# What trails would you ban cycling on?



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

The solutions page for the sustainable trails coalition states that they are not for a blanket permit of allowing bikes on all wilderness trails. This makes sense from a politic perspective, but do we as bicyclists agree that bikes should be banned from some wilderness trails and if so which ones or what should be the criteria for banning bikes?
I was initially against a blanket permit for bikes in the wilderness but now I am not so sure.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

Banning a user groups from trails is usually because that group increases user conflicts to a point of it being a public safety issue or they have a larger environmental impact than other users.

I don't see either of these conditions being major issues for mountain bikes if eventually allowed on wilderness trails.

Mountain biking and hiking have very similar environmental impacts. Equestrians and stock on the other hand have a much greater impact and they are still permitted.

I wouldn't expect user conflicts to be a major issue either and certainly not severe enough to ban bikes from a significant number of trails. Wilderness areas near large population centers may be somewhat affected but this could easily be dealt with by modifying existing trail or adding more trail to handle the increased user load. More trail would be a win for all users.

If any bans were to take place, assuming mountain bikes had been allowed into wilderness areas of course, I suspect they would be more political in nature.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

It makes no sense to ban bikes in the wilderness. It has been proven over and over that bikes do no more damage than hiking, and less than equestrians.

Mountain bikers also tend to do much more trail maintenance, and can cover more ground while doing so.

Banning bikes in wilderness areas is all political and antiquated. The other user groups need to learn to share & be nice! (welcome to kindergarten rude hikers & horse riders)
We have the same right to use the woods as everyone else.


----------



## Flamingtaco (Mar 12, 2012)

I do not agree with a blanket permit. 

1) Some trails are simply too inherently dangerous for bikes.

2) Some trails cannot accommodate both hikers and bikers. Sure, a biker might feel safe all kitted up with pads, but how many hikers wear protection gear to prevent serious injury or death from the biker that misjudges a drop, step, turn, etc and plows into them?

3) Hikers deserve peaceful wilderness as much as anyone. On bikes, we can easily get far enough down the trail to where it thins out and the day hikers don't tread. As a hiker, you can't out-walk us. The sense of self-accomplishment when spending hours and hours hiking a trail is easily diminished when you hear some yell out "Make way! Coming through! Gotta be back at the trailhead in 15 minutes to beat the KOM!"

Of course, no one actually yells that, but the effect remains. You've set out to enjoy a day with nature and experience the beauty and rawness of it all and, someone just blows through, interrupting your zone, and noticing nothing but their own gnarliness.

Multiuse trails are great, but hikers deserve their own trails, bikers deserve their own trails, and equestrians deserve their own mud pits. Multi-use and segregated.

Sorry e-bikers, you gotta stick with the motos for now. In the future, I would be open to e-bike trails that go straight up, avoid XC trails, and connect with DH trails for the ride down. MAYBE XC trails on the way down when the bikes get closer to 50Lb or less and they start to include a power shutoff in the electronics for when the bike exceeds a few degrees downhill orientation.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Which which trails should hikers be banned from, so that bikers can have that Wilderness solitude too? Wilderness trails aren't exactly in the middle of population centers and don't see much regular use in my experience. This is a misleading question from a shill.


----------



## Joules (Oct 12, 2005)

Flamingtaco said:


> I do not agree with a blanket permit.
> 
> 1) Some trails are simply too inherently dangerous for bikes.
> 
> ...


Pretty much inline with all the other arguments about bikes in wilderness: make up some absurd, straw-man BS then say "this shouldn't happen" 
well it doesn't, so all's well. Even without banning bikes

Wilderness trails are by definition not well traveled. They aren't going to be overrun with guys in downhill gear who (according to you) are apparently climbing so fast they're going to run into hikers who are out enjoying nature without seeing or hearing anything around them. If seeing a bike is ruining a hikers wilderness experience, the proper response is to tell them to grow the fvck up and get over it; the horrible bike will be gone in a minute.

We're our own worst enemy in this. That's why IMBA can't handle wilderness issues. They [and you] act like it's the LM/trail builder/someone other than the rider's responsibility to create a experience where it's impossible to get hurt, yet hikers can go wherever they want, getting lost or hurt in the process; but no, the mythical mountain biker that has no sense of his own skills and is out _trying_ to hurt himself is the one we have to cater to.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Flamingtaco said:


> I do not agree with a blanket permit.
> 
> 1) Some trails are simply too inherently dangerous for bikes.
> 
> ...


