Mountain Bikes in Wild Places

This is not a thread about mountain bikes in Wilderness. I am interested in what folks think about mountain bikes in wild places that are not wilderness, such as inventoried roadless areas. The Helena – Lewis and Clark National Forest is currently accepting comments on their Forest Plan revisions. It’s hundreds of pages and I don’t necessarily think you need to read it to have an opinion. I am on a county committee that is currently crafting a position statement on our favored alternatives for the plan and I will say that the more people I talk to and the more I think about it, the more confused I get.

A few of the alternatives create Recommended Wilderness Areas (RWAs). Initially this pleased me, as I think there is a serious lack of Wilderness in country south and west of Helena that I hope is permanently protected from further development in terms of roads. But there is quite the uproar by local groups over the possibilities that involve the closure of mountain biking trails that have been open to biking for the last 30 years and have become established places for this type of use.

There is a rich history with some of the RWAs. Many were slated to be Wilderness but were pocketed vetoed by President Reagan, and I think that is where the push from some local groups to kick the bikes out is coming from. They want to hold on to hope that someday they may still become big W. Personally, some of the RWAs hold significant value to me. Only 15 years ago I felt like my brother and I were some of the only people hunting in them, but the growth of Helena and northern Jefferson County has increased their pressure, and they no longer feel like they are ours.

Mountain bikes do affect wildlife more than hiking and horses, but not nearly as much as motorized use. One think I found interesting in attending the Forest Service presentation was that in places where biking is allowed, there is no “off-trail’. Mountain bikes can ride anywhere. I’ll admit that this rubs me the wrong way, as dozens of miles of rogue-created trail is planned on being incorporated into the new plans. I am seeing a rift in public land advocates, with the motorized users and mountain bike users aligning against the hikers and horseback riders. I have heard bikers use the term “locked out” more times than I can count. I know that’s not objectively true, but in terms of their historic use it is. One thing I have considered is that there are very few places outside of Wilderness where horseback riding can occur without worrying about mountain bikers. Is that something horseback riders care about? Because I haven't heard any comments from them.


Long winded, and I guess the question is this: How do you feel about Forest Service Plans kicking mountain bikes off of areas they have historically used?

Been mountain biking Montana since '87. Wild how much things have changed since then.
In the early years some of the best single track got pirated by atv dudes. Then the ATV thing exploded and the woods became two tracked.
I am all about protection...so wilderness even if it means closing established mountain bike trails.

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife is paying for the construction of mountain bike trails in areas that are habitat for elk, deer, bear, and cat. In an area I often hunt there is an old forest service road now closed. The road always used to see dog walkers and sometimes mountain bikers, it's maybe a mile long, the surrounding national forest saw a very few off trail hikers, I'd see tracks but never actually met anyone. Now I see 15 or 20 bike riders in a couple hours on a busy weekend, there are looped trails everywhere. A call to the local forest service yielded the response that those trails were long established by the boy scouts. The boy scouts haven't had a camp there in 40 years, the trails are specifically for mountain bikes, you can tell by the curves and grade. The trails used to be hardly used as they were created without permission from anyone around 10 years ago.

Mountain bikes and new trails allow many more people access to many more square miles of forests. Just like ATVs and 4WDs do. Trail runners too. Everywhere is now a recreation area. Earbuds.

I'd like to see an anti trail movement similar to the anti road movement. In press releases they call it "multiple use" trails, but they mean mountain bikes, they aren't proposing opening it up to ATVs or oil rigs. Currently my Parks and Wildlife is helping to pay for a study to construct an entirely new trail smack dab through the middle of winter habitat. They dream of licensure for bikes paying salaries. Time for state wildlife agencies to get back into the business of wildlife.

All those people criss crossing every patch of woods leaves no secure area for critters to hide in.

It’s not the mountain bikes, it’s the mountain bikers themselves I don’t like.

I mean that jokingly.

Sort of.

