I consider this a shameful place to be when I should be riding my bike instead of the fence. My attitude has never garnered me much favor among my mountain biking peers but that seems to be a general theme in my life so, what the hell.
For those who don't know about "wilderness B," it is a proposal to re-engineer or interpret the Wilderness Act of 1964 to accommodate bicycles. In 1964 mountain biking wasn't even a part of the conversation since it didn't really exist and therefore a debate has emerged about whether or not it is in accordance with, or in conflict with, the spirit of the law. As an avid mountain biker and outdoor enthusiast it begs the question about why I am on the fence and to that there is no simple answer.
 |
| East Fork Valley, Wind Rivers. Poorly digitized old film photos. |
Let me start with a basic explanation about why I support it. I don't think there is that much unresolvable conflict between current user groups and cyclists, they are often one in the same. There will always be purists who think otherwise. More importantly though is the idea that "wilderness needs no defense. It only needs more defenders" - I know, I know, again with the Abbey (he did provide the title for my blog after all). I think we are at a critical crossroad in the conservation/preservationist movement in this country and the "drill, baby, drill" mantra needs a little balance (and by that I mean a lot). A few more deep ecologists wouldn't hurt the conversation and in the bike community there are certainly a lot more fence sitters than just me. Why not tap that human resource?
On the other hand, does the introduction of bicycles into pristine wilderness qualitatively change it from being wilderness? This is where things get tricky. My personal view is yes and no. Biking is still a human powered activity, albeit mechanical. There is also a lot of evidence to support the idea that it is less damaging in terms of erosion than pack animals and even foot traffic by some accounts.
 |
| Steeple Peak 5.8, Deep Lake area. Classic climbing. |
So what is it that I oppose really? For me it has very little to do with the bike itself or the act of riding it, but rather the precedent. I am concerned about the slippery slope. If we allow bikes now, then what? And then after that what? I know a lot of mountain bikers who aren't happy riding through flat, uninspiring terrain to get to the beauty of a ride (hikers too for that matter). Wilderness can and should encapsulate greater ecosystems. Consider current trends. As more people recreate in the outdoors, roads become more prevalent, more are being paved, and then more extend deeper and deeper into the wild. In the hustle and bustle of modern life, will we shrink the distance needed to travel to get to the meat and potatoes of our outings? If so, this will compromise the notion of the ecosystem as a wilderness. Also by adding new "advocates" we might actually be increasing the number of proponents for quicker access to remote places rather than defenders of preservation, and if that happens we effectively undo the spirit of wilderness. I will cease examining the slippery slope short of asking who is next in line after the mountain bikers.
 |
| Erratic rocks near Wakashie Creek. |
In further defense of wilderness I can't help but point to one of my favorite destinations as an example, the Wind Rivers. These mountains embody my personal experience; expansive, remote, wild, unforgiving, and largely left untouched by modern technology. During my first visit there I recall driving several hours on paved roads followed by a lengthy spell of suspension testing, washboard dirt roads, and then a couple of days of arduous, although spectacular, backpacking before I reached my final destination. I felt distant and detached. It was wild. I even recall several years later going all the way around the world to Monte Fitz Roy in Argentina in search of that wild experience and thinking to myself how much more remote the East Fork Valley of the Wind Rivers felt. It is truly something unique and special.
So where does the bear shit in the woods in the Wind Rivers? Ultimately for me it is against "wilderness B." Sorry mountain biker friends but man never knows when to say when. Give him an inch and he'll take a mile. There aren't miles and miles of wilderness to give. Sure the "drill, baby, drill" folks will tell you otherwise, but in their view resources are practically endless. They are entitled to that perspective too as much as I am my own, but they also aren't going to be the people who truthfully labor through the difficult pros and cons of this debate. They have one view and one view only. I at least begrudgingly relinquish one of my favorite hobbies in favor of another, more deeply held belief. Sacrifice has to amount to something.
 |
| Looking over Haystack towards the Cirque of the Towers from the summit of Steeple Peak, 12,040'. |
Don't fret though my "wilderness B" supporter friends. I am all ears in this discussion if you can convince me that the slippery slope doesn't exist. Until then, I have to err on the side of caution. Maybe future wilderness designations deserve an entirely new consideration, one including "B" status ... but things do get mighty slippery, mighty fast, especially once one set of well intended folks move along and the entitlement of another group prevails.
About the Wilderness Act
Wilderness B advocates
Contiguous Ecosystems
No comments:
Post a Comment