Midnight Rule-Change Opens National Parks to Mountain Bikes

I'm a cyclist and I'm also a hiker. I think there are plenty of a-holes on both sides. As a hiker the last thing I want is some yahoo who has seen one too many Mt Dew ads to go blasting past me. On the other hand, cycling allows people to go further and see more in the same amount of time. Some hikers hate this but the reality is not everyone has the free time to go and do a multi-day hike.

I think the best solution is to create separate trails for hikers and cyclists. This has worked well in numerous parks outside the National Parks system.

Although I enjoy biking and have done some off-road biking, unfortunately I've seen heavy mountain biking have a severe impact on trails, rutting trails and increasing erosion. Hiking on multi-use trails, particular after wet weather, can be a major mess as everyone - hikers and bikers - create ever wider paths trying to skirt mud holes.

I agree with the above comment that the better solution is setting aside dedicated trails for biking, preferably ones that have been adequately sited to provide adequate drainage and minimize erosion.

As a bicycler, I feel justified in claiming that the real purpose of the bicycle is transit, and to replace the car.

In as much as mountain biking fosters a dependence on the automobile, it should be discouraged. Quite often it is the case that mountain bikers will load up the bikes and the gear in the truck, suv, or what have you, go for a relatively short drive (that could quite often be accomplished by bike), to the "wilderness" for a day of riding. Why not just explore the streets in the neighborhood, or a neighborhood park?

I like to tell people that bicycling is an expensive hobby, but cheap transportation. Mountain biking is an extremely expensive hobby. The bikes often go for 1-2k, plus all the gear, and that's on top of the standard expense of automobile use. While "road" bikes and gear can also be stupidly impractical and expensive, at least it is probable that one can go on a bike ride without starting the car.

In my experience, allowing mountain bikers on trails also has the added benefit of adding a whole new pool of volunteers to do trail maintenance. The problem of widening trails due to mud holes is not a problem of what kind of traffic is on the trail, but rather, how the trail was laid out and constructed. Good trails will drain readily so that this is not a problem. If a particular trail has a problem with this, then it won't matter if only hikers are on the trail... the trail will still widen.

Wow, I didn't realize that Doc Brown had packed us all in the DeLorean and taken us back to 1995. WTF with this crap? All the new regs do is make it easier for Park Admins to open up trails to bikers. Its up to those admins to do it properly.

The days of the hiker vs biker nonsense are so behind us. Biker organizations like NEMBA create and maintain huge numbers of trails, organize huge numbers of volunteers at a moment's notice, and arguably do much more for trails in general than small and disparate hiker groups. Better yet, most of the people I ride with own $3K-$9K bikes and are better educated (Doctors etc...) and have more money to spend on things like trail maintenance donations than the average weekend hiker interloper.

Oh, but to any of you hikers who have issues with bikers, let me ask you this: how many bikers carry large plastic beverage bottles, cans of beer, bags of chips, and packs of cigarettes with them? NONE. Then who's tossing those on the trails? The trash gnomes? Foot traffic is who. Get over yourselves, I'll take some skid marks over trash any day, asshat. I also happen to hike/snow shoe/XC ski/trail run even more frequently than I MTB. And as for trail erosion, horses have been proven to be the worst, especially in wet conditions. Physics, you can't argue with it, you can just accept and adapt, or f-ing die already.

The real problem for you, Lloyd, is you don't want to agree with something George Bush did, so you have to find a way to complain about it. It's pathetic.

LA: and what is pathetic or complaining about saying "TreeHugger is conflicted. We have noted that people are not using National Parks as much as they used to, and we love bikes. But we also love quiet trails and natural, undisturbed settings."

can you tell me where bias is showing there? or where the complaint is? or who is showing bias? I don't understand.

Littering is a problem whether the jerks arrive on a horse, jeep, motorbike, ATV, mule, camel, bike, foot, or Segway. Jerks are jerks whether they're rich, poor, experienced or new.

As for more bikes, the rules will make the difference. Many trails are underutilized, some are overused, and some just won't work for bikes, but it's up to hikers and bikers and administrators to see how things can be done safely for the users and the parks.

Most park administrators don't want trouble, so I doubt this will radically change much.

I do not think that this will have that much affect as mountain biking is a trend whose time has largely passed. The only people still mountain biking now were in their 20's when they first saw saw nirvana live.

