Bill allowing bike access to federal Wilderness areas once again submitted

J

JaketheSnake

Newbie with Hope!
Screenshot 2024-08-11 at 8.25.06 PM.png

WASHINGTON (BRAIN) — Utah Sen. Mike Lee once again has introduced legislation to restore bike access to federal Wilderness areas. This is the fourth time a bill advocating for bike access — excluding e-bikes — in federal Wilderness areas has been submitted, the last in May 2021 and died in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


Lee, a Republican, introduced renewed legislation — S.4561 — Tuesday that would remove federal agencies' blanket bans on bicycling in Wilderness and restore a prior U.S. Forest Service rule that allowed line officers to treat bikes as they do horses, hikers, campers, and hunters, allowing access based on local conditions.

Similar legislation has been introduced in 2016, 2018, and 2019 without passage. According to the Sustainable Trails Coalition, the U.S. Forest Service and Interior Department agree the reform is necessary to overturn the Wilderness Act of 1964 and welcome the flexibility that Lee's legislation would give them.
 
Interesting to see Sen. Mike Lee reintroduce legislation to restore bike access to federal Wilderness areas. It's surprising that similar bills haven't passed in the past, especially given the support from the U.S. Forest Service and Interior Department. Hopefully, this fourth attempt will be successful and provide more flexibility for outdoor enthusiasts.
 
eliott777 said:
Interesting to see Sen. Mike Lee reintroduce legislation to restore bike access to federal Wilderness areas. It's surprising that similar bills haven't passed in the past, especially given the support from the U.S. Forest Service and Interior Department. Hopefully, this fourth attempt will be successful and provide more flexibility for outdoor enthusiasts.
Click to expand...
Yes, this guy must be a mountain biker.. But I think Sierra Club has more weight in there and they will again make it vane in their beuqacratic mess..

What would you ride right away if the wilderness bike ban would be lifted?
 
eliott777 said:
Interesting to see Sen. Mike Lee reintroduce legislation to restore bike access to federal Wilderness areas. It's surprising that similar bills haven't passed in the past, especially given the support from the U.S. Forest Service and Interior Department. Hopefully, this fourth attempt will be successful and provide more flexibility for outdoor enthusiasts.
Click to expand...
actually this is a double edged Sword. Do you really want bikes in the high sierras? me thinks not. Where do you typically ride and the types of trails preferred?
 
Danimal said:
actually this is a double edged Sword. Do you really want bikes in the high sierras? me thinks not. Where do you typically ride and the types of trails preferred?
Click to expand...

I will admit that I really wanna be able to ride the trails that encroach from Hwy 39 / Hwy 2 (San Gabriel Cyn & Angeles Crest) into the Sheep wilderness. Good stuff there, and absolutely ZERO reason, historically, to exclude bikes.

I have fond memories of recreating in that area prior to the wilderness designation.
 
Danimal said:
actually this is a double edged Sword. Do you really want bikes in the high sierras? me thinks not. Where do you typically ride and the types of trails preferred?
Click to expand...
None of the legislation that has been proposed will allow bikes on all trails in Wilderness. It simply removes the blanket ban and then land managers can assess where bikes would be appropriate to add as a user group.

Locally for example, it would probably make sense to allow access on trails we used to have access to prior to Wilderness designation, like Burkhart in the San Gabriels.

The other type of trail I'd push for opening are trails that briefly cross into Wilderness, or where Wilderness blocks connectivity between two trails outside the Wilderness Boundary. I came across this on the Colorado Trail and the Arizona Trail. On the CT near Buena Vista the Wilderness boundary was drawn so the trail runs just slightly within it. Bikes have to drop all the way down to BV since there are no roads that run across below the boundary. Then we get to fight heavy traffic climbing up Cottonwood Pass. At the Lost Creek Wilderness bikes have to do a 70 mile road detour around the whole Wilderness whereas we could just ride six miles through it, if allowed. In fact I'd push to have the entire CT and AZT open to bikes through Wilderness.

Plenty of other examples where there are trails within Wilderness that would be appropriate for bikes. Most hikers want to hike to a summit, waterfall, lake, or viewpoint. Trails that don't go to any of those destinations often see minimal use and maintenance, and might have terrain that would be great for bikes.
 
Even if approved 99.99999999% of mountain bikers (that don't currently already ride there) would never ride in the Wilderness. So few people go into some of those areas as it is that the NPS service proposed years ago to allow bikes because the trails were under-utilized. The modern human wants to "camp" in their $500K RV and the majority of people under 40 can't possibly be that far from a Starbucks, liquor store or reliable cell service to check their social media.
 
Just remember there's a difference in the general term wilderness and the specific term regulators use "Wilderness" (big W). And the reason this is significant is that our country is rapidly driving to adopt more and more Wilderness, which excludes bikes. It's happening all around the West and a quick look at Apple Maps shows which areas are slated to become or proposed to become Wilderness and thousands of miles of beautiful back country trails in CA, ID, MT, CO, OR and WA will be closed as those Wilderness areas are adopted. They are even proposing several new Wilderness areas in northern LA county where we ride!
 
Last edited:
OC has wilderness parks, that are not really wilderness. And although motorized vehicles are explicitly forbidden they are still there in good numbers.

It may have been wilderness at one time, that ship long ago sailed. now mostly native plants surrounded by new homes and clueless ( can we say poppy people ) individuals.

See I used w not W.
 
It’s amusing how folks complain here about urban sprawl and make fun of everybody other than ourselves for being indoorsy poppy people and also complain about Wilderness sprawl that would not facilitate most of the poppy people Sh!t we all come to expect and upon which we depend for our existence.

Relax, everybody. There’s plenty of development forthcoming throughout the Country and abroad.
 
Runs with Scissors said:
I will admit that I really wanna be able to ride the trails that encroach from Hwy 39 / Hwy 2 (San Gabriel Cyn & Angeles Crest) into the Sheep wilderness. Good stuff there, and absolutely ZERO reason, historically, to exclude bikes.

I have fond memories of recreating in that area prior to the wilderness designation.
Click to expand...
This is the sort of Wilderness closure that environmental groups are pushing. They have been pushing to close tens of thousands of acres in Castaic and the ANF and there are great trails on some of what they want to close. In the last few years, MTB riders have lost access to some incredible trails in Idaho and Montana and they are working to close more at a rapid pace. We've successfully fought off the new Wilderness around Castaic and Green Valley twice and that proposed for the ANF, but I have no doubt they will try again.
 
Fortunately the terrain in a lot of Wilderness areas will deter most riders on both real bikes and on mopeds. I wish people who are afraid of bikes in Wilderness could understand that. I don't know too many riders who would be willing to push their bikes up Mt Whitney. Or any of the East Sierras passes for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top