Senator Lee Reintroduces Bikes in Wilderness Legislation
Senator Mike Lee has re-introduced a bill that could help bikes return to wilderness areas. The Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act would empower local managers of Wilderness areas to decide whether to allow and how to regulate non-motorized travel.
Senator Lee's previous Bill, S.B. 1695, was introduced in May 2019 and was supported by the US Forest Service and the Department of Interior but legislators ran out of time to vote on it before the congressional session ended. This new Bill, referred to as S.B. 1686 is a re-introduction of S.B. 1695 that will hopefully be voted on this time.
The current legislation, written as part of the Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, and other forms of mechanical transport. This means that the current Department of Interior policy considers “mechanical transport” to include non-motorized mountain bikes but also other outdoor equipment such as strollers and game carts. In 1984, as mountain biking emerged and riders started to explore off-road, the term ‘mechanized transport’ was clarified by the Forest Service under increasing pressure from traditional environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society, and mountain bikes were deemed unwelcome.
However, the Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act could change that. This bill would insert language to the Wilderness Act to ensure that the rules restricting “mechanical transport” do not include forms of nonmotorized travel in which the sole propulsive power is one or more persons. However, S.B. 1686 would not be a blanket permit for bicycling in the Wilderness as local land managers could continue to prohibit any bicycle access depending on what is required to preserve the character of the Wilderness.
 | The National Wilderness Preservation System was created so that the American people could enjoy our country’s priceless natural areas. This bill would enrich Americans’ enjoyment of the outdoors by expanding recreational opportunities in wilderness areas.” |
We'll keep you updated with the progress of the bill as it passes through Congress. For more information on the Wilderness debate, click here. For more information on the Bill, click here.
Author Info:
Member since Nov 14, 2018
Must Read This Week
How to Watch the 2024 Mountain Bike World Cup [Update: Staylive Offering Access in New Zealand, South Africa & More]
59498 views
59498 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Just check their stava.....
I’m down voting you for describing regular bikes as acoustic. In that context it applies to music and musical instruments only.
Or maybe you do strum your bike?
local shredders and Joeys alike, they all are on E’s now. Maybe not full time, but most serious, especially racers, have an e to add self shuttle dh to their training.
Just like how road bikers (myself included) run stop signs, red lights, and ride in the car lane, but at the same time yell at road bikers when we are driving.
Stop using your 20 year old brains and health for your view point. Expand our minds to include everyone and every angle.
The new law would allow "BICYCLES," and extend the complete ban on "ALL MOTORIZED VEHICLES."
Ebikes have a motor, that's how the authorities in charge view it. That's all there is to it. So I don't want bicycles to lose access because ebikers decide to be scofflaws.
Hence, my comment at the very top.
It seems we all need to realize that we all are no saints - and stop pretending we are.
The term 'human powered' means the propulsive energy comes from you legs. Not a motor, nor a battery.
No gears are not a motor. They are gears. They change how the input power (from a human source in the case of bicycles) is outputted at the rear wheel.
No...the fact that your bike doesn't have a throttle doesn't change the fact that it has a motor.
You're welcome
I fully understand the benefits of e commuters, and e bikes for other transportation focused rides, I’ve even toyed with the idea of buying a Surly Big Easy.
But for bikes that are primarily designed to run on hand built / maintained trails, no thanks.
Like a motor!
I am an inefficient cheater. (sad face emoji)
Those who ride e-bikes have larger brain and bigger wallet.
I am stuck in past, clinging to old ways.
I will strive to follow the example of the fat-man who rides up hill at blistering pace while leisurely spinning the cranks.
Easier input = greater output. That’s mechanical Assist in a nutshell. You’re welcome.
@pcledrew:
So, I’m comfortable in my use of “assist” we are humans not machines, and IMO it’s fair use of the word. This isn’t a tech review.
Either way, my the main point remains, it’s not human power alone. I could make similar arguments about brakes, shifting cables or any of the other improvements that continue to make mtn bikes better. @Spencermon:
are you not entitled? want to explore YOUR public lands? do you wish to see real nature? then go experience wilderness. pack a bag and clean up your shit, enjoy.
