Forest Service gets something right

[kanga]

This is a press release from IMBA, released a couple of days ago:



Forest Service Issues Important Guidance on Mountain Bike Management

For Immediate Release
09-05-08
Contact: Drew Vankat, Policy Analyst
drew@imba.com
303-545-9011

Addressing hundreds at the IMBA World Summit, Jim Bedwell, Forest Service director for recreation, heritage and volunteers, made a major announcement that will benefit mountain bikers nationwide. Bedwell presented a new agency memo clearly defining mountain biking as similar to hiking and equestrian use, and an activity to be managed separately from motorized travel.

The document, written by Deputy Chief Joel Holtrop, is a significant step in the evolution of mountain bike management on Forest Service lands, and has been distributed to agency staff at the regional and local levels.

At the core of the letter are important clarifications on the nature of mountain biking and how this activity is addressed in management plans. Holtrop writes, "I want to emphasize that mountain biking is a non-motorized use of National Forest System trails, along with hiking and horseback riding. In our planning and policy documents, a distinction between mountain biking and motorized uses...should be made."

As Bedwell explained, "The Forest Service uses letters to communicate quickly to field units about important issues they may face, and to promote consistent understanding about how to approach them. In some cases, such as this one, the letter precedes desired policy revision, which requires a longer and more involved process to complete."

Bedwell's announcement comes at a time when some national forests have applied similar restrictions to bicycles and motor vehicles. IMBA believes most Forest Service staff understand bicycling is a quiet, non-motorized, low-impact activity, and hopes the letter provides the guidance necessary for consistent treatment of mountain biking on every national forest.

"Deputy Chief Holtrop's letter also acknowledges the important and productive partnership between IMBA and the U.S. Forest Service," says Bedwell. In 2006, the two entities renewed their Memorandum of Understanding for the third consecutive time and mountain bikers are prolific stewards in many national forests. The volunteer National Mountain Bike Patrol works to inform, assist, and educate mountain bikers and other trail users on Forest Service lands across the country.

[chupacabra]

Seems like a REALLY big step in the right direction.

[kevinator]

Take THAT Sierra Club, just kidding.

[2wheel_lee]

When I was at Snow Summit on Saturday, the lift operator mentioned that the Forest Service wants Snow Summit to maintain the trails that are next to the resort and are not on their own facility, which would make Summit liable for trails that aren't even on their own property! Needless to say, that's not going to happen.

[art23rockpile]

I thought this was going to be an announcement that your plans for a freeride park had been approved.

Overall though, it's even better news!

Thanks for the info.

[kanga]

Originally Posted by cupacabra

Seems like a REALLY big step in the right direction.

Yeah it's a STEP in the right direction. Now we need them to run with it.

It's validation of what we've been saying for so long.

Thank you IMBA.

[jasonmason]

The whole idea that mountain biking is a motorized activity has never made much sense anyway...great to see that the Forest Service is being proactive and is moving foreword instead of being mired in old, rigid thinking. Let's hope this doesn't take long to trickle down from the administration to the local level.

[chupacabra]

Originally Posted by kanga

Yeah it's a STEP in the right direction. Now we need them to run with it.

It's validation of what we've been saying for so long.

Thank you IMBA.

Do you know if this could a lead into access for wilderness?

[kanga]

Originally Posted by cupacabra

Do you know if this could a lead into access for wilderness?

Depends how far they run.... and that's a looong way off.

Personally I doubt there will ever be complete Wilderness access for mountain bikers, but there might be either some specific bike-approved trails that pass through wilderness, or perhaps a new designation of "wilderness lite" that would allow all muscle-powered transport.

There was a great commentary about "wilderness lite" last year in the Flathead Beacon out of Montana, when their local mountains were under consideration for wilderness status: http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articl...ess_lite/1830/:



Commentary: Wild Bill
Are We Ready for Wilderness Lite?

Today, I've decided to give a few Wilderness advocates coronaries by saying it's time for them to suck it up and push for Wilderness Lite. If they don't, we might never protect the last roadless lands in the New West.

Wilderness is the “W word” to many people--except to wolf haters, I suppose. And for a myriad of reasons, we’ve gone more than 20 years without a new designated Wilderness in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. One of those reasons, if not the major one, is that natural allies for wild land protection can’t work together for their common good.

