Ernie Maxwell is now closed to bikes.

I was told over the weekend that after repeated confrontations on this busy trail, it is now permanently closed to bikers.
The primary reason is that after the USFS trails coordinator in Idyllwild checked the trail against a map, he found that a portion of the trail is in a wilderness area.
The secondary reason is trail user confrontation (probably why he felt compelled to check the trail's status in the first place).
The trails coordinator(Andy) told me that while he was hiking with his familly on EM, a rider sped past without slowing down. Andy called for the biker to slow down and got a "F*** Off" as a response.#-o
This comes on top of rangers asking mountain bikers to try and stay off the trail during weekends, when it is a very busy hiking trail. Apparently their requests were ignored and a lot of complaints were made to the forestry service.

I will just add that I have a lot of respect for the USFS in Idyllwild and more than a few of the people who work for them are fellow mountain bikers them selves, including Andy. they are currently working hard to help establish at least parts of the trail system as fully legal multi use tails.
They are very tolerant of trails with, let us say, unclear status, and the unofficial understanding is that if no one complains, then all is left well alone, as the local community gets so much enjoyment from the trail systems around the town (and to be honest, most of the trails that many on here ride are of that exact same unclear status, and therefore could also be susceptible to this type of closure).
With a huge increase in use on the trails up here, I hope it stays the way it has been in the past and that visiting groups go out of their way to be considerate to all other trail users and do their bit to keep the trails open (though private whining about other user groups is still permitted).

 

Horrible news!

Sooo sad that a small percentage of riders ruin it for the rest of us!

 

This sucks on so many levels!

 

Yep, it really is horrible news and does suck on many levels.
Probably just a one off closure though.

 

That's sad to learn about. Hopefully something can be worked out through a partial realignment, etc.

 

not surprising, and yeah, unfortunate. That trail is heavily used by hikers anyway.

The Idyllwild area is such a great place to ride. . . Just curious, how does the community generally feel about increases in mountain bikers over the years??? Surely they are seeing some additional revenue generation. I know I've been camping/riding once a year at Hurkey Creek ever since being in a 24 hour race in 2003, and we always go into town and spend money.

 

Thanks for the report, Simon.

It's bad news, but should hardly be surprising for anyone who's ever ridden there on a 'busy' day. Fortunately, there are many other good trails to ride in the Idyllwild area.

 

At a recent meeting between the forest service and residents about fuel reduction plans in the May Valley area, local residents listed saving the trail system because of revenue created for the town as the third highest priority when planning the work, after resident and fire fighter safety.:clap:

 

Sure sucks that the jerk told a Ranger to f off. Some guys are to arrogant for their own good. Most hikers I encounter are very friendly and tolerant of bikers, so who are making lots of complaints to the rangers? How many complaints are they getting? Last time I checked MTBs are paying the same taxes hikers are. MTB's have just as much right to use the trails as anyone else. MTB's should be the ones calling the Rangers and demanding access! MTB's were told to stay away on weekends? MTB's should get to use the trails every other weekend then, not be told to stay away on weekends. Whats fair is fair right? If you don't take steps to establish your rights to ride, they will slowly and surely be taken away from you.

 

Thanks for the heads up. I am headed out to the area this weekend for the first time w/ the bike and this was one of the trails I was contemplating riding. Unfortunately, like many things in life, trails can be ruined by the actions of few. This is another good reminder to be considerate to others and try to put yourself in others shoes.

 

sad, but not too surprising. i'd say it's a fair compromise if the "unclear status" trails are left alone.

thanks for keeping us updated, simon.

don't forget to hit us up when it gets hot up there and you want to hit some coastal trails. i have most of the summer off...

 

As said in the O.P., the trail goes through an area of wilderness, so I guess our rights are gone right there.
I do think we should be lobbying for rights to ride widerness areas, but that is another debate.
I rode the trail a few weeks ago on a Wednesday evening and still met a lot of hikers and have felt a steady rise in tension from locals I have met on the trail over the last few months or so. Idyllwild is a small town, so I guess people in various groups talk a lot among themselves. I do know that a few of the local biking kids loved to "bomb Ernie", so no surprise really. The ranger did not specify how many complaints they have received, but just said "A lot"
I got the impression that things had gotten to a breaking point on that last ride when one lady said "Thanks so much for slowing down to pass me", as if this was an unusual occurrence, and a guy, when asked if his dog was okay with bikes, said "Yeah, he loves the taste of 'em".
I heard the rangers had asked bikers to stay away on weekends over a year ago and the guy who told me pretty much argued the same points as you do, but knowing how much the rangers tolerate and even fight to support local bikers up here, I do not think demanding rights we may not actually have will get us very far.
If you are (or anyone else is) curious as to which trails are legal to ride in the Idyllwild area, PM me and I will send you a list.