To say that bikers disturb the primitive qualities of Wilderness is a joke because the city kooks are using their bluetooth speaker and calling SAR when they get tired. To say that these Wilderness areas are "untrammeled" is incorrect.
Although it would increase traffic to these areas it would also help spread out users. I live in an area where the lower elevation trails are open to bikes and hikers and nearly all subalpine and alpine trails are in Wilderness. By allowing bikes in Wilderness it would help alleviate congestion on lower elevation multi-use trails.
I think human powered bikes should be allowed in Wilderness.
Horses are an invasive species. They impact the wilderness a lot more than bikes would. If you don’t want clowns in the wilderness don’t have children or go ahead and stop breathing
To be a fly on that wall
There’s a few of us intrepid souls that prefer rough natural trails to machine cut flow trails. We are also those that don’t mind 45 minute hike-a-bikes to get deeper into the mountains.
Another travesty: antz basin in the newly minted white cloud wilderness in Idaho. Top 3 trail experience of all time for me. Wiped out with the stroke of a pen. Now the trail is disappearing as the FS can’t keep up with the maintenance and can’t get enough bodies to man the bow saws (because chainsaws.....are evil) that are required to cut out the burn fall every year.
My point is, let the local land managers decide.
What is also missed by most is the fact that we have lost HUNDREDS of miles of trails to either new Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas. WSA's are total BS imo--just land grabs to block out use. They can sit for decades as such and never actually become official Wilderness.
People focus too much on the idea of bikes in places they don't belong (Wind Rivers, High Sierra, etc) when the reality is bikes won't ever be allowed in such places (of which I think any normal person would agree). This is really legislation about not losing any more mtb trails to the big "W", having more resources for trail maintenance, and the like. Too many knee-jerk reactions. Please get educated about this issue.
The wilderness trails I'm wanting to ride, are backcountry bike packing ones, like in MT where they set up wilderness study area on hundreds of miles of MTB trails.
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55278650
Mostly, for me, this bill is about keeping what we have instead of losing bike trails to new Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas.
With that said, the trails in Wilderness that are remote and essentially unused are largely in disrepair and opening a very select few to bikes might be a good idea.
Let's hope we can find that balance.
Let's kick another hornets' nest and discuss special yearly permits for the Forest Service to use chainsaws and game carts to clear some of these wilderness trails. Totally under the control of the FS. They have to reapply for the permits every year, etc, etc. Discuss!
That being said we had a frank conversation as two West Virginians, and then he asked how else he could help mountain bikers. I told him we needed to purchase 900 acres of land that was selling which included Davis, WV’s famous Moon Rocks, XC races and 15 miles of trails. Since then the WV Land Trust purchased the land for MTB and rec uses forever with help from all kinds of folks, and clutch politicians including Manchin.
POLITICS is madness, sometimes it works. Just gotta be the squeaky wheel sometimes and find who will work for your cause In a RESPONSIBLE way.
www.patagonia.com/stories/why-wilderness-matters-more-than-you/story-90114.html
If one really wants to protect Wilderness, about we close to the horsey crowd who form pack trains to go take out of shape tourists glamping in Wilderness while defecating everywhere. Horses are not even native to the Americas. Furthermore, cyclists rarely go for a week in Wilderness to camp and what not. Most MTBers will go do a 20-25 miler and then go home for a shower. Being in and out in one day is way less disturbing to the wildlife. Finally, setting up a permit to limit number of visitors is really easy to do, though it's probably not necessary in most places.
Anyhow, glad to see that the bill is brought back up again. One day, it'll happen, simply because it makes sense. Wilderness belongs to all human powered users, not just the chosen few that have lobbied their way into a monopoly access.
There are some places bikes don't belong.
And thats just fine.
www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use
Maybe we don't need to have bikes go everywhere.
But I don't see how opening an area up to MORE users is going to help.
I don’t give issues like this any thought so I’m sure my suggestions make no sense, but I’m all for increasing the barrier to entry, but not revoking privileges entirely.
Some areas close for parts of the year to help nature have a chance to regrow etc, that’s fine too.
