The Gallatin National Forest plans to greatly reduce the amount of mountain biking in the Gallatin Mountains this summer.
An interim summer travel plan for the Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area also reduces the amount of motorcycling allowed in the 148,000-acre area, which stretches from Bozeman to Yellowstone National Park.
The plan, set to go into place in May, comes after a federal judge struck down the forest's 2006 travel plan for the area. U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled that the 2006 plan, which allowed mountain biking on 240 miles of trail and motorcycling on 70 miles of trail, violated the 1977 Wilderness Study Act because it did not the maintain the "wilderness character" of the area.
Mountain bikers will be the most affected forest users under the plan released Wednesday. Only 60 miles of trail in the wilderness-study area will be open for mountain biking this year, which is 25 percent of what was available last year. Motorcyclists will be allowed to ride on 40 miles of trail.
Generally, trails closest to Bozeman and Big Sky will remain open to mountain bikers while trails deeper in the area will become off limits, said Marna Daley, spokeswoman for the Gallatin Forest.
For Bob Allen, the decision means mountain bikers will lose rare access to high-alpine areas.
"It's alarming that it's such a dramatic reduction to access to some high-country trail systems we've ridden for decades," Allen, co-president of the Montana Mountain Bike Alliance, said Wednesday. "People live in Bozeman for that."
Brad Grein, a member of Citizens for Balanced Use, went further in his criticism of the decision, saying the Gallatin was capitulating to environmental groups in hopes of avoiding a lawsuit.
"What happened here was forest management through threat of litigation," Grein said.
He said the closures would force higher concentrations of mountain bikers and motorcyclists on the trails that remain open, which will lead to user conflicts.
But others were more supportive of the plan.
Ben Donatelle, who mountain bikes several days a week in the summer, said the forest struck a good balance between maintaining mountain bike access and protecting sensitive areas.
"I'm really excited that the heart of the WSA is being protected to the greatest degree it can be," he said. "And I'm excited some of the most widely used and beloved mountain bike trails around Bozeman are being left open to mountain bikes."
He said that although he mountain bikes, he recognizes that certain areas are inappropriate for mechanized users, and said the Gallatin still has 1,000 miles of trail open for mountain bikers.
"I don't believe that mountain bikes should have access to wilderness areas. We just need to slow down some times," he said.
The Wilderness Study Act was sponsored by Sen. Lee Metcalf, D-Mont., and sought to preserve areas while Congress considered whether to designate them as wilderness. However, more than 30 years later, no decision has been made on areas like the Hyalite- Porcupine-Buffalo Horn.
Daniel Person can be reached at dperson@dailychronicle.com or 582-2665.
Montana Rider posted at 2:15 pm on Mon, Apr 12, 2010.
Ben Donatelle (a mountain biker / bike shop guy) is certainly entitled to his opinion that this is a good decision, but his affiliation with Sierra Club (discovered in 2 seconds with the wonders of google) could help to explain his stance and should've been included along with his quote.
WSA is not Wildnerness (yet) and there's no reason that a few handful of bikes a year need to be excluded from the crest under the guise of maintaining wilderness 'character -- whatever that is..
I'm curious to see when they will outlaw the adventure racers (and horses) from the backbone -- oh, but they're just running (walking).
Wheelie of Peace posted at 10:34 pm on Sun, Apr 11, 2010.
Share the trails AND Keep It Wild!
Gallatin Crest National Protection Area.
Has a nice ring to it - doesn't it?
Charle de mar posted at 5:50 pm on Sun, Apr 11, 2010.
I do believe in protecting areas from impact. However, it seems to me that the fundamentalist approach to environmentalism is some what parallel to fundamental religions. There is only take. No give. Instead of you can't ride here but will let you ride there. ( let me ride on my public lands...please it's mine too) There seems to very little compromise on one side and get your but out and suck it up on the other. There wouldn't be these great mountain bike trails if it weren't for the motorcyclist and atv's lugging around chainsaws volunteering to clear trails. I ride a dirtbike because of health conditions and physical limitations. Sounds like now, I will have to say goodbye to more places that I have been and seen. I almost never see anybody after the first 5 miles of a ride. It will be interesting to see what the Chinese do with the land once they buy it and abandon their stink hole. Support your local farms and save them. They feed you.