 

Did USFS follow their procedures with comment periods and meetings?
Or, did they cop out and use the 1 year emergency closure to be repeated year after year?

 

This trail was just too close to town for this not to happen. As many have stated in this thread "not surprising".

Here are some ideas and history of The Wilderness Act if you have time:

By Bill Schneider, 4-23-09

Some wilderness advocates don’t consider the conflict between hikers and mountain bikers serious, nor do they believe it prevents worthy roadless lands from becoming Wilderness, but I do.
If you want to know why, read my past commentaries on the issue. I’m devoting this column (and next week’s) to how and why hikers and wildernuts need to take the lead in resolving the conflict.
If you haven’t been in the trenches of efforts to preserve Wilderness, you might not see the impasse. Bicycling groups, led by the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA), commonly say they aren’t opposed to Wilderness, but they are, in fact, opposed to any proposed Wilderness that includes single-track trails commonly used for mountain biking, which is most of them.
Wilderness and hiking groups such as the American Hiking Society, Sierra Cluband Wilderness Society commonly say they aren’t opposed to mountain biking, but they keep on proposing Wilderness that doesn’t allow mountain biking--and they abhor the thought of sharing Wilderness trails with bicycles. Most of that objection is based on personal dislike for sharing trails with mountain bikers, not environmental or legal reasons. Instead, hikers should welcome the opportunity to join with cyclists to strive for protection for roadless lands they can easily and peacefully enjoy, together.

In the comment section of this commentary, you’ll probably see people say, “Wrong, Bill, we’re really are working together.” And yes, we have had collaborative successes (Colorado, Oregon, Virginia, et al) where an agreement has been reached so both groups could support legislation designating downsized Wilderness that avoided closing down popular mountain biking routes. I don’t want to belittle these sincere efforts, but in most cases, there’s no agreement and no Wilderness.
So what to do? In my opinion, our best option is for wilderness and hiking groups to initiate an effort to encourage the Forest Service (FS) and other federal agencies to re-write the administrative rules regulating the use of Wilderness to allow mountain biking.
As those familiar with the Wilderness debate know, the word “bicycle” is not in the Wilderness Act of 1964, nor does it disallow mountain biking. In fact, the first regulations the FS wrote in the late 1960s didn’t prohibit mountain biking, but then later, in the early 1980s, when mountain biking started becoming popular, the FS specifically revised the regulations to ban bicycles in Wilderness. So, for around fifteen years after the Wilderness Act became the law of the land, bicycles were actually allowed in Wilderness--until the FS, supported by wilderness and hiking groups, not Congress, and before the IMBA-fueled bicycle lobby started rolling, made an administrative decision to disallow bicycling.
The easiest way to undo this overstepping of the administrative rule-making process would be for the FS, with the support by wilderness and hiking groups,not Congress, to revise the regulations again to allow bicycles. Sadly, most wildernuts consider this heresy.
If mountain bikers and hikers agreed to re-write the regs, the FS would be hard-pressed to refuse. Although possibly making a slight left turn now, the FS has been traditionally anti-Wilderness and delighted to see the impasse between hikers and mountain bikers, two constituencies who should be working together to designate Wilderness, as were interest groups always opposed to Wilderness such as miners and motorheads. The last thing anti-Wilderness constituencies want to see is hikers and mountain bikers pulling in the same direction.
If the FS and wilderness groups continue to scoff at the idea of revising the regs to allow bicycles in Wilderness, it appears as if the only way we can resolve the conflict that has delayed or defeated so many Wilderness proposals is to come up with a new organic act that embodies the principles of what I call Wilderness Lite.
(I don’t, incidentally, expect it to be called ‘Wilderness Lite.” That’s only my term for Wilderness that allows mountain biking. More next week on this issue.)
Wilderness and hiking groups should support a new organic act codifying a Wilderness Lite alternative to Wilderness, but I suspect, they will continue to scoff at that option, too, which means the bicycle lobby should initiate this legislation. Would wilderness groups oppose such legislation because it creates a real and attractive alternative to Wilderness? I hope not, but it wouldn’t surprise me. If they do, they probably have the political muscle to kill the idea, and then, we’re right back where we’ve been for decades.
We have a third option, of course, amending the Wilderness Act to allow mountain biking and therefore force the FS to re-write the regulations, but to me, that seems dangerous. It gives anti-Wilderness politicians a chance to mess up one of the best things Congress ever did. So, let’s not go there. Why should we? We have two much easier, safer options.
And it’s about time wilderness and hiking groups endorsed one of them, so we can finally aggressively move forward in protecting our roadless lands.
Again, for those who haven’t read my earlier commentaries, here’s my disclaimer. I’m a hiker. I never ride my mountain bike on single-track trails and have no desire to do so, in or out of Wilderness. So, why have I essentially become an advocate for mountain biking in Wilderness?
Good question, as they say, and with an easy answer. The conflict over mountain biking hampers our efforts to protect roadless land, and we have too much holding us back already. People who support non-motorized recreation must work together or go down in defeat together.
I’d like to live in a world where mountain bikers would yield to a higher priority, saving Wilderness, and realize that even if all deserving roadless land became Wilderness, they’d still have plenty of places to ride their bicycles, but I don’t. So, the only way we can resolve this conflict and move forward is for wilderness and hiking groups to make the next move. They have two choices: (1) continue losing and compromising away roadless land in our current contentious political climate or (2) make peace with mountain bikers by either supporting new administrative regulations for Wilderness or endorsing a new organic act creating a Wilderness Lite option.
Next week: What should that option be?

