Ban on bikes in wilderness challenged

No mechanical transport in the wilderness — not even a wheelbarrow.

A ban on wheels in the wilderness has long stood as a principle of the Wilderness Act, but one mountain bike advocacy group is gaining attention for its effort to change the hard and fast rule that impacts millions of acres of forest in Northwest Montana.

The Colorado-based Sustainable Trails Coalition is peddling the Human-Powered Wildlands Travel Management Act of 2016. The bill aims to undo the 1984 blanket ban on bicycles in the wilderness and give local land managers more flexibility in deciding whether treaded tires should be allowed on some wilderness trails.

The group has partnered with a lobbying firm to boost its effort in finding a congressional sponsor for the bill. To date, they’ve raised a substantial amount to back the effort — about $100,000.

Among some of their other goals, they hope to keep sections of the Continental Divide Trail open to cyclists, stop the creation of “recommended wilderness” areas where bikes are being limited, and allow the use of some modern equipment, such as wheelbarrows and chainsaws, to maintain trails in wilderness areas.

The original version of the Wilderness Act of 1964 doesn’t specifically prohibit bicycles, as modern mountain biking wasn’t yet invented. That provision was added in 1984.

STC argues that Congress never intended to impose blanket bans on human-powered travel on trails when it first created the act, but that land managers have since misinterpreted the law.

“Congress wanted those laws to enable diverse human-powered recreation on well-maintained federal lands,” the group states. “What we have is arbitrary and selective recreation, not all of it human-powered, on often poorly maintained federal lands. It’s time to change that.”

STC says their bill isn’t an attack on wilderness.

“Just as we oppose most blanket bicycle bans, so do we oppose the idea of imposing bicycle travel where it could only be disruptive,” STC states. “We believe that local and regional land managers should determine what non-motorized uses are suitable for a given local area or region, not one-size-fits-all rules written in Washington decades ago.”

Local mountain bike group Flathead Fat Tires echoes that same basic belief.

“We support STC’s position in that we believe that there is potentially a place for bikes in wilderness,” said Flathead Fat Tires board member Noah Bodman. “Not to say we think all wilderness should be open to bikes or all trails should be open to bikes — but a categorical exclusion doesn’t make sense, either.”

Bodman says that while mountain biking options are plentiful around the Flathead, only a few offer a true backcountry experience.

“If you want to get out into the backcountry and the rugged mountains, a whole lot of that kind of riding is in the wilderness,” he said.

Vast amounts of designated wilderness exist in Northwest Montana. There’s the 1 million acres Bob Marshall and the adjacent Great Bear Wilderness.

There’s also the Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area near Eureka, which has recently served as a point of contention as it transitions to more wilderness-like management. A new travel plan for Ten Lakes released last year cuts historic mountain bike access from nearly 86 miles of trail to less than 17. That plan is currently tied up in litigation.

STC’s legislation would stop the Forest Service from creating recommended wilderness areas, like Ten Lakes, which STC calls “faux versions of wilderness.”

“This practice is starting to close off vast tracts in Montana,” the group states.

Montana Wilderness Association Deputy Director Gabriel Furshong counters that if the public supports creating a recommended wilderness, “It’s important for the Forest Service to manage that area consistent with the Wilderness Act.”

“That’s just common sense,” he said.

Not all bicycle groups are on board with STC’s goals, including the International Mountain Bicycling Association, which is widely regarded as a leading bike advocacy group. IMBA hasn’t voiced opposition to STC’s effort, but hasn’t backed the group, either.

Montana Wilderness Association Federal Lands Policy Director John Gatchell, a mountain biker himself, recently penned an opinion piece against STC’s legislation. In the piece he calls STC aggressive advocates “for a single-interest recreation identity that tends to focus on an individual experience over other outdoor interests and conservation needs.”

“New technology has allowed bicyclists to penetrate deeper into wildlands than ever before and on trails that were designed primarily for traveling by foot and horseback. A hardline segment of the mountain biking community now believe they’re entitled to continue riding or begin riding on these trails, even though they’re located in areas that have already been recommended by the Forest Service as wilderness.”

Swan View Coalition chairman Keith Hammer is another staunch conservationist who outright opposes the idea of bikes in the wilderness.

“The Wilderness Act was written expressly to preserve American public lands as wilderness free of mechanized contraptions, which include mountain bikes,” Hammer told the Pilot. “Americans and wildlife need more places to get away from fast-moving contraptions and mechanized thrill-seekers, not fewer.”

Furshong believes STC’s legislation is unnecessarily dividing recreationists and conservationists. He notes that Montana Wilderness Association and Flathead Fat Tires worked together previously within the Whitefish Range Partnership in planning for the future management of the Whitefish Range.

“That’s the way to get things done — arm in arm,” Furshong said. “Conservationists and cyclists are the same people. If we can avoid legislation that divides us, we’re better in the long run.”

“The key for all cyclists is to advocate for what you love without attacking what someone else loves,” he added. “Sustainable Trails Coalition is seeking to dramatically change the Wilderness Act. Montanan’s love wilderness — our polls show us that.”

Bodman can only describe the divisive issue as a thorny one.

“Mountain bikers are being drawn in different directions,” he said. “I’d like to think the possibility of bikers as advocates of wilderness, as opposed to reluctant opponents.”