US National Parks - now open to mountain bikes?

[Gris]

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/27183753/wid/18298287/?GT1=45002

 

[Fisher Cat]

I heard this too on the radio today, can't be confirmed except that I heard it, but they said it's contingent on new trail systems being made for bikers. Stay tuned I guess.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

It's not unusual at the end of an administration to see controversial policies put in place. They're often overturned immediately by the new administration. I'd wait until March or so and then see what the situation is.

 

[chomp]

This has been talked about for a couple of years now and I'm glad to hear its moving forward. Its not like this automatically opens up all trails in the NP system to mtn bikers... It will simply allow the local administrators what trails are suitable for bikes and what ones are not - without having to go to Washington.

 

[MattC]

Couldn't allowing the rule change in the case of mtn bikes also set precendent for the same rule change in the case of ATVs? I.E. someone challenges this rule change in federal court; if it stands, now there is precedent to allow managers to also open up trails to ATVs. Not saying that it would be an open and shut case, but I think it would help the ATV advocates. Just thinking long term here.

Matt

 

[Jay H]

I've ridden in National Parks before with my MTB...on the roads I presume you mean off-roading.. There is a lot of opposition to national parks because of what they restrict in terms of usage, as a some-times MTBr, there are many NPs that look great to be able to ride, but then a lot of NPs are so crowded, they would have to be really careful with access and certain trails. Frankly, so long as a lot of the places that are currently rideable (i.e. not national parks) don't start becoming national parks, it seems that there are good places to ride outside the NPs, maybe it's not entirely necessary. If this leads to more discussion and a rethinking of the trails networks in all places, then I'm really for it.

Jay

 

[bikehikeskifish]

There are usually three tiers of access around here. No wheeled vehicles (foot traffic only), No motorized vehicles (bicycles only), and motorized vehicles (although I've seen a fourth class which allows only snow machines in the winter.)

I don't think necessarily it follows that the 3rd or 4th tier is more open because the 2nd one opens up. Even if it does, however, ATV riders are taxpaying citizens of this country and stakeholders in all national parks, and therefore should not be denied consideration a priori.

Tim

 

[daxs]

I think its great. It puts decisions at a local level where it belongs and gives people other options for enjoying the out of doors. Not everyone hikes; I've always beleived that there should be opportunities for different types of recreation in the outdoors. I've read about mountain bikes tearing up trails. The mountain bike trails by my house are in great shape and well maintained by the riders. They are in much better shape than alot of the trails I hike on in the ADK's. Some of the trails I ride on are multi use trails and you do need to pay attention to other be it hikers or horses.

 

[Gris]

This has been talked about for a couple of years now and I'm glad to hear its moving forward. Its not like this automatically opens up all trails in the NP system to mtn bikers... It will simply allow the local administrators what trails are suitable for bikes and what ones are not - without having to go to Washington.

IF this is the case then I whole-heartedly agree. There may be some parks where mountain biking is more popular than hiking (and less damaging) and vice versa. I do NOT and have never agreed with the so-called 'slippery slope' argument - bikes lead to ATVs in this case. Just because you like one beer every night doesn't mean you will eventually consume a gallon of vodka every day. Just because you put a background check on handguns doesn't mean the feds will eventually take away my shotguns., etc., etc. ...

 

[trailbiscuit]

It works in Acadia.

That being said, two things...
1. I agree with only opening "suitable" trails.
2. After a running on the carriage roads in Acadia a couple weeks ago, it is a bit unsettling to see white-knuckled mountain bikers heading at you—these were the masses who had rented bikes in Bar Harbor and weren't all that comfortable. Give them a wide berth! I wish I had had a camera to take pictures of their faces. Through gritted teeth: "Sure...I'm...having...fun..." I don't have any experience with mountain bikers overtaking runners...no one passed us.

 

[snowshoe]

I think it is a good idea to allow each NP have its own say on Mt bikes. Im sure NPS lands that are more sesitive to use will be excluded and they will allow Mt bikes on trails that can handle the extra use. The only concern with that is when new park management takes over will they reverse that decision? As far as letting Mt bikes in NPS lands will it lead to ATV's eventually? I really doubt it. Mt bikes and ATV's are two totaly different animals. ATV's are not only noisy but they do a lot more damge then a Mt bike and they are not good for the environment with their engines.

 

[DrewKnight]

As an avid mountain biker, I would agree with putting more discretion in the hands of local management -- but I would also agree with all the cautions others here have noted about careful selection of suitable trails.

There's also a need for education on both sides of the wheeled divide about how to most successfully share the trail... I see a lot of neophyte mountain bikers on the Livermore Road (or up higher in the trail system) who probably are in a bit over their heads (a rental bike, a quick chairlift ride, leading to lots of gravity and some too-technical trails)... and I see a lot of hiking parties walking four abreast (usually with an unleashed dog or two), oblivious to the fact that the former could come ripping around a corner at 25mph. What amazes me is I haven't seen any high-speed mergers of the two, yet.

I feel really lucky to have such an extensive trail network right out my back door... but if I lived out west, I am sure it would chafe my saddle-sores to look at some of the prime trails and know they were closed to (thoughtful) biking use.

 

[brianW]

I am all for this. Placing control of the National Parks to the folks that know the place makes complete sense to me. As this turning the parks to an atv play ground I highly doubt it.

If you look at the Smokies there are trails designated for hikers and equastrians to share already. I am pretty sure a horse would do more damage to a trail than a mt. bike.

The possibility of trails built for mt. bikes in these parks brings a big smile to my face. I live 6 miles from a mt bike trail system, Forks Area Trail System, SC, and it is just an awesome place to ride. It also atracts many hikers and last weekend had its first trail running race.

However I also will say that not all hiking trails should be open to mt. bikes.

 

[Grumpy]

... If you look at the Smokies there are trails designated for hikers and equastrians to share already. I am pretty sure a horse would do more damage to a trail than a mt. bike. ...

However I also will say that not all hiking trails should be open to mt. bikes.

I agree with your closing comment. But I don't view this as a trail damage issue, since the jury remains out as to whether bikes or inflict the greater wear and tear. To me, it is a matter of compatibility. As a rule, I do not relish sharing narrow trails with vehicles that travel at several times my walking speed.

Here's hoping the local control rule doesn't result in subtantial displacement of hikers from foot trails. Foot travel does remain the most natural and universally accessible way to enjoy most of our park and forest lands.

G.