WHAT TO CALL IT?
Branding Wilderness Lite
None of the current options work, so Congress should give us a new land-protection designation. Then, the non-motorized community of convenience needs to work together to brand and market it.
By Bill Schneider, 4-29-09


Editor’s note: Second in a two-part series on resolving the conflict between mountain bikers and hikers over protecting roadless lands.Click here for the first part, plus a very interesting comment thread.
Last week, I wrote about options hikers and wilderness groups had to make peace with mountain bikers so the two key constituencies could work together to protect roadless land. One option was urging Congress to pass another organic act creating a true alternative land designation. But what to call it?
In past commentaries, I’m used the words “Wilderness Lite” to refer to various land designations that provide almost as much protection as the “Big W” Wilderness Congress designates under the Wilderness Act of 1964. Basically, cutting to the chase, I can more precisely define “Wilderness Lite” as “Wilderness that allows mountain biking.”
Creating this option preserves the holiness of the current National Wilderness Preservation System. All 107 million acres of Wilderness would not have mountain biking, nor would any new additions. But with this new organic act, in some cases, roadless land would have a congressionally mandated designation that preserves wilderness qualities but allows mountain biking. In many cases, I suspect legislation might include some of each.
Wilderness Lite might also allow other acceptable “mechanized” advancements like various climbing equipment, game carts, scouting cameras, chainsaws, hang gliders, and strollers, but the main issue is bicycles.
We already have several Wilderness Lite land designations--National Recreation Areas, National Scenic Areas, National Conservation Areas, Special Management Areas, and National Protection Areas. Going through each of these options would take a lot of words and create a lot of confusion, but here’s one key point. None of these prohibit, by statute, motorized recreation. Congress can, however, mandate non-motorized only when creating one of these areas, but this rarely happens because, in essence, these designations are considered motorized alternatives to Wilderness. See the problem? Nothing in between that allows all forms of non-motorized recreation.
(I should interject that I’m referring mainly to national forests and to a lesser extent land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, not national parks. That’s another issue, and the National Park Service already has a great alternative, national monuments, which have slightly less protection, but where bicycling can be allowed.)