What are you talking about? Some bikers like solitude too. But ruined because you see or hear someone else? Hikers have plenty of hiking only trails. Injury or death, please quote stats.


----------



## homeslice (Jun 3, 2008)

Ski Resorts. As if skiing doesn't [email protected] the hill up enough already. Also most of the Appalachian Trail in Pennsylvania is suicide for even the highest travel shocks. Some places shouldn't ever have two wheelers, even atvs.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

Flamingtaco said:


> 1) Some trails are simply too inherently dangerous for bikes.


The whole sport of mountain biking is inherently dangerous. Shouldn't the rider be the one to decide which trails are not for them? There is always the option of dismounting and walking.



> 2) Some trails cannot accommodate both hikers and bikers. Sure, a biker might feel safe all kitted up with pads, but how many hikers wear protection gear to prevent serious injury or death from the biker that misjudges a drop, step, turn, etc and plows into them?


Same argument could be made with equestrians and stock animals that are already allowed on these trails. They are big and can be unpredictable and dangerous to other users; more so than any mountain bike could be.



> 3) Hikers deserve peaceful wilderness as much as anyone. On bikes, we can easily get far enough down the trail to where it thins out and the day hikers don't tread. As a hiker, you can't out-walk us. The sense of self-accomplishment when spending hours and hours hiking a trail is easily diminished when you hear some yell out "Make way! Coming through! Gotta be back at the trailhead in 15 minutes to beat the KOM!"
> 
> Of course, no one actually yells that, but the effect remains. You've set out to enjoy a day with nature and experience the beauty and rawness of it all and, someone just blows through, interrupting your zone, and noticing nothing but their own gnarliness.


Mountain bikers have not even had a chance to sample that peaceful experience you speak of. Sure there will be isolated conflicts and some people won't want bikes on "their" trails but that isn't a valid reason for a ban.

There is no guarantee of peacefulness when using a wilderness area anyway. By definition, wilderness claims to have "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation." The onus of peace and where to find it lies solely with the individual. If they get their panties in a bunch because someone passes them on a trail it is _their_ problem not the other persons. I've had trail runners practically sprint past me while suffering at altitude on steep mountain trails, in wilderness areas mind you, and the lasting impression wasn't "damn those people ruined my day because they passed me." I was actually impressed at the feat.



> Multiuse trails are great, but hikers deserve their own trails, bikers deserve their own trails, and equestrians deserve their own mud pits. Multi-use and segregated.


This would be the ideal solution, but in a wilderness area the idea is to minimize the impact of man. Tripling the amount of trail would go against this principle and be unsustainable to boot. The current trails are already hurting in terms of maintenance and funding. And remember, trail work in wilderness areas usually has to be non-mechanized.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Trails in Wilderness areas should be able to be reviewed and opened to bikes in a public process where both sides can make their arguments for and against, and land managers make a decision. Total blanket bans should not be in place. I can think of 2 trails in the Steamboat area that were open to bikes prior to the '93 wilderness act that were open to bikes, no conflicts, or problems, now we are banned and the trails don't connect due to lack of hikers, going the full route. I know of a 25 mile point to point that enters the wilderness area for less than 1/2mi that essentially closes the route for cyclists, that should be rethought, or the trail rebuilt 500y to the west and out of the wilderness area. Grandfathered use trails, petitions to open new trails, and a system that allows a rethinking of why trails are closed would be a step in the right direction. Mtbikers have shown to be some of the best trail stewards in the forest, opening new trails would only help the USFS with better maintenance, and funding for trail work.


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

Flamingtaco said:


> I do not agree with a blanket permit.
> 
> 1) Some trails are simply too inherently dangerous for bikes.
> 
> .


Oh, please...

Who sets the limits? Who defines dangerous?

Obviously you have never ridden Gooseberry, Rock Creek, Spider, anywhere in Sedona, greater AZ, Sierras, places with rocks, places with trees, places with dirt. Please continue to ride the boardwalk where you feel safe.

