Bill Schneider, a weekly columnist for the New West website, just published an excellent, two-part column about the bicycling/wilderness issue. He writes, “As those familiar with the Wilderness debate know, the word “bicycle” is not in the Wilderness Act of 1964, nor does it disallow mountain biking. In fact, the first regulations the FS wrote in the late 1960s didn’t prohibit mountain biking,…”
Formerly the publisher of outdoor guide book company Falcon Press, Schneider is not a mountain biker. He calls himself a “wildernut.” His motivations are very similar to mine: The bicycling/wilderness issue presents a serious obstacle to protecting more natural lands. Bicyclists should be a big part of the conservation movement. ”The conflict over mountain biking hampers our efforts to protect roadless land, and we have too much holding us back already. People who support non-motorized recreation must work together or go down in defeat together.”
Unlike so many others in the Wilderness movement, he does not hold a bias against bicycling, does not see bicycling as inherently inappropriate in wild lands. ”Wilderness and hiking groups such as the American Hiking Society, Sierra Club and Wilderness Society commonly say they aren’t opposed to mountain biking, but they keep on proposing Wilderness that doesn’t allow mountain biking–and they abhor the thought of sharing Wilderness trails with bicycles. Most of that objection is based on personal dislike for sharing trails with mountain bikers, not environmental or legal reasons. Instead, hikers should welcome the opportunity to join with cyclists to strive for protection for roadless lands they can easily and peacefully enjoy, together. ”
In his second article, Schneider argues that we need a new designation type — “Wilderness that allows mountain biking.” He argues that my “National Protection Area” concept may have the right rules, but it’s name is “not a brand,” not a term with a powerful ring that will attract support. We need a better word, he says. He nominates “Backcountry” or “Primitive.”
Sounds good to me! I would be quite happy if Congress created an organic act for “Primitive Areas,” so long as it includes the basics: prohibitions on roads, logging, mining, structures, and motors, and so long as it allows all forms of muscle-powered recreation.
Schneider also overtly calls his idea “Wilderness Lite.” That’s a term Wilderness advocates use to sneer at our calls for diverse designations. I like that he is co-opting them, asserting the term as something good.
To read his commentaries, see:
www.newwest.net/topic/article/hikers_wilderness_groups_should_re_think_mountain_biking/
www.newwest.net/topic/article/branding_wilderness_lite