These and similar questions will be frequently asked in the upcoming years. Below are a compilation of articles that speak to these issues.
"Mountain Bikers Beware" By Rep. Jim Hansen
("Practically every mountain biker knows that coming off a trail has become a place where political activists peddle wilderness petitions left and right. Ironically, many mountain bikers sign these, and unwittingly sign on to the downfall of their recreation. Maybe they just don't understand that by signing onto this movement, they will eventually restrict future experiences like the ones they just enjoyed.")
An Issue Of Wilderness
("While designating some additional lands as Wilderness is worthy and warranted, I cannot categorically support the management of more public lands for the predominate recreational benefit of trail pedestrians.")
Cyclists vow fight for right to ride
("Strauser said the proposed wilderness designation near Downieville could trigger opposition from mountain biking's biggest lobbying organization, the 15,000-member International Mountain Bicycling Association, in Boulder, Colo.")
Wilderness is not good for Recreation
("The U.S. Congress should consider legislation establishing a federal designation that is less restrictive to recreational use than Wilderness. We propose it should be called "Back Country Recreation Area." This designation should be designed to protect and if possible enhance the back country recreation opportunities on these lands while still allowing responsible utilization of these areas by the natural resource industries.")
No More Wilderness
("By protecting the existing high quality of these roadless areas, motorized and mountain bike trail users can continue to have some wilderness-like lands set aside without the threat of future loss due to a new "Wilderness" designation.")
Alternatives to Wilderness (BlueRibbon Coalition)
("New Wilderness proposals should be evaluated with concern for the recreation uses that will be foregone. If preservation advocates wish to protect more places, they can often gain more support by allowing more diverse recreation on the land, with management somewhat different than Wilderness.")
Alternatives to Wilderness (IMBA)
("The public land protection method traditionally employed in the United States, Wilderness designation, effectively preserves land, but it prohibits bicycling. This is causing bicyclists to question further Wilderness designations, resulting in a decrease in support for an important political cause which needs all the friends it can get.")
Clearing a Path
("The Sierra Club is investigating, (The Warrior's Society) Vargas said, whether to call for designating portions of the Cleveland National Forest as a protected wilderness area, "which would mean no vehicles, no dogs, no mountain bikers.")
[Note: The designation of an area as Wilderness does not exclude dogs.]
Mountain bikers fear forest-use plan
("Interestingly, mountain bikers, who have always considered themselves environmentalists, now find themselves arguing against some environmental concerns under Alternative D.")
California Off-Road Bicycle Race Association
(This link has been provided for no reason other that to highlight an interesting relationship between this particular mt. bike club and the Blue Ribbon Coalition.)
The national organization that has most effectively positioned itself to represent the interests of those who enjoy mountain bicycling is "International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA)." Whether they represent your interests is a question only you can answer. The following important questions are ones IMBA is, itself, currently trying to resolve.
From IMBA Trail News Vol 12, No 5, December 1999 International Mountain Bicycling Association Action options As of this writing, MBA and mountain bikers seem to have at least four options on President Clinton's Initiative: 1. We can support it as a member of a coalition that comprises environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society, saying that it is an important measure to protect Americas forests. By being at the table as a supporter, we could enhance our status when it comes time to discuss trail management policies on these lands. 2. We can support it independently (without joining a coalition), and work to ensure that the measure goes no further than restricting logging and road construction, leaving trail management decisions as local, community-based processes. This could be the best way to make sure mountain biking remains an option in as many of these newly protected areas as possible. 3. We can oppose it independently, saying that the measure will result in too many lost riding opportunities because many (if not most) of these permanently protected roadless areas are likely to become managed as Wilderness without undergoing the essential public and Congressional review processes. 4. We can oppose it as a member of a coalition that comprises motorized trail user groups such as WARC, saying that it usurps the power of Congress and the public to play central roles in shaping pubic land management decisions. Regardless of which path we choose, IMBA can continue to promote the idea of a strong legal alternative to Wilderness designation. President Clinton's Roadless Initiative is just one indication of a trend toward more active, more restrictive Forest Service management of public land. It follows the proposal in Colorado's White River National Forest that would close many bicycling trails. At the very least, all of these new developments suggest that IMBA -our staff, board, state reps and affiliated clubs- will need to be extra vigilant, connected, and strategically minded about Forest Service issues in the coming year
Scott Silver, Executive Director,
Wild Wilderness
248 NW Wilmington Avenue, Bend OR 97701
Phone (541) 385-5261 E-mail: ssilver@wildwilderness.org