Oh wait, there are lots of people there so the collision factor is high. Probably should just stay at home and give up your very stressful bike life.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

It should be done on a case-by-case basis with overall management in mind. Every user group should have exclusive opportunities for the things they seek. Sometimes, management decisions need to be somewhat arbitrary. Sometimes, specific factors will need to be addressed.

There are some trails that already have too many hikers on them and access is restricted by permit. Adding bikes to the mix wouldn't help the situation.

If I was a land manager, I wouldn't want hikers on trails where high bike speeds are encouraged with big berms, jumps, and things of that nature. I wouldn't want uphill traffic there, either.

I WOULD want nonmotorized users to share most remote, backcountry trail where any use is likely to be low.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Interesting article in our local rag about loving wilderness to death, seems to say the best way to enjoy wilderness is not going there. This shows why bikes will never be allowed in, if hikers complain about their own usage, increased activity will not be accepted

Wilderness Wanderings: How can we better love our wilderness? | Steamboat Pilot & Today


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^All of which illustrates the fact that the amount of traffic is more important than the type of traffic. A very small percentage of wilderness sees use that heavy, and I don't see where projecting this on truly remote places is helpful. The one size fits all approach is starting to wear thin as recreation activity becomes more varied and ubiquitous in the population. The reality is that biking is less impactful than hiking when duration of presence is taken into account.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

The trail that goes to the top of Half Dome (Yosemite) should not allow bikes.


----------



## mudflap (Feb 23, 2004)

It sounds like the better question would be, "Which trails should mtb be allowed on?"
Case by case basis, where past history is taken into consideration, seems the better solution.

Wilderness designations should be inclusive and encourage use, unlike today's skewed interpretation that is exclusive of all but foot traffic and horses.

Todays regulations regarding WA's are completely arbitrary and the result of legislation partnered and driven by selfish exclusivity - certain entitled individuals who don't think you should be able to enjoy what they enjoy.

These rules will change as more people take to the trails on bicycles and the momentum swings to our favor.


----------



## Flamingtaco (Mar 12, 2012)

It's a perfectly logical concept that we should be able to both ride with others and have our own dedicated trails, ALL OF US.

Where did I say we need to triple the trails? That is not in my post.

No, I haven't ridden Joe Blow's specific trail, he hasn't ridden mine, and that comment has absolutely no bearing on what I said since I was GENERALIZING about the idea of grating open access to all trails.

Waaah... hikers gotta look out for themselves.... is that what you think is going through the land manager's brain when receiving complaints about asshats on bikes? It's amazing how much complaining there is about dangerous horses, while simultaneously calling on hikers to just put up with us.

Yeah, I had no idea that ALL wilderness activities are inherently dangerous. I haven't hiked thousands of miles, don't take my kids camping every month throughout the year, don't rappel, or climb, or boulder, or... oh, wait, I do. It goes without saying that there are places that no bikes should be permitted, period, and if you don't agree, then you haven't hiked some of the best trail in this country. Yes, hiking can be dangerous, but BIKING a trail that is already difficult to hikers raises the level of danger for EVERYONE, and no, Joe Blow shouldn't have the right to make his own decision on this, because too many Joe Blows are just plain stupid in the decision making process.If you think you are the master of all that you see, then red bull has an entry form for you.

Sorry, I don't ride any boardwalks, they don't have many of those in Kentucky, Indiana, or Ohio. Haven't been on one since I was last in North Carolina. Next time you want to shame someone into shutting up, try checking their profile first.

Mountain Biking's biggest problem? We act like a bunch of tools, taking every opportunity to attack our own without any thoughtful consideration of what is being said.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

My fear is that the STC is successfull in getting bikes allowed in wilderness only to have heavy handed land managers close all the wilderness trails to bikes. There are many sections of trails in the wilderness that would be unpleasant for bicyclists. Terrain can be steep and hikers can be populous. If a cyclist chooses to ride these sections, then they have to put up with the danger/inconvenience of dismounting. There are some trails with these types of treacherous/overpopulated sections that lead to great riding or that allow the cyclist to access the next step of a journey without needing a reroute. I do support a ban on bikes on trails that have a parralell trail that allows bikes. I do not support those restrictions to be ticketable offences and I support cyclists who feel there is a good reason for violating the ban. At this point in time, cyclists are begging for access to wilderness and any access is good, but full access is best in my mind.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

bsieb said:


> Which which trails should hikers be banned from, so that bikers can have that Wilderness solitude too? Wilderness trails aren't exactly in the middle of population centers and don't see much regular use in my experience. This is a misleading question from a shill.


