Mountain Biking Politics
- Brief History
- Land Management
- Position Statement
- Dear Dianne
- Presidio Plan
- Supervisors of Marin -
- Conclusion
- Puzzle
- Links
- Home -
If only it were as easy as finding a trail and burning some calories. But it wasn't long into the
history of the sport that environmentalist groups throughout the country began to lobby for eliminating bikes
from the trails. In the Bay Area, where the world headquarters of the Sierra Club and
the hills of Marin where mountain biking began are just a bike ride away from one another, this local conflict
has significant implications.
It's an interesting mix of misinformation, sociology, psychology, politics, and occasionally rational land management
which has led to the restriction of many trails.
I've just begun to explore the matter, but here is some of what I've found.
The Mountain Bike Controversy in a couple minutes
The origins of mountain biking go back to 1888, when a little Irish boy put up a fuss about riding
his tricyle. His father, a local veterinarian, feared that this did not bode well for the next stage in
this young lads development, which would be riding a bike.
Wanting his son to be just as cool as the other boys, he set out to make
bikes more comfortable and ended up inventing the pneumatic tire.
This was James Dunlop, and since then the wheel has never been the same.
Meanwhile, in 1892, in the new and lively town of San Francisco, amid a reformist frenzy taking place in America,
the Sierra Club was founded in reaction to the rapid consumption of our rich and beautiful
wilderness by industry and development.
Over the decades their popular support and lobbying power grew nationwide and around the world.
Many other organizations have formed for wilderness preservation, but none with the same scope or leverage.
With ongoing development and industrial use of our national parklands,
the Sierra Club lobbied for the Wilderness Act of 1964 where tracks
of land were protected from any development except for the most minimal of trails.
"Mechanical transport" would be forbidden in these areas.
Dunlop's tire became standard on bikes by the early 1890s, and with the improvement in off-road performance
people have no doubt been riding on trails since.
But it wasn't until the late 70's in Marin County, California,
that a sufficient critical mass of enthusiasts had formed to hold races, publish magazines,
and convince others there was something to this sport.
The early rigid singlespeeds had remained basically unchanged for decades until 1975 when Gary Fisher slapped
a multiple gearing system on one, and the explosion of what we now know as the Mountain Bike has since taken place.
Suspension forks, monopivot full suspension, four bar linkage systems, and hydraulic brakes were soon to follow.
By the early eighties there was a new kind of trail user buzzing about our natural preserves.
Hikers and equestrians probably saw them as noisy gen X-ers speeding down the trails, kicking up dust,
scaring horses, and not treating nature with proper respect.
The National Park Service agreed, and in 1984 arbitrarilily judged mountain bikes to be "mechanical transport"
in terms of access to expanding wilderness areas.
This did not reflect the spirit of the Act which was targeting motor vehicles,
and something like a backpack or skis could be banned using much the same logic.
Without their own lobby, mountain bikers quickly found themselves restricted from many trails.
Bad attitudes about two-wheeled transport run deep, and we may suffering from a kind of cultural baggage.
Motorized dirt bikes once had much more access to trails than the occasional park of today, and
while someone sweating up a long grind would miss the resemblance,
others frown upon anything with tires, brakes and a handlebar.
Motorcycle access to trails became increasingly restricted during the 70's, and
the emerging mountain bike was no doubt caught up in some of the regulatory attitudes of the time.
The International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA), emerged in 1988 from a coalition of five California bike groups
as the national lobby for the preservation of accessable trails.
A serious threat today is the politically favorable wilderness designation on growing tracks of land.
For the typical biker, everything is good about wilderness designation, except that mountain bikes are
prohibited.
This makes no sense to me, but the Sierra Club and National Park Service defend this position.
The IMBA has a tenuous arrangement with the Sierra Club not to push for any changes in the Wilderness
Act--in exchange for rebordering and "cherry stemming" trails passing through wilderness areas.
But the reality is that mainly local, county and state goverments run the majority of parks we are likely to use,
and reopening trails after the backlash of the 80s and 90s will require mostly grassroot efforts.
It is currently the position of this webpage (contrary to an earlier letter I wrote to Diane Feinstein on 6/15/02)
that all wilderness designation should be supported,
and the law clarified allowing mountain bikes to enter wilderness lands.
But regardless of the political turmoil,
one thing all mountain bikers should do now is make ourselves likable to other trail users.
(b. March 6, 2004)
Mountain Bike access in the Bay Area
Many different organizations manage the natural preserves included on this web page.
In my experience, the one most restrictive to mountain biking is the National Park Service, as evidenced
by it's restrictions in Point Reyes and the Marin Headlands which includes banning bikes on many fireroads.
The California Park Service seems to be experimenting with a system of separate parks for separate users.
