The United States Bureau of Land Management (or “BLM”) is currently considering the sale of two oil and gas leases in the Dry Creek area, in and around Virgin, Utah, that include the original Red Bull Rampage event site. We first ran the story
here.
This opens up all sorts of thorny questions. On one hand, we all use energy. You are reading this right now courtesy of electricity...the source of which came from
somewhere and had some impact on the environment. We drive cars. We heat our homes. We, in other words, demand energy.
Would it be hypocritical to oppose energy extraction on this particular parcel simply because doing so might obliterate a place that's part of mountain bike history and near and dear to many riders? On the other hand, should we simply continue green lighting new energy leases when there are so many already in existence that are not being utilized to their fullest? And beyond that, we've seen the kind of air pollution and ground water contamination that's resulted from other leases. Should we risk that in a place that's on the doorstep to a National Park? Should we be concerned about the health of the residents of Virgin, Utah or should we simply consider that those leases might bring more jobs to the area?
Thorny questions indeed.
Several organizations have stepped into the fray to advocate against the potential leases...including one group that's arguing that this chunk of dirt played an important role in mountain bike history and is still home to trails that draw riders to test themselves. That group is the Sierra Club. Yes,
that Sierra Club--the one that stopped receiving invitations for Christmas dinner from many mountain bikers way back in 1984 when the group played a role in banning mountain biking in Wilderness areas. Why is the Sierra Club getting involved? Do they really have mountain bikers' interests at heart here? What's their take on this whole issue? I spoke to Ryan Dunfee, the Sierra Club's Addup Community Manager, who also happens to be a mountain biker and the former Managing Editor at Teton Gravity Research.
There’s some confusion right now about the nature of what’s potentially happening with the Rampage site. Some people are under the impression that it’s part of the movement in Congress to sell of public lands for extraction, but that’s not the case here, is it? This is a typical case of the BLM leasing some property to oil and gas companies. Explain, for our readers, how that works…..This is a typical lease sale for oil and gas exploration... except for the fact that it is literally next door to the major entrance to a National Park. The leases also include lands proposed for Wilderness designation. An oil and gas developer proposed the parcels for lease. In fact, someone has nominated the parcels for a few years. They are probably looking for oil since there is not a natural gas pipeline close by. If they find only gas, they would need to build a pipeline to connect to a transport pipeline.
Are the leases specifically for oil and gas? Do they specify particular extraction processes?The leases are specifically for oil and gas. The lease does not include permission for any specific form of oil and gas development, but does imply that permission will be granted for development. Once a lease is issued, it is difficult not to issue a drilling permit. Mostly they can put stipulations on the development, such as permitting drilling only at specific times of the year.
Let’s get right to the point: Why does this potential leasing of parcels around Virgin matter?The lease is near the entrance to Zion National Park, and some of the proposed area for leasing includes the existing Flying Monkey DH trail as well as the original Red Bull Rampage venue, which played host to feats that blew the doors off what we thought was possible to do on two wheels, and raised the profile of the sport as a whole to a level not seen in years.
We’re not a sport that puts a lot of a value on our history, but way more than a museum, a place like this actually lets you be a part of that incredible history. Riders from all over make the trip down to Virgin to ride the old venue themselves and see if they can hack it, and I think that’s an incredible thing to be able to do, and part of what makes public lands in this country so rad.
Also, a portion of the parcels being considered for lease includes lands that are considered to be in a natural condition and to possess wilderness characteristics. There is no pipeline for moving any oil or gas from the lease site, so it will have to be trucked to a processing location. This will increase heavy truck traffic on the highway into Zion National Park, which is not exactly going to help your journey there convince you that you are entering an area of sacred, protected public lands... which all belong to you as Americans, by the way.
If the BLM goes ahead with selling those leases, what is the likelihood that trails like Flying Monkey will be destroyed and/or access to riding closed off?The answer depends on how much development happens in the area and whether or not there are additional leases in the future. The leases are good for 20 years, but the clock can be stopped for a large number of reasons. There are leases in place that are much older than 20 years. If oil is found the lease is good until the oil is depleted or no longer pumped.
It is possible that mountain bike trails could be re-routed to accommodate the roads that large drilling rigs and tanker trucks will need to access well pads. The roads to I-15 or south to Kanab will see a tremendous increase in tanker trucks depending on the direction the oil is trucked, which beyond their aesthetic impact for visiting tourists, will undoubtedly be a much bigger pain for the locals that actually live there.
