Page 52 - Flathead Beacon // 4.6.16

OUT OF BOUNDS 53 EXPLORE 54 Outdoors
Debate Reignites Over Mountain Bikes in Wilderness Areas New draft legislation in Congress seeks to allow bikes in America’s wildernesses
TBY DILLON TABISH OF THE BEACON
he age-old debate over whether mountain bikes should be allowed in designated wilderness areas is
heating up again as new legislation is expected to surface in Congress over the next month seeking to change the bed- rock environmental law.
A national mountain-biking group called Sustainable Trails Coalition has drafted a bill — the Human-Powered Wildlands Travel Management Act of 2015 — that would give local land man- agers, such as U.S. Forest Service super- visors, the ability to decide whether riders can use sections of trail in desig- nated wilderness areas, whether for rec- reational riding or for trail maintenance and other work using wheeled tools.
The debate over bikes in protected wil- derness has intensi ed in the decades since 1984, when the Forest Service explicitly outlawed “mechanized trans- port” in those areas.
The original Wilderness Act of 1964 stated, “there shall be ... no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motor- boats, no land of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.” At the time, mountain biking was unheard of; yet by 1984 the sport was in its infant stages as a growing popular activity, and Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club and other conservation groups convinced the Forest Service to broaden the wil- derness prohibition from motorized to mechanized transport, e ectively out- lawing bikes.
Today, the popularity of mountain biking has ballooned — an estimated 40 million people participate in the activ- ity annually, according to a survey by the Outdoor Industry Foundation. At the same time, the amount of designated wilderness has grown to over 109 million acres across the U.S., including over 3.4 million in Montana.
Last week, as the bill awaits a spon- sor in Congress, a group of 116 conserva- tion organizations from across the U.S., including 13 from Montana, published a letter asking lawmakers to reject any proposed changes that would allow bikes in the wilderness.
The collective, which includes local Swan View Coalition, North Fork Pres- ervation Association and Friends of the Wild Swan, said in its letter, “For over a half century, the Wilderness Act has protected wilderness areas designated
Ron Cron navigates the Beardance Trail near Woods Bay. GREG LINDSTROM | FLATHEAD BEACON
by Congress from mechanization and mechanical transport, even if no motors were involved with such activities. This has meant, as Congress intended, that Wildernesses have been kept free from bicycles and other types of mechaniza- tion and mechanical transport.”
The groups contend that the stated purpose of the Wilderness Act is, in part, to protect areas from “expanding settle- ment and growing mechanization,” as the law states.
“At a time when wilderness and wild- life are under increasing pressures from increasing populations, growing mecha- nization, and a rapidly changing climate, the last thing Wilderness needs is to be invaded by mountain bikes and other machines,” stated George Nickas, execu- tive director of Wilderness Watch.
The International Mountain Bicy- cling Assocation (IMBA), the leading mountain biking advocacy group, has not publically opposed the ban, instead focusing its e orts on pushing for bound- ary changes and alternative designations that still allow bikes.
The issue has come to the fore recently after recent changes in the Kootenai National Forest, where the Forest Service is proposing the Ten Lakes Wilderness
Study Area. By designating an area as Wilderness Study or Recommended Wil- derness, the agency could still maintain prohibitions from within the Wilderness Act for biking and snowmobiling.
Last winter a group of snowmobile organizations sued the Forest Service claiming it lacks clear rules or guidelines for de ning potential wilderness areas, especially in an area that has historically allowed snowmobiling and mountain biking, such as Ten Lakes on the north- ern section of the White sh Range east of Eureka.
Mountain biking enthusiasts see this as further evidence for why riding should be allowed in certain forest labyrinths. Supporters cite research that shows riding on trails has the same environ- mental impact as hiking. Ted Stroll, the author of the Wildlands bill and head of the Sustainable Trails Coalition, says the draft legislation is not seeking a univer- sal acceptance for bikes; instead, it would open the door for local managers to con- sider corridors where bikes on trails could be appropriate.
“We keep hearing that we’d be weak- ening the Wilderness Act and paving the way for things like mining and motorcy- cles in Wilderness,” Stroll told Outside
Magazine this winter. “No congressio- nal o ce we’ve talked with wants to do anything more than we want to—allow cyclists back onto some trails in some Wilderness areas and the PCT. Second, this domino-theory argument is regu- larly trotted out by people who oppose any kind of societal change.”
Locally, Ron Cron, a well-known mountain biking advocate in the Flat- head Valley, is optimistic that this lat- est push for wilderness access could gain traction. Cron rides every weekend and volunteers to maintain trails on the Flat- head National Forest, especially Crane Mountain near Bigfork.
Cron said he has been discouraged by recent decisions by the Forest Service in regards to mountain biking on public lands but he hopes that the agency and residents will realize that it could bene t both trail maintenance and those seek- ing a healthy outdoor activity.
“It’s not about letting bikes back in the wilderness. It’s about giving local land managers the exibility to allow bikes for even their own people to go in to maintain wilderness trails,” Cron said. “What harm is a bike going to do to those trails? “
dtabish@ atheadbeacon.com
52
APRIL 6, 2016 // FLATHEADBEACON.COM