Dear HCN,
As both a
mountain biker and a supporter of the idea of wilderness areas, I
read your “Writers on the Range” debate on the subject
of mountain bikes in wilderness areas with great interest (HCN,
3/3/03: The Wild Card). While I support the idea of allowing
mountain biking in wilderness areas, I think it would have to be
limited, as some areas are certain to be more impacted than others.
The real question, though, is just what is “mechanical
transport” or “mechanized transport?”
I
think we can agree on the definition of a mechanism as a system of
manufactured parts that interact. I can ski into a wilderness area
on the Fritschi bindings on my Randonee skis, but I can’t
pedal? Where’s the difference? A bicycle is not any more a
mechanical device than a bridle, a saddle, or a pair of hiking
boots. I can live with not being able to enjoy wilderness areas
because my mode of human-powered transportation is banned. (I
can’t hike on my old knees anymore, but I can pedal all
day.) I can understand that we aren’t about to require that
anyone entering a wilderness area should be unable to use any form
of mechanized transport, including shoes. But it seems patently
unfair that horseback travel, which is as dependent upon mechanical
devices as mountain bike riders, is allowed in wilderness areas,
even though horses can do much more damage to trails than mountain
bikes.
So where do we draw the line? How long until a
mountain biker sues the Forest Service for discrimination? What it
seems to come down to is that the arguments against allowing
bicycles in wilderness areas are unfounded and the current
enforcement of the regulations is discriminatory. Either the Forest
Service needs to ban the use of bridles, saddles, pack frames,
hiking boots, and ski bindings, or they need to allow bicycles.
Agustin Goba
Snowmass Village,
Colorado
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Where do we draw the line?.

