An avid mountain biker, I have been following and supporting this effort in its evolving form for a few years now. I hope opponents understand this does not give bikes carte blanche access to wilderness areas. Rather, it removes the blanket ban and gives local land managers and user communities discretion in which if any trails to permit bikes. This is a really big deal out west where massive areas that have been enjoyed by riders for decades are being "lost" to wilderness. It puts people like me in an uncomfortable position, in that I want to protect these places but not lose them to one of the ways I like to enjoy them. Even just recommending areas for wilderness designation bans bikes now, and this impacts millions of acres of trails out west. It forces MTB organizations to oppose wilderness rather than wholeheartedly support it. This proposed legislation would change that. We need more people fighting for protection of remaining wild spaces, not fewer.
As for NH, I really don't see an impact. Many trails are not wilderness, yet you never see bikes on them. Our mountains are just too steep and rugged. I have often pondered what it would be like to ride the abandoned rail networks in the Pemi. The gradients and surfaces have been tamed on these routes. If bikes were allowed on these routes deeper into the Pemi Wilderness, would this open the floodgates to more people in this wild space? I really doubt it. The crowds that come up from urban coastal areas are not going to bring bikes to ride 5 miles in to start their hikes. Besides, it won't "count" for lists
. I see only a handful of locals taking advantage. Personally, I have no strong desire to see bikes in the Pemi, as it will no doubt create a **** storm and for little return to the MTB community. It's not like you open up a vast new riding area of singletrack trails, like the open spaces out west that are being lost to riders. A valley traverse through the Pemi on old rail routes would maybe the only viable thing that makes sense.