And, if you’ve ever ridden Mag 7 in Moab, you were probably surprised and maybe a bit unsettled to start your journey into the epic desert backcountry start alongside a bunch of oil and gas platforms, so there’s that to consider too.
One of the comments that frequently appears in our forums is that we humans all use these natural resources—to heat our homes, fuel our cars, etc.—and that protesting the extraction of oil and gas on these parcels is just hypocritical. Our energy, in short, has to come from somewhere… How do you respond to that line of reasoning?To give some perspective, there are literally, today,
almost a million acres of public land in Utah that are already under lease for oil and gas development and which aren’t even being drilled. As well, oil and gas exploration in the state is at a
30-year low. So my response would be: yes, oil and gas are still a sizable part of our economy and day-to-day lives, but in this specific case, when there’s so much land that’s already available for drilling, and yet so little of it is getting drilled, why do we need to add these specific parcels -- which are steps away from Utah’s most popular National Park and an incredible venue for downhill riding -- to that pile?
I empathize with the impulse to consider a campaign like this selective hypocrisy, but none of us live lives of black and white. Does getting a plastic bag at the grocery store, or buying a new carbon trail bike, mean you can’t be outwardly concerned about climate change or natural resource exploitation? Of course not.
I think the question in this case is a bit simpler: yes, currently, oil and gas has to come from somewhere -- but does it need to come from the original Rampage venue right on the edge of Zion National Park? If you don’t think so, then
tell the BLM. I believe you could be a full-time roughneck and get behind this campaign if you don’t believe this particular area is appropriate for drilling.
A number of our readers have also stated that they were confident that, since these are federal lands we’re talking about, drilling or fracking would surely be done in a way that doesn’t lead to any negative outcome—i.e., excessive air pollution or groundwater contamination. Your thoughts?It is hard to know for sure what problems could come from development. There has been a legal challenge to stricter controls on fracking -- and certainly the Trump administration hopes and plans to loosen the rules for all kinds of fossil fuel development -- and that means there is some uncertainty about the ability of the federal government to control fracking. Not to mention the impact of increased heavy truck traffic in the area, the potential for water pollution in a very dry area dependent on a select few sources of clean water, and the degradation in the quality of life for local residents and of the experience of visitors, who’d be forced to view gas flares and pump jacks while biking in the area or hiking around Zion.
And, on the macro scale, it’s 2017: we can’t just be talking about the impact of oil and gas exploitation as only a local issue. 2016 broke temperature records (again), and it’s pretty obvious that climate change does not get better by pulling more oil and gas out of the ground.
The Sierra Club has a rocky relationship with mountain bikers. I know that plenty of Sierra Club staffers ride bikes and that a significant number of riders are still members of the Club. That said, the Sierra Club has engendered a good deal of ill will with riders because of their opposition to mountain biking in federally-designated Wilderness areas within the United States. Given the bad blood, why should riders believe the Sierra Club has the interests of mountain bikers in mind on this issue?I’m glad you brought this up. After years of working in the action sports world and then getting a job with the Sierra Club, all my bike friends were messaging me on Facebook, saying, “The Sierra Club?!? Better get them to quit hating on bikes!”
The Sierra Club is one of a few organizations that advocated for the Wilderness Act. The Wilderness Act possesses a special meaning to the Sierra Club, and I think when bikes were kicked out in the ‘80s, it was a different time, both in terms of what the Sierra Club stood for, who it represented, and how strong mountain bikers were as a contingent of the population, especially an organized, political one; I’m not sure IMBA had even been founded yet. However, right now, it is far easier for us to attempt to satisfy diverse users of the land in developing new wilderness legislation than to change the meaning of Wilderness.
While I am personally bummed at some of the epic riding that has been eliminated because of wilderness designation, particularly the Boulder-White Clouds area in Idaho, wilderness-designated areas are a relatively small slice of the public lands pie and often far away from where people actually live. I think the better challenge for the Sierra Club and other conservation organizations is to help preserve more land for mountain biking overall. I think, with 600 full-time staff and chapters in every state, there’s a lot of variation of how mountain biking is approached within the Sierra Club, and I have no doubt comments will follow this piece from folks who’ve had frustrating interactions with the Club before.