I bike and back country ski along with hunt, and there are just more and more people out on the trails. In my mind it's a good thing, but something that needs to be managed, thoughtfully. I think the forest service in the case of the trails in Helena should take the bull by the horns and manage those trails, re-route them where appropriate and connect with local mountain bike groups to manage the system. If bikers are brought in on the process and told hey, abuse it and lose, I'm sure they will work to help with enforcement. (Also bikes off trail? Never seen this, although I have seen morons in VT with saws cutting new trails is this what you are taking about?)

I grew up in the Eagle County, CO and the wildlife there has really suffered from the constant trail use, winter, summer, at night... it's almost 24/7 365. I think an important part of CPAWs mission to protect the wildlife resource is to build trails for bikers, hikes, horse, etc. that work to minimize the impact on wildlife. It's better to direct people where to go than bury your head in the sand and complain about the trails they use or to just post closures and encourage "trail poaching?" if that's what you want to call it.

I would add I think there should be more winter range closures, that they should be enforced and people ticketed, and that the parking lots on these trails should be gated. Also would be nice to see western states impose a Pittman Robertson style "backpack tax" on recreational goods, it always blows my mind that for all their bluster about the OG industry Patagonia and REI are always the first to advocated against this tax (https://outdoorindustry.org/article/where-we-stand-oia-on-an-excise-tax-and-conservation-funding/) because boo hoo you pay other taxes so you shouldn't have to contribute anymore... meanwhile Patagonia has tripled it's profits since 2008.

I have been buzzed enough by motorbike and off road bicyclers during hunting season that I don't see any upside to opening up more trails, if you are a hunter.
the game will just move off. Just a another item to chase them off or to private areas where they are not bothered, imho.

Now the excitement of, "Public Lands in Public Hands" phrase is settling, the question is more and more... who = "Public Hands"?

Those of us who believe public lands stay in our public hands need to encourage dialogue between the organizations and public land managers and work towards finding amicable opportunities for public land owners (the logo on the hoody I'm wearing currently)
Educate on wildlife habitat and accept trails that include cyclist use, open earlier select closed roads, etc.

Meh, I support our lands staying in our hands... Not boot only hands.

Sytes said:

Now the excitement of, "Public Lands in Public Hands" phrase is settling, the question is more and more... who = "Public Hands"?

Those of us who believe public lands stay in our public hands need to encourage dialogue between the organizations and public land managers and work towards finding amicable opportunities for public land owners (the logo on the hoody I'm wearing currently)
Educate on wildlife habitat and accept trails that include cyclist use, open earlier select closed roads, etc.

Meh, I support our lands staying in our hands... Not boot only hands.

Click to expand...

I agree w/this sentiment, Charles.

I also want more wilderness, not less, and I'm willing to compromise on what is big W wilderness, and what's not. Within those RWA's, I think there needs to be an honest discussion about the kind of use those areas are now getting, and what can be done to retain the primitive characteristics, desired habitat functionality, budgets for weed management and recreational opportunities that would be compatible with the desired land management outcomes. That could mean designations like the Conservation Management Area done on the RMF, or the backcountry areas that TRCP is looking at in eastern MT RMP's if you want to retain a more primitive experience & management while still offering opportunity for mountain bikers. It's also important, if you're closing down existing mtn bike trails, to identify areas that would be more suitable for that type of recreation.

Tradewind said:

I have been buzzed enough by motorbike and off road bicyclers during hunting season that I don't see any upside to opening up more trails, if you are a hunter.
the game will just move off. Just a another item to chase them off or to private areas where they are not bothered, imho.

Click to expand...

This sword can cut both ways. We should be very cautious about isolating ourselves into factions. Multiple use is just that, and will take effort to reach compromise and consensus.

If f there is an ecological reason to prohibit bikes, I’m all for it. I’m much more reluctant to do it for social reasons.