Nature is meant to be enjoyed. We should focus on how to do that sustainably rather than saying “no nature for you! You don’t deserve it”
Restrict photographs, give citations to Instagram influencers, do things to make it harder to discover the best nature spots and you’ll reduce the crowds immediately. Most people only go because someone told them to nowadays.
Rotating areas is a great idea! I am not sure education will work with most people. They seem to disregard the rules anyway.
But these are good ideas!
I am not sure if nature is "meant" for anything, besides just existing. Instagram influencers and youtubers would have you think we should all travel to these pristine areas. But that is how they get trashed.
Anyhow, banning cyclists to limit usage is conflating issues. If issue is overusage, limit it. Hikers/cyclists have the same impact, though cyclists rarely do multi day trips in wilderness while taking a crap everywhere. So, one can argue that cycling impact Wilderness less. The banning of cyclists is an irrational argument made for 2 reasons: either some puritanical imagery of wilderness as some kind of new age religion, or to limit the usage of public lands to one's preferred mode of enjoyment (i.e. hiking or atop some poor horse).
I guess my fear is that allowing bicycles in these areas opens up Pandora's box and once opened it won't be closed (mining, resource extraction). Maybe I am just cynical!
My point is I don't see how adding another user group to areas that are already seeing damage is going to help anything.
Sounds like he just wants to give his local buddies in the timber industry control over forest land.
If you look at the way a bill can become a law, you will also know that the initial version of a bill is NEVER the same version when it passes. You float a bill to open up Wilderness land and you open up the opportunities to expand access. No bikes but horses is the most stupid thing as horses do more damage and transport in more invasive species than a bike ever will. The difference between the last bill, which really was looking to open up the land to game carts more than anything else, and today's bill is the political climate. The 'drill baby drill' arm of the party has never been stronger. We will have to mine to be 'green' but where will that start?
Some of the worst managed land in my locale is the land owned by the local governments. City and County of Denver and Jefferson County own an outsize portion of public lands in our community and they do a shit job of managing them and they're nearly impossible for our local trail organization to work with. So when I see people talk about "more local government control", I laugh. Meanwhile some of the most receptive land managers are the local USFS ranger offices, but they're part of the conspiratorial gubment 1600 miles east!
We followed the single track from the trail head up until it starts to cross the 4WD roads. Ruts and tracks from motos and side-by-sides, and possibly some Jeeps, were all over that place. Someone had decided to, recently it appears, do donuts in a meadow. When we came back down we followed the 4WD road to the gate. Those off-roaders are a resourceful bunch, because someone had just moved the boulders from around the side of the gate so you could get past on your side-by-side or moto (or maybe even a jeep could sneak through).
My point is, people suck and can't be trusted to respect nature.
No excuses for a*sholes going off trail though. SxS and new OHVers have been causing problems, same story as pretty much any outdoors activity.
"Note: The area is closed to motorized vehicles from December 15 to June 16 to minimize disturbances during the elk calving season."
There are many forces at work trying to shape Western culture. Individualism has been a cornerstone of our culture for quite some time. To call individualism toxic is yet another way to chisel away the foundations of our society. Couple that with the growing Marxist inclinations in American politics and that spells doom for our way of life as we know it.
Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting things and you're saying some individuals are toxic. Then I agree. Some people suck. They always have and always will.
I really really doubt that any manager will open up any trail that could get "busy" with cyclists or where the wildlife will be impacted, or one which has hikers/horses on it much. The local land manager will not want to deal with angry horse owners and hikers. There's thousands of miles of almost unused backcountry trails in wilderness and wilderness study areas, and right now maybe a horse party goes through it once a week. If opened up, there'd now by a handful of cyclists a week.
I see this bill as impacting Bikepackers mostly, and "marathon" xc riders next, but "trail" and "downhill" riders likely to get almost no new trails.
So, this would basically designate Wilderness Areas, which have been approved by Congress, to be managed like Wilderness Study Areas, which would be up to the local BLM or USFS office? If that's the case, then it seems pointless for Congressionally approved Wilderness Area designation.
I'd rather see BLM, USFS develop and improve trails in our existing National Forest that is not already designated as Wilderness, they already can't keep up with the existing strain, feels like opening more easy to access public land to people would just add to that strain on the system.