They are restrictive in some preserves, such as Mount Tam
where we are limited to fireroads, but very generous in others like Annadel,
China Camp, Soquel Demonstration Forest, and Henry Coe.
In these parks (except Henry Coe) bikes are so dense that hikers might understandably feel uncomforatable,
and equestrians have little choice but to avoid these parks altogether.
Municipal and County governments are a mixed bag, generally allowing us on all fireroads and some singletrack.
Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties are about the
same in this respect, but the East Bay Regional District seems particularly restictive and it is very rare you'll find
singletrack where bicycles are permitted.
The Midpeninsula Open Space District on the other hand is quite generous with its singletrack
and overall (except for the helmet law) I feel they should serve as a model for fair distribution of trails.
I've seen their rangers even riding mountain bikes.
Camp Tamarancho is the only privately held land that I know of here that allows the
public to mountain bike for a fee ($5 day use, $40 for the year).
SFMBP: Position Statement On Mountain Biking
The current controversy over mountain bikes, and the ensuing
regulations, is as heated in
Marin County as anywhere else. Most of the arguments against biking that I've heard
can be dismissed with a little logic. So with
no futher adieu, here are some thoughts on the subject.
Myth: Mountain bikers disproportionately damage trails.
1. Wear and tear on mountain biking trails can only be compared to non-biking
trails if the maintenance, precipitation, grade, geology, degree of
use and width are as close as possible to being equal.
2. Trails that allow mountain bikes are usually in good condition, even those which
have permitted bikes for years. Using the
standard above, I don't see much difference between biking and non-biking trails
in similar areas.
3. Grooves in trails have been attributed to tire wear. If this were the case,
as mountain bikes generally travel in straight lines, grooves would be expected
to be straight and parallel to the direction of the trail.
Typically such grooves meander down the trail in a way that is consistent with
water erosion.
4. Sometimes mountain bikers take shortcuts off established trails. I would guess
hikers do it a lot more though. In part this is because the speed of a bike
makes shortcuts unnecessary, and riding over rough terrain is much harder than on
a smooth trail.
Myth: Mountain Bikers are disruptive to wildlife.
1. If only mountain bikes were allowed on trails, and hikers and equestrians
were forbidden, far
fewer roads into the wilderness would be necessary to bring slow moving hikers
and horses in.
While mountain bikers often use existing roads, they don't need them as mountain
bikes can travel quickly and many miles can be covered in a day. If I had my way
there wouldn't be a single road in the Marin Headlands. Roads and cars are far
more disruptive to the wilderness than the worst mountain biker.
2. Over our four years of riding, Kenny and I have had some interesting experiences up close with large animals.
These episodes have been described elsewhere, and one even photographed. We have seen many deer,
coyotes, wild turkeys, wild boar, a few bobcat, and a cougar, while riding in the bay area.
Almost always we pass peaceably by without issue for either party. Once we gave a large boar
a good scare (actually, that was mutual), another time a bobcat made an aggressive gesture up close,
and another time we were actually attacked by a wild turkey.
All parties left unscathed and I don't think emotionally any worse for wear.
3. As for small slow-moving animals, like newts and snakes, the theoretical possibility certainly exists of
being run over by a bicycle. I admit I may have hit a baby opossum once when probably
riding too fast on Mount Davidson (either that or it was just playing 'possum... there was no visible dirt or
damage on the body). But, like hiker-biker collisions that are theoretically possible but very rare and
more imagined than anything, is trail-kill on busy singletrack routes at all common? Seen any dead snakes with
knobbly tiremarks on its back? I haven't, even on busy mountain bike trails, not once.
Realites:
1. The backlash against mountain bikers has nothing to do with the minimal damage
we do to the trails or the wildlife.
This is merely the explicit cause for restricting our presence.
The real reason others don't like us is because we keep passing them, which on popular trails probably
happens often.
Understandably this detracts from the isolation and pristine sense of nature they seek.
So, slow down, a lot, smile, say hi, and be a friend in the wilderness as you pass.
If you meet an equestrian, dismount from your bike and move
to the side on anything narrower than a wide dirt road.
If you are passing them in the same direction, wait for their directions to proceed.
And bring a bell, sounding it as soon as you see another party, and then again up close.
Keep in mind even the creakiest bike, although it may jangle your nerves, is almost completely silent
more than a few feet away.
2. Bikers are probably most annoying to others when they go speeding downhill,
leaving clouds of dust and putting people on edge. I haven't heard of there being
a regular problem with bikers
colliding into pedestrians, although a risk is probably there. The existing
15 mph speed limit in some areas addresses this issue, and many bikers probably agree
with it in heavily used areas. In beautiful and busy areas (i.e. Marin Headlands),
I go slow and enjoy the scenery, whether going up or down.