However, I’m encouraged by how the organization is progressing as a whole with regards to biking. I was in an all-staff meeting the other day and, to show off how cool some of the recent conservation wins have been, one of the staff played a POV clip from him absolutely mobbing down some trails near Lake Tahoe that had recently been protected for recreation use on his Bronson. That’s really encouraging to me, and the support I received to get this specific campaign in Virgin up and running was unilateral.
So yeah, me being the new guy in the office with my Following and knee pads does not wash away the bad blood, but I think this campaign is a very small step towards working towards progress people who dork around on expensive non-motorized toys can be psyched on.
The BLM says they are “considering” leasing these parcels, but the general vibe on their site suggests that the agency is fairly committed to going ahead and selling these gas and oil leases. Am I mistaken in my reading of the BLM’s intent? Are they truly on the fence or are these leases a foregone conclusion?The BLM language is typical of all proposed leases. Part of the mission of the BLM is developing natural resources, and they are supposed to base their decision on multiple considerations such as other competing values such as recreation, wildlife, water, etc. This has often been characterized the most benefit for the most people. This is a difficult guide to use, since there are many benefits that are difficult to quantify. It’s also worth noting that not all resources have to be developed everywhere.
They do have regulations concerning visual resources, water resources, and air quality, but these are pretty loose in what can be considered reasonable impacts to resources. Generally, when they look at development of an oil field, they measure the impacts only to the actual oil drilling and pumping pad, roads, pipelines, etc. They look at these as though the impact is confined to the immediate footprint of the pad, road, etc. This is not a good or valid way of looking at impacts, as we already discussed the impact of added heavy truck traffic to the local quality of life, the impact of oil and gas infrastructure on the experience at Zion, and, again, climate change.
So, there is still some time (until February 10th) for readers to log in their input with the BLM—either yea or nay—on the sale. How do you recommend that readers put their best foot forward in making their opinions clear to the BLM?First, I’d ask riders to
add their names to our petition, which focuses on the impact of this proposed oil and gas lease on the broader mountain biking community. We’ll be submitting that for the February 10th public comment period deadline, so jump on it! Once you’ve had a chance to do that, the next most important thing you could do is share that with your friends.
If you’ve been to the area personally, the next thing you can do is
fill out your own public comment (click “Comment on Document”) and describe your relationship with the area. If you’ve visited Zion National Park, ridden Gooseberry Mesa, Virgin, Hurricane, Flying Monkey, or the old Rampage venue, tell the BLM what that experience was like and what it meant to you. Remember that this is YOUR land -- the BLM is responsible to you when it makes decisions. Public opposition does help in stopping leases. If nothing else, public opposition provides political cover for making a decision against leasing.
Is there anything else that readers can do to make their voices known on this issue?It is always good to write your members of Congress -- your
representative or
senators - or call their offices to express your concerns about issues like these. If they weigh in with the BLM, that makes a huge difference.
I love political douchery... just love it... please repeat that: saving wilderness for the future generations, it grabs folks by their guts. Eh! eh! eh! Wait wait, before you roll out your self righteous bullsht... You may need such PR spectacle when opposition posts a story Mountain Bikers possibly killed 1200 jobs.
This may be a small portion of land that was once a dump but then cleared out by freeride legends turning it into a world-renowned area of recreation but its more than that. Turning an area that's only a couple hundred yards away from a river that acts as a massive water source for the area ( aside from being near a National Park) into an oil field is senseless and cannot be measured in terms of the risk.
But hey there's good news. The locals don't want it, the impact studies have yet to be done and will show this risk so it will never pass.
For years people would show up at the live auction, make bogus bids, and in some cases serve time for doing so just to throw a wrench in the gears of the developing of BLM land.
I've camped on that land many times (right across Kolob Res Road from the old site next to the river), cool spot, I don't think the lease is the worst thing but more of a strange decision just because how close it is to Zion, there is so much empty BLM land in Utah that people don't care about, seems extremely bold to pick this exact spot and draw this much attention from so many groups.
eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=105719
This is about greedy motherf*ckers wanting to make more money, simple and plain. They are not trying to save the United States from an energy blackout or some shit.