Add on to that that I'm not sure how this will be squared away with wilderness regulations, which often times are completely separate from national park rules. If this only concerns national park non wilderness lands, then not much has changed, because most national park back country trails in the bigger national parks, are located in federally designated wilderness areas, where no mechanized transportation is allowed. Now that is a law, passed by congress, not a bureaucratic rule. The president is not "allowed" to change that with out going through the normal legislative channels.

But of course this is bush we are talking about.

Dave,

Lloyd is not showing bias, you obviously just can't read and also have a victim mentality. Grow up. I'll tell you that it irk's the F out of me to be happy about anything that swine has done or is doing now, but I'll take what I can get, and I'll actually say "thank you" for it.

If John Wayne Gacy held the door for me, I'd still say "thank you".

For the folks that say that bikes cause erosion, fine... but you'd better not go and allow horses on the same trails. Anybody that has ever been on a trail after a horse went through it while muddy knows that's not the case.

Not to mention that horses leave 20 pound presents on the trail for the rest of us. If a dog takes a dump off the side of the trail, people who don't pick it up get treated like felons (yes, they should be fined). But meanwhile horse riders let their animals crap in the middle of the trail and it's somehow not the same?

Hopefully Wilderness Areas get opened up to bikes next. It's asinine that if you want to ride the Colorado Trail from start to finish, you're forced to take big detours around the Wilderness Areas. Heck, you're not even allowed to walk your bike through them.

Ditto to the trail volunteer comment. In my experience, cyclists put a heck of a lot more volunteer work into the trails than any other user group.

In short, no user group should have preferential treatment over any other. I'm all for hiker/equestrian only trails, but if you want to do that then cyclists should have cycling only trails as well (or alternate days). Ever cyclist I know is also a hiker, and cycling is just one other way to enjoy the great outdoors.

jon,
Mountain biking will be a strong sport as long as young men enjoy drinking too many beers. It's not going anywhere.

I'm not defending my sport here. I'm a roadie.

It'd be nice to hear what "relaxing" the regulations means. Was it a stupid regulation that just said: "No bikes." Or was it something meaningful like: "You have to prove the bikes won't destroy everything before you allow them."

"LA: and what is pathetic or complaining about saying "TreeHugger is conflicted. We have noted that people are not using National Parks as much as they used to, and we love bikes. But we also love quiet trails and natural, undisturbed settings."
can you tell me where bias is showing there? or where the complaint is? or who is showing bias? I don't understand."

It's not even the bias so much as the wishy-washyness of it. It's like you would lose "green-cred" or something if you, heaven forbid, endorsed an environmental related act by George Bush.

He's a cyclist, you're a cyclist, I'm kinda sorta on the verge of thinking about becoming a cyclist(I love my Fit tho). Why can't we all just be happy and grateful for this? It's not like the Hell's Angels are going to rampage through parks now.

Mountain bikers in Australia just want somewhere to
ride within a reasonable distance from home i.e local
non-sensitive bush or plantation pine forests.
Somewhere with fire trails(vehicular size) and some
single track that is challenging.
We all want access to uninhabited recreational
areas to clear the head, give the body a decent
workout and smell the roses(breath some 'relatively'
fresh air).
Could I suggest that runners and nature enthusiasts
be restricted too, or encouraged too, use the more sensitive nature conservation areas that should include entry barriers, appropriate warning signs and where necessary, boundary fencing.
Horses could be ridden on open fire trails only(public land) or by way of a 'club arrangement' on privately owned land without the constraints of the bureaucracy.
A common sense approach has to be taken to this whole problem and it's not that bloody hard to solve !!
I think many of us here in Australia are hoping that Barack Obama will usher in a new age of intelligent
negotiation with the rest of your worlds' people.

I so crave places to ride, this sounds awesome!! I don't think I buy the separate but equal trails, for walkers and hikers though, that would double the impact, or give everyone half the trails.

As a biker and hiker, I do think it's every rider's responsibility to be kind, and in control, not ride when it's wet, and obviously not bowl people over. You know kind of like turning off your cell phone, and whispering at the library. I'm sure that the animals appreciate it as well.

I know I sound like a kindergarten teacher, but I think a little respect, on both sides could go along way on this one.

Oh, I just love these idiot chumps who claim that MTB is dead or dying. Absolutely gut busting funny. Again, these Simps forgo the power of Google in favor of their Simp-Pea-Brain gut feelings, then let their fingers get them into loads of trouble.

I know the market stats on MTB sales, both nationally and globally. Not hard to find, when you choose to embrace FACTS over gut idiocy.

Happy new year, idiots. How many more idiot statements you gonna make this year, or is your main resolution to never seek corroborating evidence for anything you feel like saying, ever? :-/