Going fast I restrict to remote areas with no speed limit, and then only
with good visibility ahead.
3. There are only two ways I can think of for a bike to damage trails through routine legal use.
One is riding in mud, and the other is skidding. The mud part is avoided by doing that road ride you always
wanted to after it rains.
Mud I've found is damaging to components anyway,
affecting performance even after rinsing it off and greatly increasing the rate of wear.
If you love your bike, or the trails, or both, then avoid mud.
Skidding is minimized by understanding the relative importance of the front break when going down hill.
I see skid damage here and there, not on all singletrack, but often in the technical sections of otherwise
moderate trails.
The only place where skid damage stands out in memory as being remarkably bad was at Fort Ord the weekend after
the Sea Otter Classic.
Joaquin Miller probably comes in second.
Otherwise I've found it to be uncommon.
If a trail is closed to bikes nowadays, then I predict it would be from skid damage.
Use your front brake, relative to the rear, accordingly.
4. Mountain bikers, being trail users ourselves, want to see trails pristine
and protected now and into the future. We are friends to all who support wilderness
preservation.
5. Mountain biking is an excellent exercise and a nature friendly sport that leaves
little impact on the environment, is inspiring as well as exhilarating,
and should be tried at least once by all.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Fax: (202) 228-3954
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
June 15, 2002
Dear Senator Feinstein:
I understand you are considering support of Bill S. 2535: The California Wild Heritage Act of 2002.
I thank you for this, as I am a proponent of wilderness preservation and hope to see these and other areas of
land protected from development.
However, I cannot support the effective closing off of many mountain biking trails by this bill,
since wilderness designation prohibits the entry of mountain bikes.
Mountain biking is a safe, low impact sport that allows many to enjoy remote areas of nature while
providing healthy exercise.
Published studies have shown mountain bikes to have about the same impact on trails as hiking,
and less impact than horseback riding.
Please review and consider the changes to the bill (deletion of certain proposed areas, reboundarying of others)
recommended by the International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA).
A bill with these modifications would promote wilderness preservation without further restricting access to mountain bikers.
Thank you.
William R. Mains
San Francisco Resident
Christine Ottaway, Project Co-Manager
The Presidio Trust
P.O. Box 29052
San Francisco, CA 94129-0052
February 12, 2003
Dear Ms. Ottaway,
I am writing as a resident living near the Presidio and mountain bike enthusiast about the Presidio Trails and
Bikeways Master Plan. I attended the public hearing January 28, 2003, mainly to familiarize myself with the
plan and the concerns involved with its development.
First, thank you for the extensive research, studies, and thoughtfulness your committee has put into this proposal,
as well as the consideration you have given to those who ride their bikes in the park.
Either Alternative B or Alternative C reflects a great improvement for the biking community.
While Alternative B appears to be your current preference, I would personally like to see Alternative C adopted.
I don't know under what circumstances you would proceed with that instead of Alternative B,
and I would be interested to hear your answer to that, but I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of
viewpoints expressed in the public hearing came from mountain bikers and those who walk their dogs-both of
whom would be better served by Alternative C with it's skew toward "multi-use" trails (although the dog issue remains,
perhaps, unspecified).
In addition, I think you could adjust the dimensions of multi-use trails from how they are currently described.
Throughout all counties of the Bay Area, fire roads are roughly 6-foot wide dirt trails that accommodate multi-use traffic
well (hikers, bike riders, equestrians, and dogs). They would better create a sense of nature,
which I'm sure most trail users prefer, than paved pathways.
Furthermore, I recommend mountain bikes be allowed on some of the less popular hiking trails,
perhaps for a trial period. I think you'll find that trail use conflicts will be minimal and maintenance
requirements similar (www.imba.com/resources/science/index.html
offers links to articles
comparing wear and tear on trails between bikes and hikers, and examining trail use conflicts).
The Midpeninsula Open Space District allows bikes on many miles of popular single track and I'm unaware
of any serious problems they have with this policy.
Thank you for your time and I hope you'll take these suggestions under consideration.
And my sincere appreciation again for the long hours you and your committee has undoubtedly put into this proposal.
William R. Mains
San Francisco Resident
February 25, 2003
Dear (Supervisors of Marin),
I understand you plan to vote on bicycle trail access to Mount Burdell OSP on February 26, 2003.
While I am not a resident, I do visit Marin County to ride my mountain bike on your trails. While
there I eat at your restaurants, shop at your bike stores, and frequent other businesses as needed.
Marin County draws mountain bikers not only for its obvious natural splendor,
but also its history as the birthplace of the mountain bike.
With more trails open, mountain bikers like myself would visit more often no doubt having some benefit on your economy.
