Not all bikes are welcome

One hundred and sixteen conservation groups across the U.S., including eight from Idaho, sent a letter to Congress Wednesday to oppose legislation that would allow mountain bikes into wilderness areas.

The Sustainable Trails Coalition claims Congress did not intend to ban human-powered travel in Wilderness in the Wilderness Act of 1964, and in fact allowed mountain bikes in these areas until 1984 before they were banned. The 116 opposing organizations say this is not true and claim the Wilderness Act banned all types of bicycles in wilderness areas.

The 116 signatories span from British Columbia, Canada, to Florida. Eight are from Idaho, nine are from Washington, and 13 are from Montana. Nineteen of these groups however, are all from one national organization: Great Old Broads for Wilderness. It had one signature for 19 different chapters of its organization.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 was passed to keeping some places across the country wild and free of development.

The part of the Wilderness Act under scrutiny is section 1133 that states: “…except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this chapter (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.”

The controversial part is where it says “no other form of mechanical transport.”

Ted Stroll, president of STC insists that Congress did not mean people couldn’t transport themselves by mechanical means. He said they didn’t want people being “carted around.”

Natalie Dawson, director of the Wilderness Institute at the University of Montana, said she takes the Wilderness Act literally.

“I think in its definition, ‘mechanical’ means those apparatuses with gears. I think the Wilderness Act forbids mountain bikes in wilderness areas by definition,” she said. “That being said, Wilderness is something that falls under the jurisdiction of land management agencies, the BLM and the Forest Service, and they can make decisions about what is allowed.”

She cites, for example, the airstrip in the Great Bear Wilderness in northern Montana. In order for that area to become Wilderness, the government had to allow for the “grandfathered inclusion” of the airstrip near the Spotted Bear Ranger Station. People can fly into the middle of a wilderness area and land.

She also noted that an Alaskan national interest land claims act in 1980 allowed for some uses of planes, boats and ATVs in wilderness areas.

“It’s not as black and white as either side wants to paint it,” she said.

Stroll said the coalition’s government affairs advisor does not release copies of the legislation and considers it confidential. He did however lay out the two main parts of the proposal.

The first part would “reaffirm the original intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which would allow human-powered travel of any kind, even if it was mechanically assisted,” he said. “We have no doubt that if mountain bikes had been around in 1964, Congress would have said there is no problem at all.”

The second part of the legislation would reiterate that federal agencies are allowed to use small-scale, modern equipment such as wheelbarrows and chain saws to maintain trails in wilderness areas.

“Our legislation does not call for a blanket restoration of mountain biking to all wilderness areas,” Stroll said. “We would restore the system the Forest Service itself had from 1981 to 1984 where local forest service or BLM staff could decide where bicycles can and cannot go.”

Adrienne Cronebaugh, executive director of the Kootenai Environmental Alliance in Coeur d’Alene, said the board of directors at the KEA had a long discussion about this issue and ultimately, unanimously decided to sign the letter to Congress with the other 115 organizations.

They are concerned that this legislation would weaken the Wilderness Act and the protections it provides.

“Erosion of protections is easier to do than advancement of protections for our natural resources,” Cronebraugh said. “Opening up the Wilderness Act for a piece of legislation like this is just one step toward eroding those protections.”

She said there are few wilderness areas in Idaho, 12 to be exact, but millions of acres for people to enjoy their bikes.

The KEA supports mountain bikers — many of the board members are bikers — and their use of public lands. It doesn't, however, support the mechanized use of Wilderness areas as stated in the Wilderness Act.

Part of Stroll’s legislation came about because he was confused as to why conservationists will not stand for bikes to be in Wilderness, but trains of pack mules and horses are perfectly OK. He made the point that those animals do way more damage to trails than bikes do.

He also didn’t understand why government agencies were not using simple tools like wheelbarrows and chainsaws for trail maintenance when some trails were in a very poor state.

“The Forest Service and BLM have interpreted the Wilderness Act as not allowing them to use even a wheelbarrow because it has a wheel,” he said.

He said that federal agencies have to lug rock up trails and slowly clear fallen trees one at a time because they don’t allow themselves to use basic tools.

Dawson said this was an over-exaggeration of the point that in Wilderness, the Forest Service has to undergo a “minimum tool requirement.” They have to assess if the work they are doing can be done without a chainsaw, helicopter or wheelbarrow.

“(The Wilderness Act) doesn’t say you can never use things that are mechanical in the Wilderness,” she said. “It’s just you’re going to have to think about it before you actually use that wheelbarrow in the Wilderness.”

“I think it is one of the few pieces of legislation that really had a lot of foresight and knew we were going to be continuing development and increasing demands on our landscape. The folks who wrote the Wilderness Act recognized the value of places, of natural landscapes,” Dawson said.

Cronebraugh, in response to not having a problem with horses and pack mules in Wilderness, said it is a matter of looking at the language of the law. She also noted “the intent of the Wilderness Act was to establish areas where man was a visitor. It is not there for man to use, but to be protected for the future of non-human species.”

Every one weighed in to the pros and cons of allowing mountain bikes into Wilderness.

Some of the pros were adding “user groups” to Wilderness areas and potentially gaining more supporters to protect the environment. Getting more people into Wilderness makes wilderness areas more relevant to more people. According to Stroll, mountain bikes naturally help maintain trails.

Some of the cons were trails in Wilderness would be held to the same standards as bike trails elsewhere, with swoops and turns.

“I think that would degrade the Wilderness character of places,” Dawson said.

More cons are that having mountain bike trails in Wilderness might take away the “wild” experience people go there for. Also, there could be a threat of having races through wilderness areas which would “open up the potential for a whole slew of impacts,” Dawson said.

“Mountain bikers will put a serious scar on the landscape,” Cronebraugh said.

Stroll believes the state of many wilderness areas to be “disastrous.” He is frustrated that conservation groups have not addressed the trail maintenance and pack-mule issues, but are very aggressive when it comes to mountain bikers trying to use these lands.

“Our vision is such that Wilderness is better maintained with trails that are in good shape and accessible to all human-powered travelers,” he said.

Cronebraugh insists that the point of Wilderness is not for man, but to be untouched.

Dawson is worried about putting legislation through to “threaten and undermine the Wilderness Act” in the current political climate.

“I think one of the very beautiful parts of the Wilderness Act is that it forced constraint on us as people in order to basically give us unconstrained landscapes to use in the perpetuity,” She said. “So if we have to sacrifice some of our own personal desires, in these places for their long-term preservation, I think it’s a fair trade and it’s worth it.”