Dear HCN,
Jim Hasenauer
makes the basis for a reasoned argument in his piece “Let
bikers in, and we’ll stand behind wilderness” (HCN,
3/3/03: Let bikers in, and we’ll stand behind wilderness),
but loses his focus as he perpetuates a number of fallacies in his
argument to repeal the wilderness bicycle ban.
Hasenauer
cites that bicycling’s “impacts on the trails and
plants and animals have been shown to be similar to those of
hikers.” While this may be true under certain conditions,
this assertion ignores the reality of impact on the ground. Crowds
of hikers are no more environmentally friendly than crowds of
bikers, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the increase in impact
with numbers is more exponential with bicycle use. Even if it
weren’t, what Hasenauer is suggesting is not simply trading
out one equal user for another. He is suggesting the addition of
countless numbers of individuals and their mountain bikes into the
wilderness.
Hasenauer comforts his readers, “Rest
assured: Trails would never swarm with bikes.” In what
fantasy world does he live? Just as hikers need regulations to keep
them from swarming wilderness areas being loved to death, bikers
will swarm just about anywhere they choose. With so-called
“traditional” forms of recreation already exerting
increased pressure on the ecological integrity of our designated
wilderness, there’s a reason that the Congress outlawed
bicycles from wilderness in 1977. Those reasons are every bit, if
not more, relevant today. Considering that such protected land
comprises less than 2 percent of the total landmass of the lower 48
states, aren’t there already enough places to ride a bicycle?
Evan Cantor
Boulder, Colorad
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline There are plenty of places for bicycling.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
