richardg

I've hiked on a lot of trails in designated wilderness areas, where the rules allow equestrian use but explicitly prohibit "mechanized vehicles" (read, "bicycles"). In my own experience it seems that horses do a lot more damage to the trails than bikes do, and bikes don't produce excrement, which I'm surprised isn't more of a concern to the BLM.

So why are bicycles prohibited from wilderness areas that allow horses?

Are there any existing advocacy initiatives to attempt to change this rule?

Bekologist

horse lobby big, bike lobby small.

uke

^ That. Also note the lack of vehicular equestrians jockeying against their own interests by bucking against separate equestrian infrastructure and neighing that there are "plenty of good roads for riders to ride on!"

genec

Good one...

alhedges

Wilderness areas are intended to be the most primitive natural areas. Bicycles are inconsistent with this purpose. Bikes also have the potential of shrinking the wilderness experience for other users - it might take a backpacker two days to travel 20 miles and reach a place where he can be isolated in nature. Bikers can get there in a couple of hours.

beerfilter

Maybe the prohibition on mechanized vehicles is not with respect to their propensity to do damage.


bf

RobertHurst

It may be a good idea to add more wilderness even it means loss of access to mtn bike trails. I say this as an avid mountain biker. However it is absolutely true that horses cause a great deal more damage than bikes. In some areas of designated wilderness huge pack trains regularly go in and out with the makings of large hunting camps; often cattle is allowed to graze there as well and the herds are driven up and down the trails, turning them into roads. I have seen this multiple times in remote areas of the SW Colorado mountains. These are the areas with the least mountain bikers, and the most mangled and destroyed trails.

RobertHurst

There are perhaps more important reasons for banning bikes from wilderness. By any measure, however, the concurrent allowance of giant pack trains of horses, huge hunting camps and cattle grazing is indefensible. There is a huge disconnect there. You don't need a 'mechanized vehicle' to destroy the wilderness. We destroyed huge swaths of wilderness and eliminated ecosystems long before the existence of motors or bicycles.

chs4

Animals are wilderness...bikes are vehicles.

When horses start crowding the bike lanes and MUPS we may have an argument. Until then I say let them have their space in peace.

Pscyclepath

https://www.imba.com/resources/land_p...ion/stroll.pdf

In 1964, when the Wilderness Act was first enacted, there were no mountain bikes or mountain bikers, and the typical bike was a youth's cruiser.

Some more good stuff from IMBA:
https://www.imba.com/resources/bike_m...on_horses.html

https://www.imba.com/resources/bike_m...echanized.html

https://www.imba.com/resources/land_p...rness_faq.html

chriswnw

Because clubs composed of horse back riders are likely to be composed of some of the wealthiest people in the state, and their preferences matter more than that of mountain bikers.

alhedges

Why does this matter? There were no Segways, either, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed in Wilderness areas.

RobertHurst

The animals in question have nothing to do with wilderness. They are the polar opposite of wilderness. And they are certainly vehicles, used for hauling people and cargo.

If they changed the rule to say that you can only bring in what you can carry on your own back, I'd be fine with that. The 'sportsmen' would have a cow however. They go for huge canvas tents, chairs, gas stoves, cases of beer and all kinds of electronic devices that they could never hope to carry themselves.

wnl256

As the father of a horse owner, trust me... Horses and bikes won't mix well on the same trail. Horses spook easily and if they are unused to bikes may do unpredictable things upon encountering them.

I don't know if that's the real reason bikes aren't allowed on the trail, but it is a benefit.

I can't say for certain, but I think it is likely that bikes are allowed to go on more roads and paths than horses are. So where's the harm in allowing a little bit of space for the equestrian lovers?

Bill

wnl256

If they're horse owners then they are best described as "formerly wealthy".

This may come as a shock, but not every horse owner is wealthy. Many folks own them just because they love them, and pour all their disposable income in to equestrian activities.

dewaday

If I'm hiking a wilderness area I much prefer to come across horses then bicycles. Not the reason I'm sure, but I'm glad of it.

no motor?

There's a trail by me that allows horses along with the usual pedestrians and bicyclists. The one horse owning fanatic I know thinks bicycles should be banned from the universe, especially the parts she wants to ride through. Along with all the people who complain about the huge piles of manure the horses leave behind. They recently paved part of this path, which annoyed her because she can't hear others around her now due to the noise her horse makes. Once again, it's the others that need to change their behavior when they're a problem, but she should be allowed to do whatever she wants.

gerald_g 

I'd rather come across bikes....they don't pee on my tent.

My experiences coming across horse groups in the back country has been less than positive, although I'm sure this does not apply to all on horseback.

xenologer

+1 this

Heifzilla

Hmm. Where have I heard this before?

CB HI

If it is a wilderness area, are the horse riders doing so bareback. If not, why are they complaining about those on other styles of saddles.

Does a horse saddle not have a mechanical cinch and bit? So why are they not prohibited.

As noted above, the law did not intend to prohibit bicycles, but BLM took it over the top when mountain bikes became popular.

unterhausen

in my experience, horses can easily make a pedestrian trail virtually unusable. So I never really understood the rule either, but I have seen cyclists bombing downhill and wouldn't want to meet up with some of them while I was out hiking.

Camilo

I'm not sure, but a lot of land usage regs have to do with traditional and customary usages and means of transportation. Thus, grazing, logging, horses, hiking, but not bikes 4 wheelers, snomobiles.

I'm not saying it's right, but it might be the root of some of these regs.

But, I am also in the camp of when I'm hiking, I dont like bikes on the trail and horses don't bother me. Why? Maybe no rational reason, except bikes tend to go faster and are more likely to run into a walker. Most trail riders (horse) walk their horses at a pace similar to walkers. Many bike trail riders go as fast as they can, and even if they're mellow, they're quite a bit faster than a walker.

Also, for a given level of usage (say 1:1 bikes and horses) I do not believe bikes have less impact. That changes of course if there's over-usage by horses compared to bikes, but I've seen more trails damaged by bike tires than hoof prints.

woodway

Horses can also get there faster than hikers, so the "shrink the wilderness experience" argument is not consistent.

probe1957

Amen. I ride horses and bikes. I have no interest in riding horses on trails with bicycles. Common sense is all it takes to figure out why. Well, horse sense anyway.