My feeling is a closed road or two track should be mountain bike accessible, while a single track should be foot or horseback only. I trail run in a state park that I share with mountain bikers that is 8 square miles. There are many illegal trails that the MTB's have created, and used enough that they are known to many people. Especially when the Park Rangers put a red sign by the main trail that says "CLOSED".

The main issue is MTB's bombing downhill on a single track while another user is coming up or descending downhill out of sight until it is too late.

The solution many multiple use places have had for that is One Way Traffic on those single tracks. I doubt that remote Roadless areas want to manage that level of regulation though.

JLS said:

This sword can cut both ways. We should be very cautious about isolating ourselves into factions. Multiple use is just that, and will take effort to reach compromise and consensus.

If f there is an ecological reason to prohibit bikes, I’m all for it. I’m much more reluctant to do it for social reasons.

Click to expand...

Agree with this sentiment. Here is a really good video covering a wide range of National Forest land recreators, and I believe as long these users are responsible, and respectful, we should be more inclusive and less exclusive.

https://youtu.be/RSRFRqVWY_Y

I'd like to see a higher level of management for mountain bike access including such things as comprehensive studies for the appropriate places for mountain bike trail use, seasons when they should be accessed, and the issuance of permits and fees where necessary to curtail over use and abuse, and provide funding for management. Multiple use management means its not a question of whether there is mountain bike access, but what level of access, and where.

I don't know about this area as I've never been, and while I usually support most W creation, I know if someone tried to take away the mt bike trails I currently ride I would be very upset. Almost everything we ride in on winter range that gets closed immediately after hunting season until the trails dry out in the spring.

Put me in the camp that does not advocate for unwarranted restrictions on use. I have never had a negative encounter with a mountain bike while on a trail. I do not support the hidden trails that are being built by Johnny Brown Pow and his buddies, and feel education and enforcement from with in the mountain bike ranks would be good thing.

But all and all, manage for conflict if conflict exists and not just because you don't like another user group. Or one time in your thirty years of hiking trails you had a guy roll up on you quickly and startle you. What would you say if a trail user group lobbied to prohibit the discharge of a firearm within 800 yards of a designated trail? How about a mile? When you judge and regulate the actions of others, don't be offended when your preferred action comes under the same microscope.

I’m a mountain biker. I don’t have a problem with more Designated Wilderness areas.

I think they are potentially a tremendous and enthusiastic ally. We need all those we can get.

Thanks for the responses.

Would it be a more balanced approach to support some but not all of the RWAs? That is what I am leaning toward. Though the Forest Service gives us Alternatives A,B,C,D etc. that doesn't mean they are tied to them. In your comments you can pick certain aspects of each and articulate what would be your ideal solution. The mountain bikers I have spoken to seem far more aligned with the motorized use crowd than not. An understandable position in light of the possibility of losing places they currently ride, but one that I'm unsure is focused on the far-view. I have always wondered what the country south of Helena would be like if the Lazyman IRA and Jericho IRA were Wilderness, as they were to be in the late 80s before the veto.

Helena is growing as is every community within 20 miles of it. I think this plan will dictate how that pressure is managed and the effect it will have on the the country around it, for a long time. If you have opinions I encourage you to comment.

I see little difference in regards to errosion, etc caused by mountain bikes, dirt bikes and horses.

Mountain biking has exploded back east as well. Trails in the Catskills and Adirondacks are now full of them. In some places compatabity is a nonissue however in many it creates friction in use. I don’t have the answers. In the past an organization that was involved with and sat on the board lobbied to have a state area set aside for the specific use of training hunting dogs. This accomplishment was no small feat at the time, although now it would be nearly impossible. The permit special use area has been over run by walkers, dog walkers, bikers , do gooders ect ect, all nonpermitted and technically not allowed to access the area during the training season. However it became unenforceable to the point were those of using the area for its intent were the minority and it was no longer usable for what it was intended for. I bring the example up to illustrate that sometimes if you give them enough rope and they just might hang us all.

For me, no truly "wild" place ever included mountain bikes.