After eight years of analysis, public comment, and further analysis, the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF) has at last issued a Record of Decision on the Travel Plan for the forest. Some of the most significant impacts of the decision relate to the types of activities that will be allowed in the Blue Joint and Sapphire Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). These are areas worth protecting and it is great to see that the BNF Travel Plan decision is focused on maintaining the wilderness characteristics of these areas. However, I find the decision to restrict mechanized travel (meaning mountain bikes) to be unfortunate and unreasonable. In response to numerous public comments to the travel plan from mountain bike advocates in support of cycling access, the Forest Service responded, “While mountain biking may not always have physical impacts on the landscape, prohibiting mountain biking and other mechanical transport, along with motorized vehicles, from Recommended Wilderness Areas acknowledges there are other, social effects, to wilderness characteristics associated with these types of uses.” However, the Forest Service failed to evaluate the social effects of allowing mountain biking in the WSAs. In effect, the analysis by the Forest Service fails to differentiate between impacts of motorized use and mountain biking, when the reality is that the impacts of the two are vastly different. The physical impact of bicycles has been shown to be comparable to that of a hiker. Based on my experiences, I can only conclude that the social effects of mountain biking in these areas are nearly non-existent; in a dozen are so trips to the Blue Joint area in the past 15 years, and even more trips in the Sapphire WSA, I don’t recall ever encountering another user – be it a hiker, mountain biker, or horseman. We cherish these areas because of their wilderness character – for the opportunities that they provide for adventure, exploration, solitude… We are passionate about maintaining the opportunities to ride in these areas and so, have been active in clearing the trails of downfall. Some of these trails, especially those lying in the recently burned areas of the forest, have seemingly been abandoned by the Forest Service and would likely be impassable if not for the efforts of local mountain bikers. For some of the trails we probably spend more time clearing downfall than time spent actually riding the trails. As a result of our efforts, all users are better able to enjoy the wilderness character of these areas.
Two main objectives of the Travel Plan are stated to be to reduce conflict of uses between motorized users, and to improve the quality of the recreational experience. For mountain bikers it is clear that, on both counts, the Travel Plan decision does the opposite. It will result in increased conflict with motorized users, as the loss of trail access to both user groups will result in more concentrated use on the trails that remain open to both motorized and mechanized use. The decision will be detrimental to the quality of the recreational experience of mountain bikers, as we will lose the opportunity to ride on many of the backcountry trails that we most value. The recent decision will result in the loss of a valuable recreational resource for the Bitterroot.
The mountain bikers I know highly value the wilderness characteristics of these areas and desire to see them protected. Our desires are largely aligned with those of other quiet users. It is unfortunate that some wilderness advocates have such an irrational opposition to mountain biking; it would be more beneficial if we were allied together to work towards common goals – to maintain wilderness character and opportunities for users to enjoy visiting these areas for generations to come.
Jeff Kern
Hamilton