Dear HCN,
I appreciated
the debate offered on both sides of the mountain bike issue (HCN,
3/3/03: The Wild Card). I have owned or managed outdoor-related
retail businesses most of my life in all the beautiful parts of the
country. One of my sons still makes his living running a bike shop.
Since our livelihood had depended on selling the grown-up toys and
gear used to enjoy the outdoors, we felt that also put squarely on
our shoulders the task of advocating for the wilderness’
continued existence. Wilderness was never something we felt the
right to merely consume, but to preserve and pass on.
Our
intention, beyond thrills and spills, was always to be as observant
of and minimally disruptive to the plant and animal life we
encountered. We did not want our actions to distract others from
enjoyment.
We noticed our bikes’ knobby tires tore
up the ground and required more elbow room with regard to passing
aspen, boulders or each other. You also have to factor in the
effects of gravity and speed and bumps on the trail. Even on
multi-use trails, shared by bikes, horses and those on foot, the
bikes were the most difficult to easily accommodate with comfort
for all others. I feel that sufficient designated bike trails now
exist throughout America for riders not to feel excluded from
nature.
For a group of bikers to say they will be more
supportive if they get a bigger piece of the pie seems coercive.
Our society is ever encroaching on wilderness, with more species
threatened and in decline. Any sense of entitlement to continue to
do so unchecked is faulty reasoning.
In our consumer
society, we might be wise to remember: Less is more. Less intrusion
to designated wilderness areas is more left available to be enjoyed
by our children and our children’s children.
Mara
Owens
Spokane, Washington
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Bikers are not entitled to unchecked access.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