Jobs... you do realize that those jobs will last max 20 years so you may as well quit them now? You do realize that US will just show you the finger when the time comes? Whole world is going electric, Chinese go bananas with solar, and nuclear fusion is behind the corner... oil is a lost battle. And all these complex, expensive, heavily subsidized actions like tar sands or fracking will be the first to go. Trump is a last stand of the old age. He's going to create so much disgust to dickhead culture that next president will be so green that my vomit will look like spinach. The last nail to the coffin of fossils would be nuclear lobby going big world wide.
Greenies are pushing and their gospel is spreading big time.
The real issue is that the federal government IS a corporation (look it up), and they act according to their own interests. Local interests are far down the list. If we want to fix this in the future, we need to take back local government and tell the federal overlords to butt out unless they are asked to come in. I would really like to see public land transferred to a public trust outside the direct control of the feds and managed by a coalition of local agencies, that together act on a national level. That's a far fetched dream, I'm aware
www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/earth/after-disclosure-of-sierra-clubs-gifts-from-gas-driller-a-roiling-debate.html
1. We have plenty of people in the government who receive donations from the oil industry and equally important are the lobbyists who both end up influencing public policy and law but that doesn't mean the federal government is a corporation and it makes money off the oil industry. Its called corporate welfare (look it up). The federal government gives out hundreds of millions in tax cuts/breaks a year to corporations especially in the oil industry despite record profits. Please explain how this makes the government money. It doesn't. Its just a favor passed on by those in our government who receive donations from them.
2. What the hell do you mean by oil being a nearly perfect competitive resource? The U.S. dollar is also named as the petrol dollar due to our currency becoming the "unofficial" world currency which is now weighed in oil instead of gold, that took place after WW1. That gives you a hint as to why our country has always been so focused on the resource. We're now trying to hang onto it despite a drop in demand due to the world coming to its senses about the importance of alternative energy sources. This is why the GOP who happen to receive most contributions from the oil industry also happen to be the world leaders in human-caused climate change denial. This market is about as being perfect as the diamond industry where they purposely withhold resources to drive up the prices or in extreme cases to unleash reserves as a form of economic war by driving down prices (look up why oil prices have dropped so suddenly recently).
3. The US Government underneath control of anyone outside of the GOP is immensely safer than trusting the states with the land. Not being from Utah I can understand how you have this fantasy but try living in a state with crony GOP-ers who are doing everything they can to obtain federal land and have a track record (Chaffetz as of a week ago) of trying to sell off public land to private interests.
4. I typed too much. You really have some misplaced blame and need to educate yourself on the matter.
f*ck the sierra club.
Appendix F is written for Sierra club members to argue to close trials to bikes.
Sorry but Sierra Club at its core is against mountain biking. If you want to fight Manbearpig Sierra club is your pal. If you would like to ride bikes off road, not so much.
f*ck the sierra club.
This is how you change things. Not by bitching on pinkbike, not by making hashtags, and not by throwing molotov cocktails at colleges. Threaten the jobs of your elected officials, get your friends to help, Make the career political hacks that "represent" you fear getting a real job, every single day.
We can write the BLM and tell them exactly how we feel, just go to this link and click the "comment on article" button on the bottom right.
eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=105719
Men in Black is a near-total failure as an attack specifically on the Court, but it’s not bad as a partial (in both senses of the word) overview of some questionable exercises/expansions of federal power. (And, for some readers, it will be a valuable illustration of some important differences between libertarians and conservatives.) If you read it, don’t regard it as a primer on how the SCOTUS works or how it’s supposed to work.
Do u have any ud suggest? Pm me
Right. Laws can be changed, as can interpretations of them (the meaning of "mechanical" is less clear than you think). Will the Sierra Club agree to help change the law or interpretation of it to allow mountain bikers to bike in Wilderness Areas? If they do, they will gain a lot of supporters from the mountain bike community. If they don't, then they are the ones who have made their bed.
However, as has been noted many times in these comments, there's lots of incidents in which local Sierra Club entities have been fighting trail use, building, and access outside of Wilderness areas, where our charge (www.sierraclub.org/policy/road-use-bicycles) is to be finding common ground and advocating for bike trails where appropriate. In my opinion, that's where a lot more opportunity lies in improving our relationship with the bike community.
> And if the Sierra Club is the enemy of mountain bikers, just remember, it was the mountain bikers that made it that way.