Hikers should be banned from all trails. Trails are far less then one percent of wilderness area so I am basically giving hikers access to 99.9 percent of wilderness. If hikers were forced off trail they wouldn't have to worry about seeing another human, and they wouldn't have to worry about seeing the trail which is really a symbol of human existance. Same goes for horsebackriders, except I am not sure that horsebackriders are in compliance with the wilderness act. Congress set aside wilderness for human powered recreation so as to help americans stay fit. Seeing as how many horsebackriders are overweight and dependant upon non-human-power, NFS should rethink it's blanket permit for horsebackriders. Sorry if I sound like a shill for the bike industry, my posts are selfishly motivated.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

What people tend to forget is that the wilderness act bans all mechanical travel
Thats hang gliders, wheel barrows for trail building and basically anything with wheels except wheel chairs
It is not realistic to assume that Congress would intervene and change the wilderness act to allow mountain bikes and if they did that would most likely open the door to all other mechanical means of transportation(the people that have been fighting the wilderness act since it was established)

People tend to forget that most trails in wilderness areas where made by motorized travel (dirt bike trails,hunting and old mining routs) and in these wilderness areas there is almost no historical use of mountain bikes.

For example most locals around a wilderness area will complain that their historical hunting routs are now off limits, even though they where able to drive there as a kid legally. It my opinion that those people are the only ones that have a right to complain. Other than a few situations there has been no historical use of mountain bikes in wilderness areas

It blows my mind that while we are experiencing such over use problems on our trails, people think it's a great idea to open our heavily protected wilderness areas to everyone

Yea that sounds like the quickest way to destroy them

So please leave my wilderness areas alone and just build more trails on private land

On top of that I think mountain bikes should be banned from trails that lead to 14000 ft peaks 

And people that think that hikers should just go off trail and explore the wilds on their own are either joking or extremely ignorant. Millions of people are using are national parks each year and the only way to contain there impact is to keep them on hiking trails. I almost want to cry just thinking about how butchered our parks would be if everyone was hiking off trail.....


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

Woops


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^LOTS of assumptions going on here, most not related to reality. Don't dribble on about wilderness in teary tones if you don't spend time there. It's not what you think. National Parks are not wilderness.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

What are you talking about?
I am talking about the wilderness areas that are protected by the wilderness act that was passed by Congress....what are you talking about?

And I work in these wilderness areas and I run a conservation crew that closes down illigal trails that go through these areas. I am the face that deals with all of the hunters and locals complaints.

So sorry I don't agree that Congress should bend over backwards to somehow allow 1 specific form of wheeled travel(mechanized travel) when I my self(or anyone working in a wilderness area) have to take the wheels off my wheel barrows just so that we can use them in a wilderness area.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

You may not have understood that I was talking about wilderness areas protected under the wilderness act...not areas that feel like wilderness 

But I'll just leave this hear and you can find out for your self

) In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as "wilderness areas", and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act.

Good luck getting your bikes out in the wilderness areas


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Mechanized is a synonym with motorized. The reason why bikes are banned from wilderness areas is because the forest service singled them out for banning in 1984, as they were previously legal. Same with hang gliders. Flying through the air on a wing is less mechanical then walking. The topic at hand is, assuming the blanket ban on bikes is lifted, what trails would you agree should be closed to bikes. If you want to debate the legality of the blanket ban on bikes, there are many other threads on that. Once bikes are allowed back into wilderness you will be able to keep your wheels on your wheelbarrow. That alone should be enough to motivate a contribution to sustainabletrailscoalition.com.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Singletrackd- Ok, so you are legit, awesome!  

Where do you work? Have you noticed that hikers and horse riders have the same impact on that area? Bikes are human powered transportation, not mechanized transportation. Horses are more mechanized transportation than bikes are, if ridden with a bridle/bit and saddle, because they aren't human powered. Hike, bike, ski are all human powered and are basically in the fancy shoe category, IMO. If there are places that are so terribly sensitive, keep everyone out.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Linktung said:


> Mechanized is a synonym with motorized. The reason why bikes are banned from wilderness areas is because the forest service singled them out for banning in 1984, as they were previously legal. Same with hang gliders. Flying through the air on a wing is less mechanical then walking. The topic at hand is, assuming the blanket ban on bikes is lifted, what trails would you agree should be closed to bikes. If you want to debate the legality of the blanket ban on bikes, there are many other threads on that. Once bikes are allowed back into wilderness you will be able to keep your wheels on your wheelbarrow. That alone should be enough to motivate a contribution to sustainabletrailscoalition.com.


