Watch doesn’t support “carrying capacities and quotas” to limit the number of humans in Wilderness. News to us. Wilderness Watch has consistently supported quotas and limits and has filed lawsuits to enforce them. Where Zinda gets his information or draws his conclusions is beyond me, as he presents not an ounce of evidence for his unsupportable claims. Too bad, his article otherwise makes a good point, but now I’m left wondering how much of it is made up?”
I stand by it, as the piece entirely directed at them. They are done nothing to litigate carrying capacities in 10+ years. Note, too, nothing in their website (do a search).
So your plan is to attack people who don’t measure up to your standards? From what I’ve read here you will end up with few allies.
Long ago I worked for the NPS (my partner still a public land manager). At Cap Reef we created (through NEPA) a GMP, spending a few hundred thousand dollars creating a plan to keep the park ‘wilderness’ and included language to create carrying capacities in the backcountry if used indicated ‘unacceptable change’ based on natural resource ‘indicators’. Our purpose also was to keep the Burr Trail unpaved, defining road types and appropriate maintenace (or, obliteration).
That plan was rejected, never approved, as the industrial wreck lobbyists, Chambers and political delegations pressured (it didn’t take much) the NPS to shelve it. The did.
The late-80s/early-’90s was a time where carrying capacities and quotas were seen as necessary in the hard core enviro movement.
Today, the Big 5 has fucked Cap Reef, the Burr Trail switchbacks on the cusp of pavement, ushering more OIA marketed/indoctrinated, freeloading, consuming, disrupting, humans.
And, the Gods call it good.
“Well, Chris, I don’t know about everyone else here, but I’m off to hike my local Wilderness area. It’s the only time that I really am happy. Also, I’m looking forward to going off trail and avoiding the crowds and bikes”
Hiker, not trying to jump into the conversation/debate here but this is what happens too often to wildlife when they infringe on “human established” territory (which amounts to encroachment on what use to be wildlife habitat) in the name of greed and human over population:
There is this kind of a “how dare you, lion” mentality here but many of us who live on the fringe of wild areas can relate to why this lion (and bears) are now showing up in human populated areas – decades of infringement/encroachment into their neighborhoods and their prey base, that is now attracted to easy food (landscapes, shrubs, plants, etc.)
You lived around Yellowstone so you had to realize at some point (the growth around Jackson Hole is a damning example) that the last best places for wildlife, nature to exist, are slowly and methodically disappearing in the name of our species, who want to experience wildlife’s last best places and want to live in it but also want to “cherry pick” how and when, that wonderful experience might take place in a too often busy, human schedule (as in booking an adventure out where the buffalo no longer but deer, elk and antelope still try and roam)
Get my drift?
As far as J.Hole goes that ship sailed long ago. Just building there disrupted elk migration to the point where the National Elk Refuge was created to keep the elk from starving. There are still lots of Bison roaming there and moose as well. I’ve seen more moose in and around J.Hole then any where else (was charged by one on the edge of town).
We have to play the cards we are dealt. I have played in Wilderness all my life and having grown up in L.A. I do NOT take it for granted. The point I’m trying to make is that we all have an impact…no matter what…I refuse to live without the joy of being in Nature and I believe that more people should do the same; the world would be a better place.
@rork – First, they banned the mountain bikers. Then 40 years later, they banned the horsemen. Then 10 years later, they banned the hunters and anglers. Then 2 years later, they banned the skiers and paddlers. Then those pesky humans kept sneaking in to do what they like to do and they banned humans from all Wilderness areas, preaching that there are plenty of other places humans can enjoy the outdoors.
Then nobody was left to defend these Wilderness lands and they became a new frontier for mining, logging and development interests.
A slippery slope indeed…
Mr. Muir, your statement is the best, most ringing endorsement, on why NO change should be made to our Wilderness Laws. Thank you, in all sincerity, for your post. Once changes start when do they stop?
Hiker – it already started, 20 years after the Wilderness Act passed when human powered bicycling was banned. If you are reading the same comments in this discussion that I am… the one’s that propose banning horses, hunting and humans, that is the direction we are headed. We still have time to restore balance and Wilderness itself… but not if the attitude is to get rid of everything we don’t like.
