Bush Hearts Mountain Biking, Lifts Restrictions in National Parks
On Thursday, Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty ordered the National Park Service to ease existing mountain biking restrictions, possibly opening nearly eight million acres of recommended or proposed wilderness lands in approximately 30 parks to mountain biking.
The Bush administration has released several controversial rule changes and “clarifications” over the last few months that have put even the most critical of Bush’s environmental record into a state of disbelief at the potential environmental consequences of those regulations. But this one is a little different.The rule change issued Thursday pits the sometimes-allied (non-motorized) recreational environmentalists against the “preservationists,” who see the rule change as just another human incursion into pristine areas that would further degrade its ecological integrity. Opponents argue that mountain biking can lead to erosion thus threatening stream health and that mountain bikers are often at the root of on-trail conflicts with hikers and horseback riders.
The rule overturns a 1987 regulation that required park officials to issue a special regulation when designating or constructing mountain bike trails. In essence, individual parks would be allowed to decide on their own about opening trails to biking, thus speeding up what is otherwise a lengthy process. The rule would not affect the mountain bike exclusion in designated wilderness areas covered by The Wilderness Act of 1964 which limits use to hiking and horseback.
“The pending proposed bicycle rule is an example of special interest intrusion into national park management,” said Frank Buono, of the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and a former Park Service manager. In a statement, Buono called the change “mysterious” as many parks have designated bike trails under the current Reagan-era rule.
But George W. Bush isn’t the only mountain biking enthusiast pumped about the rule change. Mike Van Abel, executive director of the International Mountain Bicycling Association, praised the rule change, saying it provides the right mix of public comment and environmental protection. “It’s been a long time coming,” said Van Abel in the Jackson Hole Daily. “The existing regulation treats bikes like they are motorized,” he said.
Van Abel said most of the ecological impacts of mountain biking could be mitigated with proper trail design. He said his group does not advocate for mountain biking in proposed wilderness in parks.
Bush, who is an avid mountain bike rider has yet to comment on the rule change. And whether he will actually spend any time mountain biking in the newly-availed National Park backcountry is another story. In a 2004 interview with Outside magazine, the President admitted, “I’m not one of these extreme bike-rider guys. I like the cardiovascular aspect. I like to be able to ride across the ranch.”
Soon he will have lots of time to do just that.
This is just one more reason why George W. Bush is the worst president of all time — ESPECIALLY for the environment. Promoting something because it is your personal hobby, and not for any rational reason, is the essence of corruption. Unfortunately, Bush isn’t the only one doing that.
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1994: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10 . It’s dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don’t have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else — ON FOOT! Why isn’t that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking….
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it’s not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7 ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the
area, and (worst of all) teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it’s NOT!). What’s good about THAT?
For more information: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtbfaq .
I agree that Bush’s motivations for changing this rule are purely selfish.
I like to hike, mountain bike, and enjoy many other outdoor activities. I cannot stand the hypocrisy of people who think it’s ok to hike but not to mountain bike. I have to ride for 5 miles from my home to find an area larger than 4 acres that is completely unpaved. When I get there, to the one place that’s left unspoiled, people like you tell me that they don’t want me to ride there. “It’s bad for the environment”, they say. As if cars, houses, stores, and industry haven’t already dispatched the environment entirely. It’s ok to put a highway right through the middle of the nature reserve, drain the lake for a city water supply, but mountain bikes are going to wreck the place.
Most areas that allow hiking should also allow biking on at least some of their trails. There should also be places where nobody is allowed.
You have no valid environmental reason for wanting mountain bikers off of hiking trails. Your reasons for this are no more virtuous than Bush’s reasons for allowing them. You simply do not want to share the nature reserves.
To Enduro:
There’s no such thing as “sharing the nature reserves” when it comes to disruptive activities like mountain biking. Mountain biking destroys the peacefulness most people seek when they go to natural areas, a peacefulness that cannot be found anywhere else.
An issue not mentioned here is the bottom line. Many parks are seeing declining visits and revenues. Mountain bikers are a more affluent bunch and are willing to pay for it. Lets face it, most backpackers (I am one) only get out a few nights a year. Research supports that among the outdoor recreations virtually nobody actually goes backpacking. Many areas open to long distance hiking never get used hardly. Mountain bikes, with their increased range can visit them much more easily, therefore justifying keeping them open to begin with.