Good point, and I would also point out that allowing bikes on all trails will dilute the impact the most, whereas restricting them to a few trails concentrates the impact, and thus the self fulfilling prophecy of heavy impact. The trails not appropriate to bike use would be the walking tourist trails in developed areas that see large crowds. I can see keeping the mtbs and horses out towards the periphery of such areas. The areas that see very little user impact are the areas that should be opened. Wilderness areas are for human use.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

Yea my bad I am definitely the uneducated one here...I was just browsing the threads and started getting defensive. I didn't realize this was the trail building forum 
Thanks for the info linktung I do not know that the wilderness act originally allowed bikes, I always thought mechanized was targeting anything with wheels but woops

And bsieb I just finished working out in El malpais and am going to head out to blyth California soon. So sadly not the beautiful wilderness areas(and most likley not what people are fighting over)but at least I got to build(reroute) some of the cdt out near el malpais 

Sorry to completely derail the thread, I temporarily moved back to the city and it shocked me how many people use our trails

So if the ban was lifted I would agree that bikes stay out of the heavily used areas and be allowed in the lesser used more inaccessible areas.


----------



## snowkraft (Apr 12, 2015)

Below a paragraph from a new study (Aug, 2015): Journal of Environmental Management (PDF Download Available)

Soil loss on horse trails was estimated at 94.9 m3/km, approximately eight times more than occurs on hiker trails (11.8 m3/km). In contrast, mountain biking, at 3.5 m3/km, has the lowest estimated level of soil loss, about 30% as much as on hiking trails. This finding reflects a limited mileage of trails where mountain biking was the predominant use (3.1 km), and these trails received low to moderate levels of use.


----------



## ZigaK (Sep 9, 2009)

Thank you for the study, very informative reading.
But it is not new, it was published in 2008.


----------



## snowkraft (Apr 12, 2015)

ZigaK, Yes, the Aug, 2105 date I saw was the date of first availability on the internet. I mistook that to be the publication date. Oops!!


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

snowkraft said:


> Below a paragraph from a new study (Aug, 2015): Journal of Environmental Management (PDF Download Available)


I wouldn't hang my hat on that study; the sampling for bikes is comparatively too small. Their metric for cross-sectional soil loss for a bike trail is 37 cm^2 +/- 40. In other words it could be less than zero ("bikes actually build up the soil!") or twice as much as what was quoted.

Also the usage and severity of usage is anecdotal per the land manager. Which happens to be a 125,000 acre National River & Recreation Area spanning Tennessee and Kentucky. And it's out-dated. (Horses and hikers were the main users then with MTB's and ATV's just starting to be noteworthy)

The main thing this study conclusively points out is that trails should be paved with gravel.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Singletrackd said:


> And bsieb I just finished working out in El malpais and am going to head out to blyth California soon. So sadly not the beautiful wilderness areas(and most likley not what people are fighting over)but at least I got to build(reroute) some of the cdt out near el malpais
> 
> .


I hope you put in cattle guards.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

pliebenberg;[URL="tel:12235823" said:


> 12235823[/URL]] ("bikes actually build up the soil!")


Bikes can protect the trail tread more then any other user group. There is a trail that is primarily light-usage horseback. A majority of the trail is in great shape but a few sections of softer soil has gotten tremendous damage from a single horse using the trail in less then ideal conditions. The horse put 6 inch deep gouges in the tread. Horse back riders and hikers both add pressure inconsistantly which creates a weak tread that can be easily destroyed for years by a wayward horse. I have no doubt that if bikes were used on the particular trail the horse damage would be insignificant. Bikes create a smooth consistant tread as long as they use it in dryer conditions. A large amount of bikes will eventually wear down the trail tread, but compared to the damage of horses and even large amounts of hikers I find it to be rather minimal. On trails where hikers rarely visit, bikes need to be added to the mix as a means of trail preservation.


