Four Bike-Friendly Land Protection Bills Pass

[SlowRide]

I got an email from IMBA about this today as I'm sure many of you did also. Seems like it's all good news for bikes and bikepacking. Hopefully this will serve as an example of how wilderness and bikes can co-exist sensibly while preserving the essentials that each needs to survive.

https://www.imba.com/news/four-bills-pass

Here are some links further reading on the acts for those wanting to delve deeper:

Columbine-Hondo Wilderness Act
Hermosa Creek Watershed Protection Act
Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act
Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act

[AZTtripper]

And at the same time Native Americans get screwed https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-apache-land-grab/rnMfH0WL

Another group that's not happy http://www.mountainproject.com/v/oak-flat-s339-moving-again-please-take-a-minute/109778979__1 the area was the site of the Phoenix Bouldering Comp.

It is the only bill before the US Congress that would give a Native American Sacred site on public land to a foreign mining company; http://org.salsalabs.com/o/676/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=16810

Not to rain on the parade, just seems like it's politics as usual, glad to hear there was some good that came out of it as well.

[SlowRide]

And at the same time Native Americans get screwed https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-apache-land-grab/rnMfH0WL

Another group that's not happy http://www.mountainproject.com/v/oak-flat-s339-moving-again-please-take-a-minute/109778979__1 the area was the site of the Phoenix Bouldering Comp.

It is the only bill before the US Congress that would give a Native American Sacred site on public land to a foreign mining company; http://org.salsalabs.com/o/676/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=16810

Not to rain on the parade, just seems like it's politics as usual, glad to hear there was some good that came out of it as well.

I knew there was probably two sides to the story which is part of why I posted, I figured someone would chime in that knew more than I did about the details. Thanks for the additional info AZTtripper.

[AZTtripper]

Yep two sides I had heard there were wilderness bills included as well just not as many details.

[ScottM]

Yeah, the details of some of these have been somewhat scarce.  I know that the Hermosa effort involved MTB input and in the end only closed a couple rarely used trails while keeping access to much more important ones, like the CT, Hermosa and popular offshoots.  I rode one of the to-be-closed trails a couple years ago and am glad I did.

It's good to see "Wilderness" advocates accepting something other than the gold standard cap-W Wilderness as being sufficiently protective.  That's one of the biggest problems in working with the MTB community -- that Wilderness is completely exclusive and the lower forms of protection aren't good enough.  We need Wilderness-B!

The Oak Flat business is a bummer, and has been in the pipes for a while.  I've ridden the area on big bikes and there's tons of brilliant terrain.  Definitely two sides to this.

[joeydurango]

Speaking as a local, I'm somewhat bummed about the Hermosa deal.  They are officially closing routes that, in reality, very few people used anyway.  I suppose it's good to keep the land under protection from resource exploitation, although that almost got thrown under the bus in the eleventh hour by Rep. Tipton...

[ScottM]

Yeah, it's always a bummer to lose trails, regardless.  But at least people are working together.  In Montana the cyclists don't even seem to have a seat at the table -- no negotiation, no compromise for *important* trails like the CDT, etc.

We're making progress with that here in Southern AZ, too.

[joeydurango]

I was talking with the director of the CTF the other day, and it sounds like the CDT is almost a lost cause for cyclists in the middling future.  I wasn't aware of this.  Have you heard anything, having spent so much time on the trail recently?

[ScottM]

I don't think it's hopeless, but there's a lot that needs to change and to be worked on.  I met with the director of the CDTC a couple weeks ago, and I think they are starting to see bikes as a compatible use with the whole silent and primitive travel thing.

I am considering forming a "CDTB" organization to lobby for bike access on the trail.  IMBA is doing a good job of advocating for certain sections, but some others have quietly been built and closed to bikes.

[AZTtripper]

Speaking as a local, I'm somewhat bummed about the Hermosa deal.  They are officially closing routes that, in reality, very few people used anyway.  I suppose it's good to keep the land under protection from resource exploitation, although that almost got thrown under the bus in the eleventh hour by Rep. Tipton...

They claimed they were going to protect Oak Flat too, but it may well end up at the bottom of a giant sink hole! If there's a resource that somebody wants someday, then someday there will be a bill to overturn this one.

I don't think it's hopeless, but there's a lot that needs to change and to be worked on.  I met with the director of the CDTC a couple weeks ago, and I think they are starting to see bikes as a compatible use with the whole silent and primitive travel thing.

I am considering forming a "CDTB" organization to lobby for bike access on the trail.  IMBA is doing a good job of advocating for certain sections, but some others have quietly been built and closed to bikes.

Seems like IMBA is guided by community input, seeing as the whole bikepacking thing is really only just catching on, unless a trail is near a large population of riders who's going to call them in? Certainly not a hiking club that's working on a new trail segment. We're lucky with the AZT, Dale wanted us on most of it to begin with. I can't see myself doing the CDT but I can see it as the future of bikepacking. Seems like we're on the leading edge of bikepacking going mainstream, now might be a good time to start an organization to help ensure that remote trails stay open to bikes.

[dgjessee]

the Wilderness Act itself does not restrict mountain bikes specifically. Knee-jerk regulations in response to the 1980s explosion of off-road riding is all that is truly in between bikers and wilderness. Many detractors say that dedicated "mountain" bikes weren't developed until after the act's passing, and thus, are part of the dangerous "increasing mechanization" of civilization. But we all know people have been riding bikes on mountain trails for over a hundred years. Drives me crazy that bikes are excluded simply because they aren't understood. Just like with any trail in our local parks, determine if the TRAIL is suitable for bikes or not. I also hate that hikers never seem to complain about horses as much as bikers...Equal-opportunity hating people! If the gov't are worried about "increased mechanization" just mandate that bikes in wilderness are rigid singlespeeds, but allow disc brakes so we don't scare the hikers when our rims melt :-)

[mountainjah]

http://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-trails/access-update-the-2015-national-defense-authorization-act-results-in-loss-of-mtb-access/


interesting perspective here.....not sure IMBA "gets it"

Seems like we're on the leading edge of bikepacking going mainstream, now might be a good time to start an organization to help ensure that remote trails stay open to bikes.

+1