Basil posted at 1:39 pm on Fri, Apr 9, 2010.
I look forward to the time when all these federal lands are owned and controlled by the state of Montana and not some distant leviathan represented by an imperial federal judge.
MeMyselfAndEye posted at 10:05 am on Fri, Apr 9, 2010.
Keep the people out. It's ridiculous how access to the wilderness and its denizens is always argued in favor of having more people out there. Somehow it's all going to benefit the landscape. Enough! Leave it alone. Stay out of it. It was here long before you - it will remain that way if you just back off!
yerfullofcrap posted at 9:26 pm on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
Well what the eco-nazis have not realized is that due to thier science turned religion lawsuit they have diverted funds that whould have likely gone to trail maint. or patrol. If a biker breaks the ban and no one is there to catch him/her does he/she really break the ban. If the Forest Circus can't patrol the crest who will? Some do good hiker or horseback rider (bear spray, not just for bears).
When they outlaw bikers, only outlaws will ride!
Wheelie of Peace posted at 8:03 pm on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
Sadly the Wilderness plaintiffs in the lawsuit did nothing but polarize the community more than it already was about the WSA. Quite frankly they look like self serving, sanctamonious jerks for repeatedly insisting that bicycle impact is the same as motorized to achieve their political goal of reduced motors in the WSA. This messy little distortion of fact and truth is going to bite them in the backside. It will be interesting to watch as they struggle to spin their way out of this public relations debacle. They can't have it both ways - either they honestly assess what backcountry bicycling is or they throw bicycles under the motorized juggernaut. Let us call a spade a spade - the entire legal strategy for the lawsuit resulting in the ruling by Judge Molloy is slimy politics at best.
The Wilderness-at-all-costs folks will reap what they have sown...
becker posted at 4:34 pm on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
Keep insults and name-calling out of the comment thread. This is a good conversation. I'd hate to have to turn off comments for this article.
TrailRider posted at 3:23 pm on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
Bzndude- You seem angry. See you on the trails. I'll be out riding where I am still allowed. Have a good one....if you can!
Shane posted at 2:37 pm on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
bzndude, that's just the thing, there are no laws requiring mt bikes be kept out of WSAs. I know of no definition of wilderness character so I have to assume that it means preserving the land in a state that leaves it looking untouched by man. Now, the trails are going to be there anyway and they are maintained even in Wilderness areas. How does a bicycle change that scenario? We don't have the power to spin out and tear up the ground and I see no difference in the degree of "mechanization" inherent in a bicycle compared to, say, a set of skies or a backpacker's stove.
I disagree with Dannie's comments about motorized use. I've seen and talked with plenty of responsible OHV riders but with that much horsepower just one bad apple can rip up a ton of ground. There are more than one bad apple out there too and that amount of damage can't be compared to a bit of litter.
BUT I do think Dannie is right on when it comes to the politicle reasons for this ruling. I have friends who are very involved in this process and they tell me just how uncompromising and unreasonable the demands of the hiker-only crowd can be. It's truely childish. But they have $ behind them and are well organized.
You're also completely off base when trying to insult Dannie's intelligence. Of all the nutjobs that post over on Bozeman Talks, he's one of about 3 people worth listening to.
bzndude posted at 1:55 pm on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
TrailRider - by all means don't let the relevance of this article and conversation get in the way of your irrelevant useless drivel. Burning fossil fuels from driving is not the issue - back country/Wilderness is. Do you understand the difference between developed areas and Wilderness, Einstein? Stick a pipe in it unless you have something relevant to contribute...
TrailRider posted at 1:25 pm on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
Bzndude......"100% of motorized users defile the wilderness" Please stop with the holier than though attitude. Good grief, do you ski if you do do you drive there? Do you hike, if you do, do you drive there? Do you use any source of energy the might burn fossil fuels? Give me a freaking break. Nice unabomber mentality you have there.
bzndude posted at 12:54 pm on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
Shane - I don't have much of a problem with mountain bikers, and I enjoy the activity myself. I have signed petitions on behalf of mountain biking interests in the back country. I agree that their/our impact is minimal. However, if laws require that we have our areas cut back for the sake of preserving Wilderness character, I am happy to comply. Ever spring I feel disgusted by the devastation left by horse use. It is ridiculous. However, every time I rant about this I am reminded about the historical (grandfathered) nature of horse use in the west. Horses are ingrained in western culture and thus far arguing against it is a losing battle.