----------



## granpa (Sep 11, 2007)

Just some random thoughts and personal observations. 

So what happens in Yurp. If you go over to Pinkbike you see all kinds of videos of people carrying their bikes up some horrendous mountain trails. I wonder how many people really do that? Personally I'd rather just hike the whole thing then lug a 30# bike up a peak. 

I don't really see the shuttle/downhill crowd mobbing wilderness trails as there is limited road access (in most cases). However, there is one local wilderness trail that bikers are now poaching as a downhill run that is really too narrow (built on a steep hillside) for both uphill hiking and downhill biking. I would be in favor of a bike ban on that trail or as an alternative, put in a bike trail (which will never happen for lack of resources). 

I really don't want the fat bikers ruining my xc ski tracks in the winter on wilderness trails but I guess it might not be any worse than the snow shoers and hikers that are already there. 

Wheelbarrows for trail work would be a good thing.

A lot of this is all conjecture at this point. First the STC has to win and then we have to assess reality and come up with solutions, if needed. This whole thing might become a spectacular non-issue in most areas, if implemented.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> I hope you put in cattle guards.


FWIW, I believe the cattleguards we designed have been approved at regional level. So they can be used in grazing fences in Region3 without special district engineer design approval. I can provide tech drawings and photos, we just made a run of 10 and got the City welding shop to do most of the bulk fabrication, then we added the attachment points and acid washed and added grip tape and reflector tape.


----------



## AirCat (Oct 23, 2015)

Looking in to this topic, I read about a place in Ireland which has been a favorable spot for many years. It's called Cliffs of Moher.

There's more on this topic about extreme trails - 16 Extreme MTB trails


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Linktung said:


> Bikes can protect the trail tread more then any other user group. There is a trail that is primarily light-usage horseback. A majority of the trail is in great shape but a few sections of softer soil has gotten tremendous damage from a single horse using the trail in less then ideal conditions. The horse put 6 inch deep gouges in the tread. Horse back riders and hikers both add pressure inconsistantly which creates a weak tread that can be easily destroyed for years by a wayward horse. I have no doubt that if bikes were used on the particular trail the horse damage would be insignificant. Bikes create a smooth consistant tread as long as they use it in dryer conditions. A large amount of bikes will eventually wear down the trail tread, but compared to the damage of horses and even large amounts of hikers I find it to be rather minimal. On trails where hikers rarely visit, bikes need to be added to the mix as a means of trail preservation.


Not to take away from your experience with horses, but I just don't see the horses being a major problem here...and there are plenty. We have so much land devoted to Wilders (and more on the way), that I guess there isn't much of an overlap on the more popular multi-use trails. Having said that, the areas where there is an overlap, the horses/hikers don't create much of a problem. Again, I'm not sure why that is given all the complaints that I hear about elsewhere. If I had to guess, it has to to with many factors such as responsible use and good manners. In my experience, the horses don't degrade the trails any more than other users and that probably has as much to do with terrain as anything else. Our soils tend to heal pretty fast. Erosion takes care of a lot of the discrepancies. I do agree that bikes, if ridden properly, can help to maintain a consistent bed. FWIW, I don't always ride center tread in order to minimize troughing. In moist conditions, I will intentionally ride the high side of the trail to pack it down. And no, I'm not a believer in avoiding trails in "soft" conditions. I have experimented on one trail in particular, and the results have been really good. Granted it has required some additional work in some areas, but that has only served to enhance the overall experience. The key here is to repair those areas with proper drainage, re-routes, and/or armoring. As I stated, the rest of the trail has improved due to riding in moist conditions, but it's always those eyesores that people want to fuss about....


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

granpa said:


> Just some random thoughts and personal observations.
> 
> So what happens in Yurp. If you go over to Pinkbike you see all kinds of videos of people carrying their bikes up some horrendous mountain trails. I wonder how many people really do that? Personally I'd rather just hike the whole thing then lug a 30# bike up a peak.
> 
> ...


I'd like to know what trail you are referring to, Dan. The Wilders trails that I've ridden, and subsequently fined for, are hardly ever used. And the times that I've run into hikers and horsepeople, the "rules" have applied like anywhere else. As many times as I got away with it, there were maybe a handful of disputes and I made sure to stay on my best behavior so as not to escalate the situation. None of these disputes were a result of anyone feeling endangered by my presence.