Then there's a few percent of wilderness that are remote areas with existing trails, where bike access will result in a handful of people doing bike packing trips, and no issues. One of the wilderness study areas in MT, before it was designated, locals would say how they'd do these bike rides back there and see maybe one other person on a two or three day trip.
Things like the Colorado trail where you have to divert around sections where it goes through wilderness, are crazy. The horses and pack mules carrying lots of gear and $hitting on the trail can just walk straight through. Talk to hikers about the mess horses leave when they're tied up next to the trail for the night. And horses aren't even native. Blows my mind.
I would not support a bill that opens up wilderness. This one I do support (although I'm really uneasy about Mike Lee supporting it), as it means local land managers can decide. There'll be some wilderness that has an old mining or forestry gravel road through it, and is remote. Some land manager will see that bike packers cannot damage the old road by a few riding it each week, and it's so remote that it'll never be overcrowded. So let's get that stuff opened.
I understand the bill, as you've explained, the Pike NF Ranger office could still keep that segment closed to cyclists, which based on your description would likely be the case. Anecdotally, there's a popular MTB area, Buffalo Creek, in the Pike NF that abuts the LCW, and it's crazy crowded with all kinds of users, mostly bikes and horses (it's really not a fun area to hike because of the amount of bikes) and COMBA (local mtb trail org, among other groups) already have issues with maintaining those trails due to staffing and the amount of work (it's never ending). I'd love to see more trails and areas to ride and do long through rides, but I'm hesitant that we can do it in a responsible way considering we're already not able to keep up with maintenance on existing areas that are open to cyclists. Best regards.
What changes, is wilderness and wilderness study areas can be opened up if the local land manager thinks it will be good.
I totally agree about BLM and USFS land needs to be looked at too, and State Parks etc. Basically saying that BLM land is good for biking and Wilderness is bad for biking, is just too blanket a policy to be useful. Some BLM land is not suitable for biking, but some Wilderness land is suitable for hiking.
I would like to see the bill passed and then Bikepacking.com start publishing some multi-day routes either in Wilderness or ones that cross a small section of wilderness which was impossible before the bill was passed.
I don't want to see DH or Enduro type trails opened up on the edge of a wilderness area and having dozens of riders hit that same trail over and over.
...now to stop pissing into the wind here on PB and do my job
If anyone in here trusts Mike Lee on public lands issues, I don't know what to tell you. The title of the bill is "A bill to amend the Wilderness Act to allow local Federal officials to determine the manner in which nonmotorized uses may be permitted in wilderness areas, and for other purposes." Curious what those other purposes are.
Wilderness was designated in fairly huge blocks in this state and there are definitely portions that would handle bikes without real issues. Many of these areas aren't prime hiking spots and the wildlife doesn't seem to be overly detered by people. Meanwhile other parts seem pretty sensitive and bikers shouldn't be there. A federally employed ranger familiar with the local trails designating which trails are appropriate and working with local mountain bike organizations for signage and some maintenance seems completely reasonable.
Yes there will be enforcement issues because there's always buttmunches out there, but those guys would probably be poaching trails anyway.
Bravo for Lee doing this.
If the locals in a specific state vote that they would prefer some of their land be allowed for economic development, is that a bad idea? At what point is democracy bad?
Second comment: : "if the locals in a specific state vote they would prefer some of their land be allowed..."
Its not, by law, "their" land.
Sure people could vote to return this land to the state's, but the US Voters as a whole deserve adequate compensation for the asset that has appreciated and they have spent countless dollars in maintaining. If the state of Utah wants to make a bid, I suggest the state votes on a price and terms to present to US Voters for said parcels. No different than any other real estate transaction. The problem here is I don't think Utah has the balance sheet strength to do so.
So what should we do? Should we invade Brazil to stop them? One of the biggest environmental disasters in the last 100 years was when Saddam Hussein lit the oil wells on fire to create a smoke screen for his invasion of Kuwait. It was equal to something like 100 oil spills. How did our "fix" of Iraq go over? Our record of Imperialism, even though we had good intentions, hasn't been great. Many of us here out West see Washington, DC, a city 1,000 miles away, full of corrupt politicians who get to rule over us, as Imperialism, not Federalism.
