In July, Utah Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch introduced into Congress the “Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act,” which would give federal land managers two years to determine whether bikes should be allowed on wilderness trails.
“If a local official fails to make such a determination about a permitted route more than two years after this bill’s enactment,” a summary of the bill reads, “then any form of recreational use by non-motorized transportation methods shall be allowed on that route.”
Those against the legislation say the bill is a smoke screen for opening up wilderness areas to other uses (i.e. ATVs, energy development) and would deprive the public from the unique experience of walking through nature unencumbered by human-made forms of transportation.
Advocates, on the other hand, argue the ban on bikes was an unintentional consequence of the 1964 Wilderness Act, which, when conceived, did not foresee the popular sport.
The bill has incited debate on a range of heated issues, from land use to the philosophy of wilderness areas.
The Wilderness Act“Congress had the wisdom and foresight to pass the Wilderness Act to preserve the lands ‘where the Earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,’” said Jimbo Buickerood, public lands manager for the San Juan Citizens Alliance. “It’s as brilliant a concept today as it was five decades ago when the act passed – let it be.”
The Wilderness Act, heralded by many as the nation’s greatest conservation achievement, is also considered one of the highest forms of land protection, with no roads, vehicles or permanent structures allowed in the designated areas. The only allowed forms of travel are walking or horseback riding, and any trail maintenance must be non-motorized, with equipment hauled in, typically, by pack animals.
Signed into law in 1964, the legislation, in many ways, was a response to booming urbanization around the country, and a fast growing population that had a penchant for motorized tourism through America’s most valued wild lands, said Alan Rowsome, senior director of government relations for the Wilderness Society.
“The whole idea (of the Wilderness Act) is to provide a small amount of places where that sort of development wasn’t going to reach,” Rowsome said. “It provides a primitive, quiet outdoor experience many people desire.”
Now, there are more than 750 designated wilderness areas that total in excess of 109.5 million acres, which account for about 5 percent of all the land in the United States, and a little more than 10 percent of the entire public land system.
In the 1,879,699-acre San Juan National Forest, there are four wilderness areas: Hermosa Creek, Lizard Head, South San Juan and Weminuche, which account for 452,722 acres. Forest Service spokeswoman Ann Bond said that means that 76 percent of the San Juan National Forest is open to mountain bike use.
“There’s no shortage of places to ride,” said Ed Zink, a co-founder of the Iron Horse Bicycle Classic, who noted the number of trails bicyclists have access to on city and public land.
In the past, bikes were allowedFor years, a coalition of bicyclists has hoped to ride the trails in wilderness areas, and the debate’s core lies in language used in the Wilderness Act that prohibits “mechanical transport.”
Jim Hasenauer, a former president of International Mountain Bicycling Association, said the sport started to take off in the 1970s, and mountain bikers across the country could be found cruising in wilderness areas.
The U.S. Forest Service banned the use of bikes in 1977, then reversed its decision in 1981, having a “change of heart,” Hasenauer said. But finally, in 1984, the Forest Service, determining mountain biking did not align with the spirit of the Wilderness Act, placed a ban on bikes that has existed to this day.
“All of a sudden, trails we were riding legally were closed to bikes,” said Hasenauer, a supporter of the proposed bill. “Wilderness recreation is supposed to be rugged, under a person’s own power. Really all the things the mountain biking community values.”
A door to other uses?Opponents of the bill fear that passing the legislation would start the process of chipping away at one of the nation’s strongest preservation acts at a time when publicly owned federal land is under intense scrutiny.
“Year after year, there are efforts made to try and pry open that door of the Wilderness Act,” Rowsome said. “If you were to open that door for mountain bikes, you’re not going to be able to close it to other types of development and recreation.”
Rowsome also takes issue with the two Utah senators who sponsored the bill, who are not exactly lauded for their environmental track record, having been ranked at the bottom of the League of Conservation Voters’ annual scorecard.
“Both have really terrible environmental records,” Hasenauer said. “Everyone knows far right people are trying to do away with federal lands, and those are totally justifiable concerns people have. But none of that has to do with this bill.”
Sen. Lee responded by saying the bill was pushed by mountain bikers, namely the Sustainable Trails Coalition, which had trails “suddenly taken away from them thanks to Wilderness Act designations.”
“Read the bill,” he said. “This bill would only strengthen the possibility for more future Wilderness Act designations by enlarging the coalition of Americans who could enjoy the land. This bill is about access.”
Last week, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill.
“The reality is that Congress never intended to keep human-powered vehicles out of wilderness areas, and this bill reasserts that intent by reversing the Forest Service’s ridiculous ban on bikes, strollers and trail maintenance tools,” he said. “It’s a stretch to argue a stroller is a Trojan horse.”
Routes to compromiseMary Monroe, executive director of Trails 2000, said she doesn’t interpret the bill as an across-the-board green light for mountain bikers to hit the trails in all parts of wilderness areas. Instead, she said it would provide local land managers a chance to allow bikes in areas that make sense.
“They’re just giving authority to on-the-ground managers to see if there are places little compromises might work,” she said.
Ned Overend, a renowned local cyclist, said the bill pits conservationists and the cycling community, typically allies in land-use battles, against one another, and that perhaps efforts would be better directed at issues of future land management.
“I think we should choose our battles,” Overend said, echoing IMBA’s stance that cyclists should instead fight for access to trails on lands proposed for management now, rather than retrospectively dissecting the Wilderness Act.
Zink, also part of Durango’s canon of respected cyclists, pushed for a wilderness designation for Hermosa Creek in the early 2010s, so he said he understands the conflict.
In that situation, invested groups were able to create a special land-use management area, which worked as a compromise for bikers. While he’d like to see mountain bikes allowed in some areas of the wilderness, Zink said compromises such as the Hermosa Creek designation, would be a better template moving forward.
“I think the ban of mountain bikes are an unanticipated consequence of how the bill was written, but I think it’s unlikely that there’d be a good outcome from revisiting the wilderness legislation,” Zink said.
“But it’s really a philosophical issue surrounding the idea of wilderness. People feel strongly about them. But I don’t think it’d serve any good purpose to reopen Pandora’s box.”
jromeo@durangoherald.com