Fat biking will likely never be a problem here.

All these are very good examples of why we need to focus on regional/local management instead of blanket bureaucracy. I really can't state that enough. I don't think the STC has a chance in hell....


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> FWIW, I believe the cattleguards we designed have been approved at regional level. So they can be used in grazing fences in Region3 without special district engineer design approval. I can provide tech drawings and photos, we just made a run of 10 and got the City welding shop to do most of the bulk fabrication, then we added the attachment points and acid washed and added grip tape and reflector tape.


Focking Heifers!

Good thing they taste so good...


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Bill and Dan, have either of you seen this? I just got this through my FB feed.

http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/SPD/scorp/documents/151002_VivaNewMexicoDraftStrategicPlanforweb.pdf


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Focking Heifers!
> 
> Good thing they taste so good...


You would be better off not eating them, as would we all.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> You would be better off not eating them, as would we all.


Probably correct with regard to modern consumption and processing. Cows are quite stupid, yet most of us are raised on bovine growth hormone, and further enabled in our later years by the smell of burning flesh. We call ourselves "civilized?"


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

If you don't like the impacts cows have on trails/the landscape, no longer eating them would definitely be the smart choice. 

-Walt


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Walt said:


> If you don't like the impacts cows have on trails/the landscape, no longer eating them would definitely be the smart choice.
> 
> -Walt


I don't like the impact that income taxes have on my wallet, either. Would you also suggest that I not pay them?

The issue of modern consumption/processing of cattle is as much of a problem as the tax code, but it would be monumental task for everyone to agree that the benefits of completely removing them from our "diet" would be healthy decision without having some sort of alternative in place. One, two, or three individual's boycott would not bring about the necessary change. We would first need to integrate an alternative solution to cohabitating with these animals in environments where multi-use resource management is involved. Maybe then, we could examine more deeply the moral and ethical issues associated with modern consumption.

What is lacking at the moment is responsible management and an informed public. It's not the consumption of meat, or the idea of "fair shares" that is the problem. It's the methods in which these resources are being raised and subsequently distributed within a population, who has gotten accustomed to their "utility" without reasonable alternatives that would empower them to make better choices, that is the real issue here.

In short, it's all about the money. Honey.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

A few weeks ago, I sent a letter regarding the issues I have with cattle grazing and motorized use. I admit it's a little sloppy, but I had hoped to generate some sort of response. I haven't gotten one, yet....

Greetings Mr. Bonnie and distinguished readers,

My name is Bryan Andrada and I currently reside in Albuquerque, NM. I am writing you on this day to inform you of a situation in the Chama Basin (aka Archuleta Drainage) at the Rio Chama head water outside of Chama, New Mexico, which has recently captured my attention. The area I am referring to would be the public lands that extend westward into Colorado (in the Conejos Ranger District) from FS 121, for which the primary uses are cattle grazing, hunting, and horseback riding. I have watched this area rapidly degrade over the years from an increase in these activities; most notably, grazing and off-road vehicle usage. I should include here that I do not oppose the use of public lands for such activities when they are managed responsibly. Hunting, fishing, and animal agriculture are as essential to our survival as breathing. However, you well know the manner and sophistication with which we sometimes endeavor in these activities can have adverse affects on our most favored landscapes. This is exactly the case in the Chama Basin. 

Not more than 5 years ago, I first had the chance to witness the uniqueness of this area. The diversity in the landscape and the abundance of wildlife was breathtaking. Please excuse my sentiment, but it literally brought tears to my eyes. To think that places like this just "happen" as a result of random processes is not a fair assessment for anyone with a critical mind towards the creative process we call life. Specifically, experiencing places that offer such physical, mental and spiritual challenges can generate and renew one's understanding of a much bigger sphere of influence. To this, I hope you will agree we have been given the greatest responsibility, which is to preserve these experiences wherever possible in the wake of modern activity. The visionary blueprint of our future should not make sacrifices that would try and limit this responsibility because the scorecard will not only reflect the landscapes that have been permanently altered by human interaction, but will also reflect on those places in which we have historically chosen to remain observers. I personally believe the Chama Basin has reached a “critical mass” when it comes to the carrying capacity of specific activities. For the record, I am not a scientist, although, I have studied a lot of science. I am also not an expert when it comes to identifying long term effects from overgrazing and off-road vehicle use. However, one does not need to be an expert, or a scientist, to identify observable influence from overuse and the subsequent impacts on the landscape. 