I think YOUR attitude is “to get rid of everything we don’t like”. You want to get rid of pesky laws that keep bikes out. Not keep you out, you are more than welcome to walk into any Wilderness area anytime. No one is calling for that to change. Except maybe in your fantasies.
Unfortunately things are going in the opposite direction of your example. First they weakened protections to allowed mt bikes, then to allow electric bikes, then low exhaust motor bikes, then…
See the problem. You argue that mt bikes don’t have negative impacts so they are ok, even though this article clearly points out that there are very negative impacts to wildlife. I would add that there are very negative impacts to the current users as well. I rarely hike where mt bikes are allowed because they invariably come shooting up the trail often from behind at high speed and say something like “passing on your left” Often startling hikes who try to get out of the way. The multi-trail user signs say bikes are to give the right of way to hikes and horses. Yet, I don’t think I have ever seen that happen for hikers. Hopefully they do it for horses since they are so big and likely bolt.
I see the conflict with mt bikes as two fold as described in the article. The speed and silence (except of course when they are applying breaks on downhill and you can hear the breaks squeal from half a mile away). And adding additional users.
Still have not heard a reasonable explanation of why mt bikers need trails through wilderness areas. I agree with Hiker. Keep the law as it is!
I’m with you, Rob. Well said. And, in my experience some of these very same bike advocates that engage in the conduct you describe, when confronted, are jerks.
And, actually the no bikes in designated Wilderness rule needs to be strictly enforced with heavy fines.
I have confronted bikes in Wilderness areas and usually they claim ignorance. I wish there were more patrols by law enforcement, it’s definitely lacking.
Even in non-Wilderness areas bikes are guilty of trail expansion and short-cutting. I spend a lot of my hiking time closing short-cuts, only to see them somewhere else.
Changing the character and intent of the Wilderness Act to allow motorized transport is a very serious issue. How long will it be before ATVs, roadbuilding, hunting/poaching made more accessible and resource extraction will follow? That bike riders can’t and won’t see beyond the end of their noses about this is very dismaying. It’s the very opposite of wildnerness protection. I hope that it will be fought vigorously.
^^or mechanical transport, sorry.
Yes, Ida, it’s so simple, why is it out of their grasp?
We can hardly blame cyclists for being suspect of articles like this. The record of anti-bicycle misinformation and NIMBYism on ALL types of public land may be thick, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate concerns about bicycles in Wilderness and elsewhere. The underlying question in all these debates (from bears to trail impacts to user safety or aesthetics) is whether simply banning bicycles – or accepting an existing ban – is good policy or whether it’s better to apply many decades of recreational lands management experience to specific places and concerns – just as we do for non-cyclists.
Historically, conflict and negative ecological impacts having nothing to do with bicycles but instead stemming from feet, horses, skis, boats, hunting, etc. on Wilderness lands and beyond have been managed by a range of techniques far short of blanket exclusion. Public and private entities have been educating visitors; improving/modifying trails; experimenting with signage; issuing permits; applying specific, local remedies and restrictions; and otherwise engaging with land users to influence their behavior and guide their expectations when visiting public lands.
Does anybody remember the time before mountain bikes when encounters between humans and bears were unheard of? Of course not. Did the first human run-in with a bear result in the blanket exclusion of humans from all bear territory? That would have been ridiculous, right? Instead, what we’ve tried to do is examine the factors and causes that may have contributed to those encounters and we have developed tools and strategies to measure, minimize, and mitigate those impacts.
Mr. Wilkinson’s implies that we should leapfrog right past our management experience and simply exclude bicycles. In a nearly 4,000 word essay, there is virtually no mention or discussion of any management practice that might be applied, save for the inclusion of a graphic drawn from the USFS Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee that hints at remedies short of an outright ban on bicycles. Instead of trying to justify widespread exclusion based on anecdote and scant data, maybe we should first encourage exactly the same type of further research, discussion, and solutions we have long applied to non-cyclist interactions with bears.
As others have pointed out, there are a number of assertions in the article that beg better examination. Mr. Wilkinson writes, “The Board of Review report examining Treat’s death states, “There is a long record of human-bear conflicts associated with mountain biking in bear habitat including the serious injuries and deaths suffered by bike riders.” That specific text doesn’t appear in the report linked to by Mr. Wilkinson, but instead is contained in a separate set of management recommendations (http://igbconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/160629_BOR_Recomm_Treat_NCDE.pdf). Either way, the statement is untrue. What we actually have is a very short record of human-bear conflicts associated with mountain biking. The long record of conflict is between bears and non-cyclists. The report references just seven incidents involving cyclists across Canada and the US since 2004.
