I
have a bum left ankle; actually, everything from the shin down. I was born with
my left foot twisted, something they now know how to fix in infancy. Then, when
I was in seventh grade, I broke my left ankle skiing, which required surgery to
repair. Back around 2004, in two weeks’ time, I managed to sprain both sides of
my left ankle which caused the arch in my left foot to collapse. Lastly, a couple
of years ago I got a spiral fracture of my left fibula, falling down the
stairs.
In 1993 I took up cycling as an
adult, first mountain biking and then bicycle touring/travel, because although
I enjoy walking, even with the aid of orthotics it can be painful for me. As a
founding member of IMBA’s National Mountain Bike Patrol, a volunteer service
organization modeled after the National Ski Patrol, I have observed with
interest the ongoing debate about the place of mountain bikes in backcountry and
wilderness areas. Because of my specific situation, I am sympathetic with those
who advocate for increased access to particularly wilderness areas by those who
ride mountain bikes. As a park ranger for twenty-six years, I also am very
familiar with the damage that can occur from various types of backcountry
travel. It goes without saying, that horse hooves, bike tires, and even hiking
boots take a toll on the ground underneath them. On the other hand, mountain
biking, which is only been a popular activity for about thirty-five years, has
less of effect on trails that are built sustainably for the specific activity.
If you go to Cuyuna Country State Recreation Area in central Minnesota or the
Chequamegon Area Mountain Bike Association trails in Northwest Wisconsin, you
will see less of an impact, because those trails are specifically built for MTB
use.
Therein, I believe, lies the
problem. Sustainable trails can bear mountain bike and hiking use quite
admirably, but they have to be built to the specifications required to do so. Because
of my physical limitations, a number of years ago I started using my touring bike
to access backcountry fishing spots at Cuyuna. Later, I started using my
mountain bike for the same thing in Chequamegon country. Then, in 2014 Quality Bicycle
Products (QBP), the world’s largest bicycle-related company, introduced the
Cogburn Outdoors CB4, a mountain bike with 4-inch-wide, low-pressure tires that
is basically a human-powered ATV, marketed specifically to the outdoor sports
user. The Cogburn has become my primary way of accessing non-wilderness
backcountry away from the trailhead, or after the road ends. |
| Photo credit: Cogburn Outdoors |
Much of the early publicity for the
Cogburn revolved around hunters (and in some cases anglers) using the bike to
access hunting areas away from the road and have your usage areas. In areas
where this is possible, practical, and legal, it’s a great idea, and it worked
very well. However, two things happened that had a pronounced effect on this
use; misuse, and the advent of e-bikes. The first, misuse, while theoretically
avoidable was also probably inevitable. Bikes ended up where they didn’t belong,
not just Cogburns, but mountain bikes and others. The second, and probably the
greater issue, was the adding of electric assist motors to fat bikes (mountain
bikes with 4 inch or greater with tires) that were also marketed heavily to the
outdoors user. The crux of the issue is that e-bikes, unlike their unassisted
counterparts, are motorized vehicles. Most national and state forest and game
management areas limit the use of motorized vehicles to designated roads and
trails. Places that a mountain bike or fat bike and go legally, an e-bike
cannot.
In 2017 QBP ended production of the
Cogburn without much fanfare. The Cogburn was a niche bike, and with the growth
of e-bikes and other marketing considerations, it became a rapidly dwindling
niche. I still have mine, and always will. I’d love to get a couple more to have
on hand to take my grandkids fishing, but right now that’s not in the cards, nor
is there enough space in my garage to do so. I still ride in the backcountry,
to access remote streams and lakes. Do I believe wilderness should be open to non-electric
assisted mountain bikes? On a limited, case-by-case basis, yes, I do. To
blanket state that all wilderness areas should be open to mountain bikes, absolutely
not. Should wilderness designation be used to take away existing, legal
mountain bike trails? Also, absolutely not. But I do believe there is a place,
and a time for compromise. It pained me to see organizations that I am proudly a
part of taking a rigid stance against bikes in the backcountry, particularly
since Cogburn Outdoors was one of their early supporters.
To mountain bike users, I would say
pick your battles wisely. There is a lot of backcountry (primitive,
nonmotorized management areas, or “wild forest”) that is available for us to
use. There is a state forest near me where ranger flagged me down while I was
riding there one time, simply because he had never seen a mountain biker on
that forest. Wisely use what you have available before you go looking for that
which is not open. To those who are opposed to bicycle use in the backcountry,
I would say that Montana is different from Minnesota is different from upstate
New York. Look at things on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket “NO!” To
both sides I would say, look and work for an effective compromise.
And for those who would jump all
over me for riding on “their trail”, first of all, no, it’s not. Secondarily,
as one district ranger told me with regard to a certain national trail that
crosses a first-class trout river, “there aren’t any ‘no bikes allowed’ signs
on that trail.” Where there are, I won’t ride. Otherwise, I’ll see you out
there.