The recent debate over the Montana High Divide Trails proposal nicely illustrates the dilemma. I went to one of the collaborative sessions for this proposal, and it was like seeing the movie Ground Hog Day for the tenth time. Almost all mountain bikers want roadless lands protected from road building and motorized abuse, but they don’t want Wilderness because agencies have made administrative decisions to prohibit bicycles in Wilderness. Instead, they want a new designation that only allows MPVs, Muscle Powered Vehicles like bicycles, horses, hikers and climbers, but bans roads and motorized recreation or wreckreation, as it's been called.

(If agencies can create new terms and acronyms like OHVs or PFDs, I figure I can do it, too. So bring on the MPV zones.)

The rub is, Congress really hasn’t given us an alternative to Wilderness that allows all MPVs. We have several administrative alternatives, but these can change with the political winds of any administration and don’t offer lasting protection.

Wilderness advocates aren’t really pushing for Wilderness Lite or ‘little w” alternative designation that prohibits road-building and allows only non-motorized use because they know that once we get it, the political reality is there will be no more “Big W” Wilderness. Their fears are well founded, but nonetheless, it might be time for them to give up and support the creation of a new congressionally mandated MPV zones. If they don't change course, we could easily be looking at another 20 years or more before getting any lasting protection for roadless lands, and during that time, our roadless land base will continue to shrink.

There would still be opposition, of course, but I have to believe that if all non-motorized constituencies could form a united front, we could protect a lot of our roadless lands in a hurry.

Politicians like this type of “bottom up” collaboration among user groups, so we might actually get one of them to introduce a bill, perhaps even a republican.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the Bush administration might actually sign a few Wilderness bills next year, especially bills with local republican co-sponsors. And there are several such bills in the hopper right now, but none for Idaho, Montana or Wyoming, where no republican or democrat in Congress is championing roadless land protection, a far-too-common theme that needs to change.

It would be even better, I suppose, to have the motorized users involved in these bottom-up collaborations, but the goals are so polarized instead of so similar that it makes compromise so difficult. Instead, we probably need designated motorized areas.

The other way out of the debate with mountain bikers is to allow them in Wilderness. Whenever I say this, my Wilderness advocate friends almost have coronaries, but there is at least a valid argument that the Wilderness Act doesn’t really ban mountain bikes. The modern mountain bike barely existed and certainly wasn’t widely used when Congress passed the Wilderness Act in 1964. Even though the Wilderness Act doesn’t even contain the word, bicycle, government agencies wrote administrative rules banning bicycling in Wilderness and steadfastly refuse to reconsider this administrative policy.

Some hikers worsen the problem with their attitude toward mountain biking on single-track trails. Most if not all hiking and Wilderness groups oppose any change in the Wilderness Act or related administrative rules to allow mountain biking, and some are blatantly anti-mountain biking, even in non-Wilderness hiking areas.

A few years ago, I did a shift on the Board of Directors of the American Hiking Society, and I was surprised by the attitude of key staffers and fellow board members. Basically, the feeling is that mountain bikers are dangerous and obtrusive to the hiking experience when riding on single-track trails shared with hikers.

I take the opposite view. I own a mountain bike, but it has street tires on it and has never been on a single-track. While hiking, I’ve encountered many mountain bikers. Not once have I seen a problem or had a conflict. Even in two areas in Montana used extensively by both hikers and mountain bikers, the Mount Helena area near Helena and the Rattlesnake area near Missoula, the two groups peacefully co-mingle.

I know there are exceptions, and I’m sure I’ll get a comment or two from people who have had a bad experience. But there are always some conflicts, even between hiking groups or backcountry horsemen. We can’t set policy and establish our attitudes on what one thoughtless mountain biker might have done somewhere. We shouldn’t manage for the extreme. I see no reason hikers, horses and mountain bikers can’t share single-track trails--and join hands in support for protecting our roadless lands.

I also hear talk of resource damage from mountain bikers, but that seems like a shallow argument. I suspect the environmental impact is similar if not less than hiking, and definitely minuscule compared to resource destruction from motorized use of trails, which is the real alternative we face if non-motorized users don’t form a pact and work together to protect their common ground.

There is at least one precedent for the Wilderness Lite concept, a National Scenic Area, created by Congress last year as part of the type of collaboration I’m proposing between wilderness advocates and mountain biking groups in Virginia. Perhaps this can spread to the New West and bring an end to the seemingly endless Wilderness debate.

