The following is an interview in mid-December with Victor Moore, Director, Office of Financial Management, and Marty Brown, Legislative Director, Governor's Office, on the Governor's 2009-2011 proposed Budget. It is a bleak picture indeed. We will need to work hard as volunteers working with our legislators and public lands staff to keep our trails and campgrounds open and usable on DNR and State Park land. (When your run the video, it may take a few minutes to load.......)
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Mountain bikes in National Parks
The National Park Service under the Department of the Interior is considering a rule that will allow for a more streamlined process to permit mountain bikes on existing trails within National Parks throughout the nation. Currently, the proposed new rule is up for public comment through February 17, 2009:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-29892.htm
For equestrians in Washington State, this could mean more trails within our National Parks being opened for shared use with mountain bikes outside of designated Wilderness. It would appear this would have a minor affect on our existing use in this state except in some front country areas of the Olympic National Park and perhaps at Mt St Helens should that USFS Monument eventually become a National Park.
It does show a more pro-bike friendly climate by our federal agencies for non-motorized vehicle use on middle country and even many backcountry trails.
We Backcountry Horsemen support the rights of other kinds of recreational users to responsibly enjoy our public lands, and our approach to user conflicts has been to try to manage these through collaborative agreements and processes. We find that most user group non-profits, motorized and non-motorized have also tried to be respectful by not promoting their own recreational uses through employing negative manipulation of information to deliberately undermine the recreational pursuits of others. The recreational and conservation groups within the State of Washington, including state based mountain biking groups, show a high standard of mutual respect.
On the other hand, horseback use on public lands has come under attack in recent years, and in our efforts to address some of the concerns, many of which are bewildering to us as to seeming lacking validation and being very contrived, we have found that some common connections are related to these efforts. For example, mountain bikers are being told that trails that support horse use become 8' wide while mountain bike trails are 2' wide. For those of us that ride these trails, we know that horse accessible backcountry trails in Washington State are lucky to be 2' wide even after half of century of horse use and without constant maintenance by groups such as ours and the hiker based Washington Trails Association.
The source of many of these "objective" assertions can be traced back to the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) and a group of Australian and US researchers that collaborate with them and who have asserted that horse use is inappropriate on public lands. These same researchers were frequently quoted in the USFWS effort to dramatically limit horse use on Hanford Reach National Monument, even though in this case, IMBA and mountain biking were not directly involved in the equestrian restrictions. These researchers pick what, where, and how they study recreational use with what appears less than objective staging.
We also have noticed we can be the subject of divisive manipulation as a result of strategies such as the development of the "human powered" campaign. Civilization has advanced due to the relationship human beings have had with horses. It is difficult to understand how items created in a factory can have more intrinsic net worth than organic life.
We on the BCHW Public Lands Committee wish that we could say that horsemen and mountain bikers can work together to address user conflicts and expand share trail use in the backcountry. Biking is a healthy activity, which is reflected by the fact that many horseback riders also own and ride bicycles. Some even use mountain bikes for front country work parties, event management, and even trail scouting/surveying.
We therefore are torn on the issue of changing the rules opening up more National Park areas to mountain bikes. It is is our experience that once user conflicts arise, the strategy changes, the olive branches turn into anti-horse campaigning, and we end up moving on to other trails either by political decision or by choice to avoid future conflict.
We would like to hear how members feel about this matter. Please read the proposed rule. What suggestions would you have to add or revise this proposal to safeguard our historic use on trails such as in the non-Wilderness areas of Olympic National Park (Wilderness areas preclude the use of mechanized vehicles)? Please let us know your thoughts on this matter by writing public_lands@bchw.org.
Let's hope that the future brings us a new basis of trust and respect among all trail users, no matter who they are.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-29892.htm
For equestrians in Washington State, this could mean more trails within our National Parks being opened for shared use with mountain bikes outside of designated Wilderness. It would appear this would have a minor affect on our existing use in this state except in some front country areas of the Olympic National Park and perhaps at Mt St Helens should that USFS Monument eventually become a National Park.
It does show a more pro-bike friendly climate by our federal agencies for non-motorized vehicle use on middle country and even many backcountry trails.
We Backcountry Horsemen support the rights of other kinds of recreational users to responsibly enjoy our public lands, and our approach to user conflicts has been to try to manage these through collaborative agreements and processes. We find that most user group non-profits, motorized and non-motorized have also tried to be respectful by not promoting their own recreational uses through employing negative manipulation of information to deliberately undermine the recreational pursuits of others. The recreational and conservation groups within the State of Washington, including state based mountain biking groups, show a high standard of mutual respect.
On the other hand, horseback use on public lands has come under attack in recent years, and in our efforts to address some of the concerns, many of which are bewildering to us as to seeming lacking validation and being very contrived, we have found that some common connections are related to these efforts. For example, mountain bikers are being told that trails that support horse use become 8' wide while mountain bike trails are 2' wide. For those of us that ride these trails, we know that horse accessible backcountry trails in Washington State are lucky to be 2' wide even after half of century of horse use and without constant maintenance by groups such as ours and the hiker based Washington Trails Association.
The source of many of these "objective" assertions can be traced back to the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) and a group of Australian and US researchers that collaborate with them and who have asserted that horse use is inappropriate on public lands. These same researchers were frequently quoted in the USFWS effort to dramatically limit horse use on Hanford Reach National Monument, even though in this case, IMBA and mountain biking were not directly involved in the equestrian restrictions. These researchers pick what, where, and how they study recreational use with what appears less than objective staging.
We also have noticed we can be the subject of divisive manipulation as a result of strategies such as the development of the "human powered" campaign. Civilization has advanced due to the relationship human beings have had with horses. It is difficult to understand how items created in a factory can have more intrinsic net worth than organic life.
We on the BCHW Public Lands Committee wish that we could say that horsemen and mountain bikers can work together to address user conflicts and expand share trail use in the backcountry. Biking is a healthy activity, which is reflected by the fact that many horseback riders also own and ride bicycles. Some even use mountain bikes for front country work parties, event management, and even trail scouting/surveying.
We therefore are torn on the issue of changing the rules opening up more National Park areas to mountain bikes. It is is our experience that once user conflicts arise, the strategy changes, the olive branches turn into anti-horse campaigning, and we end up moving on to other trails either by political decision or by choice to avoid future conflict.
We would like to hear how members feel about this matter. Please read the proposed rule. What suggestions would you have to add or revise this proposal to safeguard our historic use on trails such as in the non-Wilderness areas of Olympic National Park (Wilderness areas preclude the use of mechanized vehicles)? Please let us know your thoughts on this matter by writing public_lands@bchw.org.
Let's hope that the future brings us a new basis of trust and respect among all trail users, no matter who they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