Mr. Wilkinson highlights another quote that appears within the Recommendations document: “Safety issues related to grizzly bear attacks on trail users in Banff National Park prompted Herrero [and Herero (2000)] to study the Moraine Lake Highline Trail. Park staff noted that hikers were far more numerous than mountain bikers on the trail, but that the number of encounters between bikers and bears was disproportionately high.” However, senior park staff today state that no comparative user counts were recorded and no specific data exists to support such a conclusion. Staff observations and other anecdotal information from trail users can be useful in trying to identify concerns, but they are not sufficient for setting or defending broad policies of exclusion.
The Board of Review report on the Brad Treat fatality that Mr. Wilkinson heavily relies on was chaired by Dr. Christopher Servheen. But Dr. Servheen’s bias is immediately evident when he offers several non-scientific objections to bicycles such as his reference to bicycles, “degrad[ing] the wilderness character” or when he, and the author, casually extrapolate allegedly disproportionate grizzly encounters and impacts to all wildlife everywhere. In defense of Dr. Servheen and the four other members of the Board of Review, however, their Recommendations document (linked above) makes no mention of blanket exclusion but, instead, points to a range of potential remedies including education specifically targeting cyclists, seasonal restrictions or closures, and trail-specific risk assessments (trail design, site distances, geologic/topographic features, presence of bear food sources).
To be sure, there are many trails – in Wilderness and elsewhere – that should remain closed to cyclists. The same can be said about other forms of use as well. The central question is whether designations like Wilderness, bear habitat, or simply “my favorite hike” are good criteria for making such access decisions. The unsettling part of Mr. Wilkinson’s piece is his effort to enlist science and data (either non-existent, limited, or deserving of much better qualification) to justify the complete exclusion of cyclists – not just in grizzly country, not just in bear country, but, seemingly, anywhere that wildlife might be found.
Keep all bikes out of Wilderness. Period. It doesn’t take a genius to realize we all have bias’s, however yours could open a can of worms. If it’s OK to change the rules to suit one group of users why not another? If hikers really are damaging does that mean bikes are less so? There is no doubt that bikes go faster and can go farther. That’s the core issue for many here. Speed kills. Surprising a Griz. is more likely at speed.
Speed kills? Animals or humans? Either way, how much killing do you think is going on out there? In 30+ years of fairly widespread mountain bike use in the US and Canada, we seem to have almost zero killing and maybe slightly more injury. Potential negative impacts on bears and other wildlife is a reasonable concern for any form of use, but Wilkinson and others targeting bicycles for exclusion are presenting far too little evidence to support a blanket policy.
There are a lot of tools and technologies that allow foot and horse visitors to travel further and faster in Wilderness than they would otherwise. If our goal is to minimize or reduce impacts, shouldn’t we look at ALL the ways that the public visits these lands and then apply best management practices? In some places, bicycles and/or other users or technologies should be excluded, regulated, etc.
Regarding the slippery slope argument you raise, the answer to your “why not another [group]” question is the same answer we’ve hopefully aspired to thus far: If the other group has an impact that is ostensibly similar, then their access should be reasonably considered. That alone doesn’t imply universal bicycle access. Universal access is a luxury currently enjoyed by foot and horse travelers ever since they established or changed the rules to suit themselves. As a hiker, I’m a beneficiary. As a cyclist, I’m frustrated.
In other words, if a user group complains and whines enough they should have equal access to the best wildlife habitat left in our country, who cares about the consequences? As long as you get what you want. Changing the laws that govern our Wilderness is not like changing a tire, different factions WILL try for access, we’ve already seen National Monuments reduced in size for oil. Is that what you want? Oil and gas instead of clean water and healthy ecosystems?
“… if a user group complains and whines enough…” That’s precisely the opposite of what I’m saying. It has nothing to do with how loudly someone may complain. Just imagine how loudly we hikers and equestrians would complain if we were locked out of 110 million acres of Wilderness (and countless other acres)? More importantly, just imagine how much Wilderness we would have today if that had been the aim of the Wilderness Act: likely none.
