MTB trail access: Illegal trails
Trail users often use the phrase “illegal trail” to describe a number of mountain bike trail situations, some more illegal than others. Some trails are located in designated wilderness or Federally managed areas and violations of trail rules can result in felony convictions. Other trails constructed without permission from land managers are often considered illegal as well, though some land managers may turn a blind eye to allow construction. Still other trails are simply on private or public land where mountain biking isn’t specifically allowed or prohibited. In any case, mountain bikers face important individual decisions about responsible riding that shape the perception of mountain bikers worldwide.
If you’ve been following this blog you know that it is indeed possible to be arrested and charged with a federal crime for riding your mountain bike in certain locations. Witness the Riding the Spine crew and their foolish trip into the Grand Canyon on their bikes. If a trailhead specifically says it’s closed to bikes or if you see a little symbol of a bike inside a red circle and a slash across it, that means you shouldn’t ride your bike there.
This is especially true for designated wilderness areas where only foot traffic is allowed. There was some discussion on this site last year about whether or not it was ok to carry a bike on a trail through a wilderness area but these days land managers are making things very explicit – no bikes allowed, ridden or carried. Don’t expect to get off on a technicality – just avoid these areas when you have your bike.
You may be saying to yourself, “Man that sucks, why can’t I ride in those areas? I have just as much right as everyone else to enjoy the trails.” Absolutely true, though there is a right way and a wrong way to get things changed (and I think you can guess where I’m going with this).
The wrong way: riding your bike on closed trails despite posted closures. The right way: petitioning your local government or land manager for designated mountain bike access.
The wrong way: building trails on land you don’t own or where you don’t have explicit permission from the land manager. The right way: taking care of the trails mountain bikers DO have access to so land managers will be more open to allowing bike trails on their land.
The very wrong way: tearing down/removing “no bikes” signs at your local trailhead. The right way: talking to your mountain bike friends and encouraging them to ride only legal trails.
This whole trail access debate is kinda like the helmet thing back in the late 1990s. Before then it wasn’t cool to wear helmets on the road OR the trail (guess it was a European thing). Then all of a sudden even the most fearless mountain bikers were telling friends they wouldn’t ride with them unless their friends strapped on a brain bucket. Let’s make riding illegal trails un-cool in 2007 and petitioning for legal access hip. More trails in ’07!
Editor’s note: This is the third in a series of posts about mountain bike trail access issues. Stay tuned!
Related posts:
April 13th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Yes, I was the one that posted on this site about how cool that section of the colorado trail is. Yes, I did carry my bike through on my back for 7 miles. And yes, I do now understand that possession of a bike in wilderness is just as illegal as riding a bike in wilderness. There are such few wilderness areas out there that I respect the “no bikes” and I will never carry my bike through again. I would hate to be a part of why mountain bikers get a bad rap or be part of the reason we’re pushed out of more singletrack.
I worry about the Colorado Trail Race in that the organizers are advocating hiking you bike through some of the wilderness areas. Based on the reguations, it is still illegal even if your tires are off your bike and your frame is on your back. I just don’t want to see more of the CT closed to bikes because someone stands up at a meeting and uses this as an example of mountain bikers’ disregard for the law.
It has really started to aggravate me that a precedent has been set that it’s okay to build your own “social” trails AND THEN get the land managers (BLM, FS, etc) to accept them. For example, the 18rd trails in Fruita were built illegally but they were accepted by the BLM as official trails. Then, a couple of years ago, everybody was upset because the BLM had put a couple adjacent plots on the market for oil and gas drilling. It is their land to begin with and we should be grateful that they let us keep these trails not bashing them for trying to make some money from leasing the land. They even stated during the auction that the plots near the trails could not have any surface disturbances on them and all drilling needed to be done from plots further away using directional drilling.
Now it’s hitting even closer to home with illegal (oops, I mean “social”) trails on Arkansas Mountain. I’m all for new trails, but building trails illegally and then trying to force the land managers into accepting them as they are is just wrong.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Right on, I would have thought it would be “legal” to carry a bike as you did through the wilderness area but one of the reviewers made the good point that it’s easy to go from “riding” a bike to just “carrying” it (or vice versa) depending on who is around. I’m sure you guys did it the right way but it’s tough to trust that others would do the same.
The social trails are definitely problematic and another recent example is the South Shore trails in Pueblo. The story goes that people started building the trails and ended up getting official permission after the trails had been built. It’s awesome when things work out that way but people can get into alot of trouble assuming this will be the case everywhere.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
As one of the disorganizers of the free, unofficial Colorado Trail “race”, I felt I had to post a response to jjonas. Much discussion and thought was put into the Wilderness detours, and we felt the best solution was to hike through the Lost Creek Wilderness. Possession of a bike in the Wilderness may, technically, be illegal, but by taking both wheels off, and strapping our bike frames to our packs for the hike, are we violating the spirit of the law? No way. The course is an individual time trial, and it is up to every individual who chooses to do it to accept the risk and/or consequences of the hike. I will be doing the time-trial, and I personally do not feel I will endangering MTB access or making MTB’ers look bad. If anything, I feel I will be making a statement about the adhering to the intent of the law, which is to not *ride* your bike in the Wilderness. Someone made the point that it’s easy to go from “riding” a bike to just “carrying” it, and this is why the time-trial has the hard rule of wheels off, frame on your back. This comes across loud and clear that we will not be *riding* our bikes in the Wilderness. Simply shouldering your bike is unacceptable.
On a more philosophical note, I disagree with any law that contains built-in technicalities for the sole purpose of enforcement. This basically demonstrates that our government does not trust us and we are guilty until proven innocent. Not to mention the fact that it’s just plain silly. If our elected government does not want us to *ride* bikes in the Wilderness, then that is what the law should state. If I am hassled for hiking through the wilderness with my bike frame on my back, it will be solely for enforcement of the technicality, rather than the intent of the law.
Another problem with the built-in technicalities are the built-in technical loopholes. For example, I could legally ride or carry a unicycle in a NF Wilderness! Oops, that’s not what is intended. Oh wait, no motorized or mechanized equipment?! I guess my cookstove and trekking poles are illegal. Where does it stop?