Daniel006 - it seems that you are among the VOCAL MINORITY whom are the MAJOR OFFENDERS of wilderness defilation. Your argument is extremely weak and as small minded as your likely IQ. And I can only be more pleased about the recent news if motorized, destructive activities are banned outright altogether! I accept your challenge: visit any trail system today that permits motorized use and you will see the destructive waste that your kind of small-minded, entertained-by-burping-and-farting people partake in. 100% of motorized users defile the wilderness. Hikers who do not practice "LEAVE NO TRACE" principles are wrong, but as a percentage of the whole these violators are extremely few. Go open another can of Schlitz and strain your neck watching hot-rods circle the Nascar track....
danie006 posted at 12:18 pm on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
to bzndude:
Show me one defiled location where "motorcycles" are to blame and I can show you 10 places where hikers have left garbage, burned out campsites and switchback cut-thus. I can also show you at least 5 places in the Bozeman-Big Sky area where horses have cut up mountainsides, creating erosion fields.
This ruling has absolutely nothing to do with sharing; it has everything to do with a set of selfish "environmentalists" crying loud enough to get their way.
If you truly want to KEEP IT WILD as you state, then you should stay away as well.
Shane posted at 12:09 pm on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
Well bzndude, I agree that motorized vehicles do a lot of damage, so do horses in the springtime. But I don't have to imagine what these areas would look like if "everyone were allowed to" mountain bike in them - they'd look just like they do today. The amount of bikers who ventured onto the Gallatin Crest etc were so small that they had no impact whatsoever.
The same is true for the Continental Divide Trail down near Lima. The trails were so unused that they grew over in many places - what was the point of banning bikers there?
What exactly is "wilderness character"? We are fortunate to have lots of designated wilderness around here. By managing WSAs the same as Wilderness areas the USFS is creating defacto Wilderness Areas in places where other designations could be just as effective without shutting out user groups who have a long history in the areas (just like horses got grandfathered into being able to use Wilderness Areas despite the damage they cause).
bzndude posted at 11:16 am on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
to Mr Uneducated - public lands are not being taken away; the lands are being preserved so that you can SHARE IT with your loved ones and future generations. Consider what the lands would become if everyone were allowed to use whatever the most advanced motorized methods that technology can design to defile this wonderful land of ours. There would be nobody to SHARE IT with in just a few years. When it comes to our public lands: KEEP IT WILD! is the best policy. KEEP IT WILD !!
UneducatedVoter posted at 10:54 am on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
That's lame. I don't bike, but I like to snowmobile. I'm sure biking does little to damage the land, and snowmobiles do even less (as long as conditions are acceptable).
I hate to see our access to "public" land being taken away.
bzndude posted at 10:28 am on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
The real positive step in the right direction is to reduce motorcycle use...the worst perpetrators who defile the wilderness characteristics that are so necessary to maintain!
I understand that mountain bikers are being hit hard although they don't commit the degree of devastation that motorized vehicles create.
Whatever the GNF's motivation for enacting these rules - great job GNF! Motorized vehicles don't belong in wilderness (study) areas. KEEP IT WILD!!
resident posted at 8:58 am on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
I hope that people don't dilute themselves into thinking that one "mountain bikers" comments represent all bikers. Next thing you know you won't be able to walk the trails either and I am sure you will find a hikers who says they are "excited' by the changes. It's like how they are clamping down on dogs in the town. I know of a person who tied their dog in front of Heebs where they have a place to tie them up and got a ticket for an unattended dog. What is wrong with you people?
jparker posted at 8:09 am on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
I'm glad they found a "mountain biker" to talk to who happens to be a Wilderness Society member to quote for this one. The wilderness groups haven't managed to get any new wilderness through traditional means, so I guess in this country lawsuits is how you get it done. To make it worse, The Forest service has to pay for the attorney fees of the wilderness groups who sued them on top of their own because of abuse of the The Equal Access to Justice Act. Now wonder they can't afford a trail crew this year.
bullgod posted at 8:06 am on Thu, Apr 8, 2010.
Looks like some people are getting a taste of their own medicine.