Two examples of this alternative, collaborative “successes” often touted by mountain biking groups are the James Peak Protection Area in Colorado and three National Scenic Areas designated as part of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2005. But both the protection area and the scenic areas allow motorized recreation, although very limited motorized use in the Virginia scenic areas. That does not make them alternatives to Wilderness.
Creating a scenic areas or recreation areas or protection areas that clearly ban wreckreaction could proceed on a large scale, creating a mish-mash that people might not understand, but would that matter? If politicians had the spines to actually write “non-motorized only” in legalese, this approach might even be a path of least resistance compared to passing the Wilderness Lite Act of 2010, but for those of us who believe we need this type of alternative to “Big W,” it would be better to combine all these Wilderness Lite options included under one brand.
Congress has always had the option of creating a new Wilderness and specifically allowing mountain biking, but this has never happened, and probably won’t in the future, which further begs for a new option.
Also, we should look forward. Take any existing Wilderness off the table. Instead, concentrate on how to protect roadless lands, especially near urban areas, where mountain biking use has become well established just like horse use was established in roadless areas later designated as Wilderness.
In a past life, I wrote brand management plans. I saw the power of branding. In the corporate world, any good business or marketing plan has a good branding strategy as its core. Mountain bikers should develop such a “marketing plan” and the critical first step is creating the right brand.
“Wilderness” is a brand, and a good one. When somebody says the word, we know what he or she is saying.
“National Protection Area” is not a brand. Few people have a clue what it is, nor does it say “non-motorized.” Most people, even most wilderness advocates, haven’t even heard of it. That’s unlikely to change. Ditto for the other current land designations--how many people even know what a National Scenic Area is?
I’ve been talking up this branding idea with a few people who have genuine desire to resolve the conflict between hikers and mountain bikers, and we bounced around various possibilities before narrowing it down to two: “Primitive Area” and “Backcountry.” Both say “non-motorized” and already mean the same thing, sort of, something like “not quite as pristine as Wilderness.”
I prefer “Backcountry,” but think “Primitive Area” would also be a good brand.
So, with that background, I’m going to put up this trial balloon. I propose that wilderness and mountain biking groups join in requesting Congress pass a new organic act called the Backcountry Act of 2010 modeled after the Wilderness Act.
When Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Wilderness Act on September 3, 1964, he also created the National Wilderness Preservation System and immediately designated 54 Wilderness areas encompassing 9.1 million acres in 13 states, including many of our most iconic names like Bob Marshall, Maroon Bells-Snowmass, Boundary Waters, John Muir, Eagle Cap, Bridger, and Three Sisters. Let’s re-use that model, when the Backcountry Act passes, create a National Backcountry Preservation System with a starter list of areas that a majority wants permanently protected but are currently mired in a debate over mountain biking. It won’t be hard to find this starter list. I can think of several here in Montana that would easily qualify.
Here’s the rub. The Wilderness lobby, led by the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club and the Campaign for American Wilderness, might have some serious heartburn over this idea. To be more blunt, they fear it. They know Backcountry will be more popular with politicians than Wilderness. From the day we create a National Backcountry Preservation System, we might not see many more additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System.
For me, a person who wants Wilderness as much as any person reading this, it bothers me to more or less accept defeat on Wilderness, but if we can replace it with Backcountry, I say this looks mighty good compared the rut to nowhere we’re currently stuck in.

 

Simon those were great times when we did ride that trail, post that pic. Ernie Maxwell was a gem, if the USFS gies unabated all trails up there will be closed, God Help us if this occurs. (Bye Ernie, thanks for the lines you provided for, may the hikers of Idyllwild and Taquitz respect you!!)

 

By the same logic one idiot with a dog off leash should get all dogs banned.

 

What sux is this isn't even a good hiking trail. It's a place for the entry level hikers to feel like they are getting into the wilderness without the pain and suffering of a real hike.
It's a get-a-way from stress for an hour trail for the locals.

The real hikers use it to get to the rocks, and you never see them just hang'n out on the trail.

For us on bikes, it is just one aspect of the entire trail system. It's around 2 miles of the possible 100 miles in the area. Time to give the rest of the system some love.

 

Ernie, I will miss you, mut I will not miss the hikers and loose dogs. Oh, and thanks for the torn meniscus, the memory will never leave me. :lol:

 

Simon, thanks for the heads up. Closing down of Ernie sucks, but now my primany concern is where are all the riders who loved to "bomb Ernie" are going to go. I hope their selfish asses dont go and get something else closed down!

 

I get the Wilderness issue (kinda), but flat out ban/closure due to traffic concerns (beyond the route through the Wilderness, which I assume could be fixed if someone wanted to reroute) seems heavy handed and like a personal agenda enacted.

I rode nearly the entire last summer in Utah and one of the ideas I liked (if I have to make the compromise) is certain trails are closed to bikes on even or odd days. That gives the hikers plenty of shared use and they are still allowed on when bikes are allowed. It keeps access available, but limits the traffic on certain days. I'd rather we all just get along, but I'd take this type of compromise over a flat-out ban.

Just curious, but I tend to get annoyed when I'm hiking and there are other hikers nearby. Would it be acceptable for me to call and complain about how fast a fellow hiker is passing me, or that one didn't say hello, or that they were drafting my tracks up the trail?

Sometimes I really question the legitimacy of these "rude mountain biker" claims. To the rider, everyone I know that rides or that I ride with is always eager to say hello to *anyone* else on the trail, lend a hand where needed, and calls out/slows down for pedestrian traffic.

I guess this is a good time to plug the likes of IMBA, SHARE, Warriors and others. Especially IMBA as they have dollars and people on the ground in Washington, and unfortunately that's where this seems to be won and lost more often than not.