Really? How so? Please go on. Are mountain bikers suing to get hikers banned from trails that I don't know about it?
> Mountain bikes ARE mechanical transport
Do you not think horses are (bio) mechanical transport? How about skis? Are those mechanical transport? Canoes w/ paddles? Are those mechanical transport? Please define what "mechanical" means. Gears seems to be the only "mechanism" that are singled out and it doesn't make anything inherently bad or different.
And Yes, mountain bikers are trying to take over Hiking Trails. They have even written a bill before Congress that allows mountain bikers to take over hiking trails.
Also, XC skis, canoes and other primitive devices are okay in Wilderness Areas because they were invented and used Centuries before the mechanical age. Those devices originally used all wooden and leather parts. The same cannot be said for bicycles. Bicycles are a product of the Mechanical Age, and have always had metal parts.
But for real, what's the say the mountain bike community rallies up together, for my 501(c)(3) that buys the oil and lease permits, and then just never drills ?
Or, hey, maybe RED BULL can help out, maybe the first Red Bull bike park?
Nope, no Oil found here.
Nope, no oil found here either.
Hmm.... Nope, no oil here here either. WTF!!!
eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=105719
"To give some perspective, there are literally, today, almost a million acres of public land in Utah that are already under lease for oil and gas development and which aren’t even being drilled. ...but in this specific case, when there’s so much land that’s already available for drilling, and yet so little of it is getting drilled, why do we need to add these specific parcels?"
They should stop; it damages their credibility. The reason many oil and gas leases are never drilled is that there is no oil or gas there. The buyer of the lease does not know in advance if oil and/or gas can be profitably extracted when they pay for the lease, so there will ALWAYS be a bunch of areas under lease that are not being drilled. Mr. Dunfee clearly knows this, since he says "They are probably looking for oil since there is not a natural gas pipeline close by. If they find only gas, they would need to build a pipeline to connect to a transport pipeline." And yet, later in the same interview, he makes the "lots not being drilled" argument as if he doesn't understand this. He knows that there is a decent chance that exploratory wells will find nothing of value and no development will happen beyond that.
We want that, but not in our houses doors. It is an ethical discussion hard to face... A good point is that this shouldn't happen so close of a national park, but money is money(in my opinion humans worst invention).
I know that by first hand, because where I live (IBIZA) had the same problem 3 years ago. The prospections could destroy our beaches and consequently our economy based on tourism. However they did them but fortunately there wasn't what they were looking for...
Speak for yourself! I want to drive an electric car powered by the solar panels on my roof! Within a couple years solar will be cheaper than coal regardless of where you live or any incentives. Lets make that happen as soon as possible.
FACT: as of today, the mountain biking industry has done much more damage to the wilderness in this small area of Utah than the oil and gas industry has. Think about that for a moment, and then relax.
What I'm saying is the effects of bike trails are cosmetic/reversible compared to the permanent damage from oil/gas/real-estate development.
You mean the small area of Utah wilderness that has no existing oil and gas drilling? Thanks captain obvious! How about overall damage across the globe of oil drilling vs all non-motorized activities combined? I'll even let you throw in horses!
The land may be put up for sale, but:
A) will it sell?
B) will it EVER be used for oil?
A) Maybe but not likely for oil, see below...
B) Whole ball of chickens here, hang on for the ride!
So oil as you know it is not the asset it used to be at $52 a barrel right now as opposed to over $100 in the recent past. EROI (Energy Returned On Investment) is the ratio of money invested in getting the oil to market compared to money gained once the oil is sold.
In the 70's the EROI was about 1:200, or a dollar invested got you two hundred out. Currently we are at about 1:12 average, and shale oil is averaging about 1:3.
Over 50 North American oil companies have declared bankruptcy since early last year, and projections are for 65% of global oil companies to go bankrupt in the next two years.
So debate away gents and ladies, but methinks this beautiful Rampage site is safe!
The oil industry is in trouble so unlikely to acquire new land when there are already discovered fields ready to be drilled, Also the abandoned well rate is going up fast, this from oil companies who can't even afford to properly decommissioned their wells, they just walk away. So obviously these wells would be restarted before new ones drilled.
What I was talking about was how much energy we get out of a barrel of oil once it gets delivered to market. Once you factor in all the costs, exploration, drilling,processing, transport, refining,insurance, loss etc.We are rapidly approaching the 50/50 mark where it costs one barrel of oil in energy to deliver one barrel of oil to market.