I get your point of some people's desire to have the land managed by local government/constituents, but Americans, as a whole, deserve adequate return on investment since its our land. The state needs to make an offer... This argument that the state of Utah should just get the land is absurd.
I'm just saying the closer Democracy is to you, the better it will work. Empires don't work (except for those at the top), and that is part of the reason why the Framers were mostly Federalists.
www.fieldandstream.com/keep-public-lands-in-public-hands
It is meant for hunters/anglers, but is relevant to all of us.
Source: www.edf.org/sites/default/files/10333_Measuring_Carbon_Emissions_from_Tropical_Deforestation--An_Overview.pdf
Logic Fail.
Your argument about more local government vs. more federal government is neither here nor there. Like any other parcel, someone can buy it. If the people of Utah want it so badly, the should make an offer that is attractive to the american people. We'll vote on it!
I'm of the opinion the Feds shouldn't own any land at all outside of Washington, DC. Nowhere in the Constitution is authorization given to the Feds to own land.
On my list of things I don't trust, Utah State Government managing public lands, or Mike Lee, are in a neck and neck battle.
Right now, my kids (as I'm not a US citizen) own a 1/335,000,000 of all the federal land. I will always object to any state taking my kids share away from them.
Lee is generally a snake in the grass, pulling shenanigans like removing protections for Bears Ears.
"Lee is an avowed member of the anti-conservation fringe, probably best known for joining other Utah officials in helping convince President Trump to eliminate protections for over 2 million acres of land in Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in 2017."
www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/senator-introduces-bill-preventing-protection-places-bears-ears-national-monument
The funny thing is you can't see what's right in front of you. Like how quickly Utah is growing because it's ran by conservatives. You don't know how good you have it. Come to Oregon, it's a disaster and it's been under the lefts control for nearly 40 years. Buckle up because there's a whole lot more of us abandoning the west coast for red states in the very near future and for me Utah is top of the list. If legalized meth is your thing maybe we can trade places.
Some people don't like "A politician working for his people."?
I don't get it.
Is this an invalid source? Please let me know if it is.
What this is here is well earned caution.
And just starting to think about it, who is going to maintain these trails with all of the new traffic they'd be seeing once they're open to bikes? I like new trails too but this doesn't seem the most well thought out
sar·casm - Noun - the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
(No i dont have an e bike) Just curious
Look at the great trails around the globe , all built maintained and cared for by bikers/ ebikers .
Bike brands finically support trail maintenance, do car companies upgrading roads ?
Many eco responsible people ride and enjoy MTB & EMTB
Fascism is not less government. Open your eyes
Book: American Marxism should be quite informative.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Kind of an annoying answer to your question, but generally slippery slope arguments don't hold water. They are usually used for fear mongering.
Bikes in Wilderness > Motos > Jeeps > Mining and oil > global nuclear meltdown.
Slippery Slope is basically what everyone that is anti-Senator Lee is arguing as well imo. His history in politics isn't an issue with this, it's strictly the wording of the bill.
The bill lets the local *federal* land managers regulate mountain biking in Wilderness. It wouldn't be the Juab County, Utah, recreation department managing federal Wilderness. It would be the local Forest Service or BLM staff that manage any Wilderness that happens to be in Juab County. Local means either the national forest or BLM office for the area or some subunit of them, down to the local forest rangers or BLM line staff.
Just in the last 2 seasons I have witnessed massive trail degradation in my area due to ebikes and garbage people like to just throw on the floor. You have no respect for nature, why the f*ck should I have any respect for you. Stay in the city, a*sholes.
In fact, I see people using e-bikes around here all of the time to do trail maintenance and cleanup and routinely picking up cliff bar and energy chew wrappers left by strava-holes focused on getting their PR's. You wanna paint with a broad brush, two can play that game.
parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=29224&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&filename=WildernessActText%2Epdf&sfid=152506
www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2020/12/15/concerns-rise-as-congress-ponders-new-immigration-processing-measure
"No need for a debate on pinkbike"
correct.