Footnote: Over the past three years, I’ve devoted a lot of space to the issue of natural allies for wild land protection, so along with this column, I compiled A Natural Allies Chronology, just in case you want to read more.

[KBL]

Very cool to see mountain bikes validated as a low-impact and quiet form of trail use.

While I do like the concept of "Wilderness Lite" with mountain bikes allowed, I also enjoy motorized recreation in the outdoors. From my perspective this is a double-edged sword--one that could open up more access for mountain bikes, but could also create more land closures for 4x4's and dirt bikes.

Side note: if any Greenies read this FYI I go hiking, too. Yes, it is possible to enjoy the outdoors via several different avenues!

My hope would be that mountain bikes be allowed into selected parts of existing Wilderness areas, and that no new Wilderness areas be created.

When the Wilderness Act of 1964 was created, mountain bikes didn't exist as we know them now. Writing the words "mechanized vehicles" was tantamount to writing "motorized vehicles." That paradigm's number is up, so it's time to fit the wording of the law to 2008.

Again, it's very cool to see mountain bikes getting validated by the Forest Service. As previously stated, this is a HUGE step in the right direction.

Kanga, thanks for the info.

--Kevin

[GP_pilot]

Originally Posted by 2wheel_lee

When I was at Snow Summit on Saturday, the lift operator mentioned that the Forest Service wants Snow Summit to maintain the trails that are next to the resort and are not on their own facility, which would make Summit liable for trails that aren't even on their own property! Needless to say, that's not going to happen.

I think this may be underlying reason that SS is shying away from bikes. They're providing a service, lift access to the top, but won't allow bikes on their own property. Another post illustrated that they were going to limit bikes even more next year (to XC) due to suspension technology (i.e. TALAS forks, etc). If they start maintaining the trails, then by lawsuit default they're at fault if someone gets hurt (just like last time), which is why they stopped allowing bikes w/in their ski boundaries they've leased from the Forest Service. Next is them enforcing bikes to established trails. Well if they had an established FR park, then maybe folks wouldn't go making trails (as many) on their own. But we all know this won't happen as SS is self insured and doesn't want to expend any more money than to run the lift and the grill at the top in the summer. Unfortunately until SS and BB get sold to another corporation, I don't see things improving.

Originally Posted by jasonmason

The whole idea that mountain biking is a motorized activity has never made much sense anyway...great to see that the Forest Service is being proactive and is moving foreword instead of being mired in old, rigid thinking. Let's hope this doesn't take long to trickle down from the administration to the local level.

Restating, wilderness regulations were written before mountain bikes existed. Technically, they don't allow any mechanized travel, including a pogo stick if you're so inclined. Along w/ this, the Forest Service doesn't have the resources to maintain all trails and consequently trails have fallen into disrepair unless sponsored by a hiking or conservatory group. More trail users mean better maintained trails, but there will always be some people won't see it this way.

[ghixon]

Originally Posted by 2wheel_lee

When I was at Snow Summit on Saturday, the lift operator mentioned that the Forest Service wants Snow Summit to maintain the trails that are next to the resort and are not on their own facility, which would make Summit liable for trails that aren't even on their own property! Needless to say, that's not going to happen.

It's more for erosion control and trail markings. The Forest Service wants to eliminate/control the illegal trails, but the main hurdle in that process is that the trails aren't marked. If you're not familiar with the area, it's almost impossible to reference anything and stay on the legal trails.

Once the trail markers are in place, then the Forest Service has a better footing to demand help/compliance. In the long run, it's going to be better for SS as well.

[vandyketom]

If the Forest Service wants to find out just how non motorized an MTB is they should go try to follow Kanga for the day. That would straighten them out on that distinction!

[destroyer]

Originally Posted by 2wheel_lee

When I was at Snow Summit on Saturday, the lift operator mentioned that the Forest Service wants Snow Summit to maintain the trails that are next to the resort and are not on their own facility, which would make Summit liable for trails that aren't even on their own property! Needless to say, that's not going to happen.

I heard the same thing last Friday when I went. They also mentioned that the forest service doesn't want us to take the lifts because they would rather have us park on the side of the road and buy a forest adventure pass. We had quite a long chat about it due to some prejudice lady making comments which led to a friend of mine have to lower his fork to get on the lift.