What I’m suggesting is that access decisions should be made based on real impacts, data, and science that inform specific decisions in specific places. If existing bicycle routes have enough “Wilderness character” (despite their use by bicycles) to be turned into Wilderness, then we should have a better mechanism than shrinking the Wilderness to exclude those trails. Why wouldn’t you want more Wilderness even if it might allow cyclists to continue their same safe and sustainable use? And if you and I could agree on some other specific trails in existing Wilderness where bicycle access might be ok, shouldn’t we be able to have that conversation? Are you really afraid that my next request will be for oil exploration and dirty water? None of those bad things are contained in any of the specific efforts to gain bicycle access in Wilderness. If and when such threats do arise from other sources, isn’t it better to have more nature-loving allies than fewer? Don’t you want to encourage mountain bikers to continue to fight against those threats as they do now?
What kind of Wilderness ally demands that the basic laws get changed to suit their needs. I’m not saying that YOU want to drill in Wilderness, just that if YOU get to change things what’s gonna stop the next user group? With friends like you, who needs enemies?
Access decisions have already been made; against biking in Wilderness. I suggest you get off your bike and go for a hike. Slow done and really enjoy where you are at. Take in all the sights, smells, sounds, and feeling (even taste). How much can you hear over the clatter of your bike? I can hear you coming a long way off. What do you see when you must constantly look where you are going? Do you even notice the birds? What can you feel but the artificial wind you make? Let Nature cool you off. Honestly, what do you really get out of biking on trails? Is it only the thrill? There are literally thousands of miles ready for you to explore. Just don’t forget to read the signs.
If you’re equating backcountry cyclists to the enemies of Wilderness, you are grossly misunderstanding the genuine threats to land conservation and environmental protection. But thank you for stating so clearly your conviction that your experience and appreciation of nature is vastly superior to mine when I choose to bring a bicycle. If you can’t appreciate nature while pedaling or pushing a bicycle, then don’t bring one.
I have a friend who hikes barefoot because he feels closer to nature that way. Assuming you prefer shoes, are you my friend’s enemy because of your inferior and less holy connection to nature? Your anti-cyclist argument is based on your personal aesthetics (or maybe a bad run-in you once had with a person on a bike?). We all have our own preferences and expectations when we visit the public lands, and it’s perfectly reasonable for us to listen, consider, and strive to accommodate each other’s desires. With that in mind, we should have places where hikers, equestrians, boaters, cyclists, barefooters, and others with similar environmental impacts can experience nature – sometimes alone, sometimes sharing.
Your suggestion that cyclists just go somewhere else is problematic. First, federal Wilderness is now 110 million acres and has been swallowing up an increasing number of cycling trails. Second, backcountry cyclists would like to experience Wilderness for exactly the same reasons that you do – minus your aesthetic objection to bicycles. Thankfully, there’s a potential solution. Whether we consider it a rule change or simply a clarification of original intent, the proposals to lift the blanket regulatory ban on bicycles in Wilderness contain zero allowances for the things that actually threaten the protection of those lands.
You are wrong about everything you just wrote. There are plenty of trails for you. They are NOT being gobbled up non-stop by new Wilderness. There are new bikes trails being developed all the time.
There is a growing problem in the world and it boils down to too much development and too many people. Everything needs to be done to preserve and protect what is left. If that means pissing off the few bikers who insist on changing the rules to please themselves, so be it.
I do not have an anti-bike bias (although those who propose changing Wilderness are making me rethink my stance). I don’t mind sharing the trails with bikes, I see them just about everyday. My problem is with those who wish to change the PROTECTION of the Wild selfishly. If you told me today that hikers would be forbidden in some area I go all the time in order to protect the wildlife I would have no problem with that. I would just go somewhere else. Why can’t you?
There is, and it is called the Wilderness Act. “My Favorite Hike” doesn’t qualify as wilderness here, so it is not arbitrary. It is to keep protected previously undeveloped areas from the continual chipping away of development, which was a very wise decision about human nature. It is something our country has made law.
Education will never be completely successful, because there are those who will always think the rules do not apply to them. With cycling, there is less time to react should one be involved in a dangerous encounter.
When a fatal encounter should occur, it just adds more fuel to the ‘killing grizzlies and other wildlife for the safety of the public’.