The Chama Basin is somewhat unique in that it serves many purposes and helps meet a wide variety of needs. Besides the agricultural and recreational resources that it offers, the Rio Chama head water and flood plain are an important resource for a number of bio-systems downstream. Recently, some of the flow from the Chama River has been diverted and distributed through the Rio Grande for uptake downstream as a supplement to ground water. The idea being that the use of surface water would allow some of New Mexico’s aquifers to be replenished and recharged. There has been moderate success in that regard. However, since this project was completed the wetlands within the Chama Basin have receded. Compared to the valley and flood plain below the head water is an extremely confined space, and the marshy wetlands have always provided a natural barrier to certain types of prolonged activities like motorized transport and grazing. In short, as a result of the disappearing wetlands the basin is undergoing a surge in activities that by all previous accounts appears to be extremely disruptive for such a relatively closed ecosystem. As I explained earlier, the Chama Basin is the life blood for a number of other rivers and streams that it feeds. It should also be recognized that the management strategies implemented within head waters often times set precedence for their tributaries. As such, I believe it is necessary that practical use in these areas is of the utmost importance. I use the word “practical,” Mr. Bonnie, because I also believe that we sometimes have a tendency to love things to death in the form of overprotection.

To the critical eye, interacting with nature provides a glimpse of how perfectly arranged life can be. Sometimes, Mr. Bonnie, nature provides in abundance, while other times she is seemingly plotting for our inevitable extinction. Most often I challenge the latter as simply a test of humanities fortitude to preserve and to share that which we find in abundance. For it is when we endeavor to share the abundance that we begin to open minds to a better understanding of underlying dichotomies through conscious, unselfish choice. I believe that nature wants desperately to reveal herself to those that will listen, and wish to earn a seat at her table. However, it is my opinion that we have sheltered ourselves from these potential revelations and responsibilities by significantly altering the rules of engagement. Thus, the potential landscape of clues that will inevitably shape the future begins a withdrawal; sometimes rapidly. There are built in consequences for breaking the rules and burying the clues, Mr. Bonnie. Nature, in a very real sense, will execute a response to our actions. The question is: Do we really want to face the consequences?

My idea is simple, and I believe that it is supported by your current initiatives for better land stewardship programs. Recreation in the form of hiking, biking, backpacking, rock climbing and horseback do very little to the overall productivity of a given ecosystem. It has recently been brought to my attention that the Chama Basis is also a resource for educating students in various scientific disciplines, and as a backdrop for a number of other youth programs. As participants in these kinds of activities we are mostly observers. This is significant because there is an abundance of stimulating activity going on in the basin. Inviting more activities in the form of hiking and biking within the basin will help meet a number of long term objectives. First and foremost it would establish more permanent routes through the basin, rather than the maze of cow paths and off-road vehicle treads that currently exist, which are further influenced by additional traffic. I, in cooperation with the local Rangers, would be willing to commit resources to this specific effort, but only if doing so would meet a second objective; that extra care is taken in the construction of a more permanent route that would ensure long term sustainability. This would mean a construction strategy that implements natural or manmade barriers to more destructive forms of travel, such as cow migrations and off-road vehicle use. The only thing we are lacking is the necessary funding. 

The complete removal of grazing and off-road vehicles is not a part of the more immediate goal, which is simply to introduce a more inviting experience for sustainable uses such as hiking, biking, rock climbing and horseback. Although, there is strong evidence that overuse in specific activities has foreseeable consequences and should be looked at very carefully, my hope is that by sharing the abundance of diversity within the basin through sustainable use will promote good stewardship in the minds of all current and potential user groups. In lieu of the funding issues currently plaguing Forest Service districts nationwide, I am requesting that the USDA, with the aid of the Environmental Defense Fund, allocate the minimum funds necessary (to be determined) to the Conejos Ranger District in order to construct a limited use route through and around the basin. A matching contribution towards this effort will be donating time, planning, field expertise and labor resources at no additional costs to the government.

Thank you in advance for your consideration,

Best regards,

Bryan Andrada


----------