Despite this, I understand that not all of your residents welcome our presence.
Sometimes there is an unfair prejudice against mountain bikes for reasons not fully clear to me
given the health and spiritual benefits that biking offers with minimal impact on the environment.
Careful studies have shown that the effect of bicycles on trails is only marginally worse than hikers,
and horses have significantly more impact than either-- which I think is consistent with common sense.
Also mountain bikers rarely leave fecal waste.
Thus, when I see that horses are allowed on some trails that mountain bikers are not,
particularly a “sensitive wildlife area,” I wonder if some element of that prejudice has influenced
the trail manager’s decision.
(If it is truly “sensitive” then the trail should be closed since any human presence disturbs the wildlife.)
Although I am not one of your constituents, I ask that you allow bicycle access to the Machako, Simmons,
and particularly the Dwarf Oak Trail, first because it is the fair and reasonable thing to do,
and second the recreationalists that Marin County draws are good for local business.
I think you will find that trail use conflicts and maintenance needs will be much less than some of our
opposition has lead you to believe. Thank you for your consideration in what I feel is an important decision.
William R. Mains
San Francisco Resident
Supervisors of Marin = Cynthia Murray, Steve Kinsey, Hal Brown, Annette Rose, Susan Adams, David Hansen, Fran Brigman
Mountain bikers everywhere can sleep well knowing we are on the right side of the fight.
Arguments in favor of restricting trail access to bikes are usually based on
moral beliefs by self-preoccupied individuals of the proper way that nature should be enjoyed.
Since it is hard to defend opinions with logic, our opposition tends to use misinformation, wild exagerations, and
mudslinging imagery to justify their position.
I have little doubt we will prevail in this struggle as more people realize the recreational, health,
and spiritual benefits that mountain biking has to offer.
All we require a thin ribbon of singletrack-- not roads to the scenic attractions, not parking lots,
not picnic tables, not barbecues, or most other amenities that one frequently sees.
Puzzle
Let's have fun! Match the organization in the numbered upper column with their
slogans in the lower list:
1. Midpeninsula Open Space District
2. International Mountain Bike Association
3. National Park Service
4. East Bay Regional Parks
5. Sierra Club
6. San Francisco Mountain Biking Page (aka Gatetrails.com)
a. "Caring for the American Legacy."
b. "Nature programs... open space."
c. "Explore, enjoy, and protect the planet."
d. "Long live long rides."
e. "Dedicated to preserving land as open space in the San Francisco Bay Area."
f. "Ride easy, ride long, party hard, and live well!"
(Answers below)
California State Laws requires helmets be worn by everyone under 18 on both streets and trails.
For adults, the only place I know of that requires helmets and tickets you for not wearing one is
the Midpensinsula Open Space District. San Jose County and Santa Clara County
trails also post signs on their trails saying helmets are required, but I don't know if it's enforced.
California State Parks, the National Park Service, the East Bay Regional District, and Marin County only recommends them.
Other common off-road bike ordinances are speed limits, and just about every place mandates 15 mph and
5 when passing. Some places (namely Henry Coe) prohibit biking on singletrack after it rains,
and the Midpeninsula OSD closes certain trails with no more than a prediction of rain.
Links
The International Mountain Biking Association
keeps track of the latest events regarding mountain biking
access to natural areas around the planet.
These are the guys in our corner.
Some might feel they should take a stronger stance on changing the wilderness law,
but they still deserve everyones support.
We all have benefitted from the Sierra Club, which is a good organization
but misguided in it's attitude toward mountain bikes.
We are not disruptive to nature, have won over many motorcycle enthusiasts,
are in and out of an area with minimal disruption, rarely leave fecal waste, and don't set campfires that burn
down half the state. Hopefully one day it will realize that mountain biking is the solution.
The National Park Service
gives inexplicable preference to equestrians on trails despite
clear evidence,
sometimes it's own reseach, that mountain biking causes marginally more wear and tear on trails than hikers,
and horseback riding causes much more damage than either.
As for how it handles our park system, look what it did to Yosemite. Why not make Half-Dome an indoor parking lot?
It is a public organization which needs to better represent the public.
The Midpeninsula Open Space District
has established a minimally developed laissez-faire system generous to all trail users.
It doesn't charge entrance fees, has plenty of free maps (nice ones) at most trailheads,
and has some of the best maintained trails in the area.
It's nice to see that somebody figured it out.
As best I can tell trail use conflicts are minimal.
The East Bay Regional Parks District
is pretty protective of it's singletrack,
although still probably not as bad as the National Park Service.
Like the NPS it allows horses on singletrack but not bikes.
Back to top.
Back home.
Answers: 1-e, 2-d, 3-a, 4-b, 5-c, 6-f