-
Posts
-
-
A simmering controversy over a new mountain bike trail in Big Bend National Park boiled over again earlier this month, as the park service started work on the trail before publishing a formal Finding of No Significant Impact or issuing required rule-making.In fact, the first public announcement on the start of construction came from a mountain bike advocacy group. National Park Service officials admitted that, due to an oversight, they did not publish the FONSI online or issue a response to public comments.
The comments were posted in early April, two months after they were finalized and two days after the International Mountain Bicycling Association announced the trail construction.
Proponents have touted the trail project a model of collaboration between federal land managers and user groups, as the mountain bike group paid for the environmental study (as is common with ski area expansion projects on national forest lands) and worked closely with park managers to design the proposal.
According to IMBA, the addition would create a great trail system for hikers and mountain biking. The organization said in a blog post that hiking and bicycling are compatible uses, and that the impacts of mountain biking and hiking are about equal.
“To create a first-of-its-kind biking trail through pristine public land, without allowing the public to review the FONSI before construction, without going through essential rulemaking process and while allowing an interested group to have behind-the-scenes access, creates a terrible precedent for the National Park System,” said Judy Calman, staff attorney for Our Texas Wild. “This area is included in the Citizen’s Wilderness Proposal and has long been discussed as suitable for wilderness designation.”“Nobody is against mountain biking. The issue is whether national parks should be prostituted to a special interest,” PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said, describing the park’s decision as resulting from a “warped” decision-making process.“Absent a statutory charter, the National Park Service should not be using tax dollars to promote "exclusionary recreation,” he concluded.
Read more here: http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/04/30 … g-bend-np/
It seems to me that in their protests these environmentalist watchdog groups are straw-manning this trail construction by making it appear that it is exclusive to mountain bikes–see the language used above such as "prostituted to a special interest" and "exclusionary recreation."
Much of the key argument coming from the opposition is based on the exclusivity of these trails, but when we look at the facts we find that they are not exclusive at all. IMBA itself is promoting it as a mixed-use trail, open to both bikers AND hikers. If anything, I would think the hikers should be rejoicing the the bikers are taking it upon themselves to help fund and build a trail that they will get to use without any effort on their part.
What do you think?
-
Just more spin from the bike-bigots. We see it around here all the time.
[i:2xm7edpf]Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.[/i:2xm7edpf]
-
"The issue is whether national parks should be prostituted to a special interest"
Like hikers, backpackers, equestrians, the Sierra Club, or "Our Texas Wild?"
I think I hear the pot calling the kettle black.
-
"mtbgreg1" wrote“Absent a statutory charter, the National Park Service should not be using tax dollars to promote "exclusionary recreation,” he concluded.
What do you think?
Coming from wilderness proponents that comment is hilarious.
-
"CraigCreekRider" wrote
[quote="mtbgreg1":2t39oaj4]
“Absent a statutory charter, the National Park Service should not be using tax dollars to promote "exclusionary recreation,” he concluded.What do you think?
Coming from wilderness proponents that comment is hilarious.[/quote:2t39oaj4]
"skibum" wrote"The issue is whether national parks should be prostituted to a special interest"
Like hikers, backpackers, equestrians, the Sierra Club, or "Our Texas Wild?"
I think I hear the pot calling the kettle black.
Exactly. This trail is being built with both bikers AND hikers in mind, whereas the hikers want to ban bikes from any trail they possibly can, allowing the hikers EXCLUSIVE access.
-
More importantly ANYONE can buy a bike so technically i wouldn’t call it "exclusionary."
-
Response from IMBA: http://www.imba.com/news/big-bend-attacks-unfounded
-
As an employee of the NPS and avid mountain biker, you must understand the concept of "wilderness" to realize why people are so upset with the new trail. Wilderness involves land left in its natural state including no mechanical devices or noises. This is why hiking and pack animails are OK. Part of the Big Bend trail travels through proposed wilderness and some people feel that the review process was short circuited.
As a mt bike advocate, I would like to see both a loop and through trail in every national park. In order accomplish this, we need to win over the wilderness advocates by being patient and following all of the environmental review processes. Additionally, we especially need to respect all trail users and the natural surroundings (e.g. be subdued, yield to others, don’t litter, etc.,). The Park Service is under mandate to find ways to engage youth in the parks and establishing mt bike trails is one way to do this. If we can be patient and respectful of the review process and other park advocates, we can be riding in the national parks in shortly.
-
It’s Texas. There’s no environmentalist power in Texas. Let’s go ride the trail when it’s done and help build it like the majority of trail building in the USA. Our trail building hours speak louder than the Sierra Club.
Unfortunately this will delay the trails completion. -
I think there is potential for MTB trails in a lot of National Parks. We can utilize areas that would not make great hiking trails with grand vistas. My guess is that the biggest fear of some of these groups is the precedent of mountain biking being introduced onto national park land. It has happened in a few places, but really not that many.