I’m not saying that all trails should be open to bikes. Far from it. But there are trails in parks where it would make sense from all sides to do so. For example, there are many fire roads and old double tracks in national parks that could be great for biking, and are not prime hiking territory anyway.
As for Mike Vandeman, he obviously have something personal against bikes. Do bikes cause problems more than hikers? Yes, in some situations definitely and should be restricted accordingly, but not all. Conservation should be balanced with openness for all user groups. And Mike, telling people how they should experience nature is extremely arrogant.
Mike has a Ph.D. We should all listen to him. He’s clearly letting us all know he’s brighter than us.
If my mountain bike does not have the right to be on the trail, please remove your shoes. If you get to bring your tools, I get to bring mine. I dont think your arbitrary damage tallying should mean I cant bring a bike. Do you exclude fat people hiking? They do more damage than a skinny person.
PhD: Trails were created specifically to be IMPACTED. That’s why they are there. They exist so that the rest of the wilderness does NOT get impacted. That’s also why horses are allowed in designated wilderness areas. They do far more damage to trails than bikes, so your argument doesn’t hold up, no matter how many studies you point to. You just don’t like mountain bikers. And that’s not reason enough to exclude them from wilderness. It’s called due process. It’s in the Constitution. Look it up Mr. PhD.
But since hikers and equestrians have all the lobby power, they’ve won. Until now. It’s amazing. You (hikers and equestrians) rail on Big Oil for all of their lobbying power and manipulation, but when it comes to “protecting” the wilderness from cyclists, it’s OK. Because your discrimination is justified by your own prejudices.
And Eric poked a nice big hole in your technological argument, lest you enter the wilderness naked and w/o boots, a GPS, water bottle, or any type of synthetic garment. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t like mountain bikers and that’s the only consistent, non-hypocritical argument you have?
I think Dr. Mike needs to get a mountain bike. Allowing mountain bikes into the National Parks will keep open more trails that were being lost from disuse. The trails will also be better maintained since mountain bikers actually take care of the trails they use unlike hikers and equestrian riders. A good example of this is the City of Edmonton in Alberta, Canada which has open up all it park trails to mountain bikers and the trails are better then ever. In fact it is not uncommon to see moms and tots exploring the trails with off road strollers. That is something that was unthinkable before because the trailer were poorly maintained and overgrown from disuse. So Dr. Mike don’t hit the panic button just yet.
Mike Vandeman is an know virulent mountain bike hater whose views, as is evident on his web site, border on the extreme of the environmental movement.
As hiker, trail runner and mountain biker who has performed 1,000 of hours of trail maintenance over the last 12 years I can tell you that ALL recreationist have some effect on the trails. I’ve had hikers cut the trail to avoid decending or climbing up switchbacks causing the trail to fail. It wasn’t mountian bikers who cut the trail because they would not fit in the “tunnels” the cut through the brush. I’ve worked on trails in the wilderness areas that had become virtual “v-ditches” from the horse traffic.
I spoke with one of the lead docents for the Nature Conservancy and she told me that bird watchers are the most disruptive because they tend to go off trail to get better views of the birds, which become accustomed to traffic on trails but alarmed when their is deviation from the trail.
The key is that ALL recreationists need to be responsible and not just scream about access. With the economic problems we are currently experiencing parks, both county, state and federal, will loose even more funds to other budgetary commitments such as social services, police, fire and prisons. That is why we ALL need to give back by helping to maintain the trails we love.
It is important that the 90 percent of the responsible recreationists due their part to address the 10 percent who aren’t.
That is a better solution than the hate that Mike Vandeman, “Ph.D.” spreads.
I don’t like Bush, but I don’t perscribe to the irrational thinking that just because it was something he was involved with it is automatically bad. No doubt the people who think this way will also think Obama will be able to do no wrong. Trust me, he will (and already has).
I’m all for encouraging people to enjoy our national parks. Better to do it on a bike than from a car, which is how most people use them.
Realism and pragmatism sometimes are good things.