This is bring about net energy decline, it costs more do do ANYTHING now than it did 10 years ago even factoring in inflation. Oil companies are battling for survival, this Rampage site will never, and you can quote me on this, EVER be drilled for oil.
We are all guilty of wasting our natural resources.... no one gets to point fingers. Lets just agree to try and be as responsible as we can... considering thats all any of us can commit to.
Well-heads are located on a small area of level-ground called a pad. This isn't the 1800s. We utilize directional drilling. And with so many eyes on the oil and gas industry, I absolutely guarantee you there's been more ground-surface disturbance result of the Rampage events. The only thing that could change is access, and that's a much more specific concern that can be raised with other stakeholders.
Final thought - why does it matter this is located adjacent to a National Park? Are you saying the land and environment is worth less everywhere else?
Sorry @Coldspringer if I jumped the gun a bit and didn't get your argument.
Ur utopian dream aint gna happen...although yal are tyring by various means of increasing beef costs.
www.addup.org/campaigns/blm-keep-historic-red-bull-rampage-venue-free-from-oil-gas-drilling
i'd be interested to check back soon to see how much of a spike the pb community adds to the count because of this article.
thanks vernon for the article and thank you Ryan Dunfee for the informative answers.
^Really hope that doesn't include any mountain bike trails/areas.
Any mountain bike trails that were lost to Wilderness need to be re-opened to mountain bikes. And any future Wilderness areas where bike trails exist need to be grandfathered in.
Not saying bikes need to be allowed in every part of wilderness but Boulder-White Clouds is a perfect example of good mountain biking trails lost for BS reasons.
emmm, Give us our damn trails back and we'll talk, k?
It's not only not necessary to dump every single drop of grime & slime into our air, land & water, it's also not beneficial.
have been already been discovered, and i dont want to see land lay waste for nothing.
There's an even bigger issue at play than just the RedBull Rampage site that's not mentioned here... Congress is currently trying to roll back this new/updated planning process to make it even easier to drill on our lands. Take five minutes to write to your senator and tell them you want them to reject the Congressional Review Act, and to keep the new planning process in place so we can all enjoy our public BLM lands. Hell, this website makes it easy and even writes the letter for you.
secure.everyaction.com/14QBtieqrk6R6xVhpe5b-g2
Yes we all use energy and oil. This however does not mean e ery bit of land has to be emptied by some company. You know that crisis we had in the last fee years where companieswent broke and ten thousAnds of people lost their job? The reason for that is an oversupply of oil caused by the Americans who jumped on shale oil like pornstars on dicks.
This particular piece of land is sold for oil because some governmental body would like to receive a shit load of pecunia. Yes we all rely on oil. That definetely does not mean we should drills holes everywhere we can.
Let's be absolutely clear here: What is happening with the original Rampage site is a typical leasing arrangement on BLM lands. The BLM has always been in the business of selling energy leases on its property and this is one such case. It has absolutely nothing to do with mountain bikers advocating for their return to Wilderness areas. Arguing that it does is a complete red herring. You are essentially arguing that by advocating for our rights, we have somehow incurred the wrath of, well, I'm not sure who's wrath you think we've incurred here.
I've said all along that is easier to share trails than to fight to regain them. Your fundamental premise--that Wilderness trails somehow belong to hikers and not riders is blatantly false. It's a misreading of history and the facts. Mountain bikers are every bit the environmentalists as hikers and every bit as deserving to recreate on the public lands that they pay taxes to support. Your entire premise is off base. I am a mountain biker. I'm also a hiker, a hunter, a fisherman and an environmentalist.
Yes, mountain bikers pay taxes, etc. And they are free to enjoy Wilderness Areas in the appropriate way, just like everyone else. It's obvious that mountain biking is different than hiking, or even horseback riding. It's perfectly okay to have different rules for different activities. Again, mountain bikers are less than 3% of the population and Wilderness Areas are less than 3% of the Land Area in the lower 48 States. This issue isn't even worth the riff you've created with hikers and environmentalists. Vernon, you need to get your head out of your tail on this one.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/02/facing-backlash-utah-rep-jason-chaffetz-withdraws-bill-to-transfer-federal-land-to-the-states/?utm_term=.726f5e559463