-
Did a different mountain bike group pay for the Environmental Assessment? The IMBA press release stated they did not pay for it.
Also, the 30-day commentary period for the No Impact Study, what is the point of that? Can people "overturn" the study or provide more information on how it (the trail in this case) impact the environment?
I guess I’m a bit confused by this process. It doesn’t make sense to publish a report, then say "Any objections?" in my eyes. Unless the comments that are posted/aired are added to the report.
Does anyone know anything more on the Impact Report study?I think it’s interesting IMBA is putting the work in for building a trail they might even be able to ride on. I hope it turns out for the best.
-
The Big Bend deal has been in the works for many years. Certain groups are just throwing rocks at it. As for wilderness 99.9% of the people don’t know bikes are banned, when they find out they get this big question mark face , and then finally ask why. My answer " because certain groups don’t want to share, the more people they can keep out the more they have it to themselves"
I purpose we ban humans from wilderness areas, see who raises the biggest stink then.
This quote from hikergirl sums up how short-sighted people are. "I think I’ve capped off the last of the trails in CGSP and hiked all 35 miles! Thanks to mountain bikers who pushed for these trails. See ya out there." -
Whenever people start harping on the "impact" of bikes in wilderness areas I counter with Look what horses do! Between the shredding of the land with hooves digging into trails too steep for horses and horses going off trail, to the obvious waste products produced by horses, and the impact of grazing, introduction of non-native species in feed and/or droppings, horses have way more impact on the land than bikes. Plus, a typical outfitter will have multiple horses per single human, so the impact per "person" is orders of magnitude higher than a biker in the same area. If wilderness stewards truly care about the land then they should be pushing to get horses banned. It is becoming farely well accepted — by those who willing to listen to reason, at least — that bikers have similar impact as hikers.
-
The land is there for people, not the other way around. I could see objections to constructions in the wilderness like jumps, ramps, large berms, maybe even bridges, that distract from the natural beauty, but if there’re trails, it just seams silly to ban bikes which leave a few tracks, and make almost no noise. 😕
-
"soccerj" wrote
As an employee of the NPS and avid mountain biker, you must understand the concept of "wilderness" to realize why people are so upset with the new trail. Wilderness involves land left in its natural state including no mechanical devices or noises.
Actually the original concept of "wilderness" as invisioned by the architect and framers of the wilderness legislation was to protect land from the sort of permanent infrastructure reuquired to support motor vehicles. In fact, the original definition of "mechanized" was "other than human powered" which clearly implies the desire to prohibit motor vehicles but leaves the door open for bikes. In fact, given the desires of the original framers to get people out of their cars, it could be as easily argued that this even promotes bikes.
As for leaving land in its "natural state," it has been repeatedly demonstrated that bikes have no more impact than boots and far less than hooves.
If the intent is truly to prohibit mechanical devices, then why are boats with oarlocks and cross-country skis with pits, both of which provide a mechanical advantage, allowed?
As for noise, I’ve encountered many a noisy hiker and plenty of silent bikers in my time. I’ve spent many miles hiking Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana. It seems like every other hiker has one of those bear bells attached to his walking stick, making more noise with each step than I do on a 20 mile bike ride. Hikers often use the "I can’t hear them coming" excuse when trying to disparage bikes as being trail menaces. You can’t have it both ways.
-
It sure makes you wonder, if mountain bikes were around in 1964 when the wilderness act was introduced, would the language have been changed from no mechanized uses to just no motorized use.
-
"grandlakejames" wrote
It sure makes you wonder, if mountain bikes were around in 1964 when the wilderness act was introduced, would the language have been changed from no mechanized uses to just no motorized use.
+1
-
"grandlakejames" wrote
It sure makes you wonder, if mountain bikes were around in 1964 when the wilderness act was introduced, would the language have been changed from no mechanized uses to just no motorized use.
They wouldn’t have thought to change it as there would have been no need–the definition of "mechanized" at the time was given in the Wilderness discussion as "other than human powered." Their intent was clear–it was only perverted in the intervening time by another, more selfish but larger and more orgnized special interest group.
-
Man, we see this up in New England all the time. NEMBA works with IMBA and all the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) groups all the time, and only when the final goal is achieved (RMP, land agreement, trail routed, etc) do "environment advocacy groups" step forward.
Sometimes I just want to go all renegade on it and ride wherever we want. In moments of anger, it’s easy to realize that "if mountain bike trails are all illegalized, then ALL trails will become legal."
I’m all for advocacy, but frankly, 90% of the public involvement on these issues is rooted in ignorance of how this works and what’s already been done.
`Kay, I feel better now.
-
"Fitch" wrote
"if mountain bike trails are all illegalized, then ALL trails will become legal."
Interesting sentiment… and pretty true, because it’s not like we’re NOT going to MTB!
-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.