The Mountain Biking Controversy

Mountain biking in parks is still a controversial topic. Since this is not in any way an official website, I won't shy away from exploring the controversy or venturing my own opinions. Some hikers would like to see bikes banned from parks, or at least restricted to roads. Some mountain bikers don't want any restrictions at all, including prohibitions on riding cross-country. The park attempts to balance these extremes. On one hand, a state park is required to protect the natural environment, but at the same time provide recreational opportunities which are not incompatible with resource protection. This requires a good deal of subjective interpretation.

A park administration which gave protection of the native environment top priority would probably not only have to put more restrictions on mountain biking, but also more severely restrict backpacking in the park, ban horses from the park, remove all roads, remove or reroute most steep trails, remove all developed springs, remove all dams (and thus all ponds and lakes), and, in general, disturb an awful lot of people who like it more or less like it is now. The only thing on the preceding list that the park might do in the coming years is reroute most of the exceedingly steep trails that exist on many Coe hillsides, replacing them with more moderate grades. This is not a matter of caving in to the demands of the weak, but of protecting the landscape from the adverse effects of erosion.

Hikers who have been startled by a mountain biker suddenly appearing out of nowhere may be surprised to learn that there have never been any cases of bikes running into hikers or horses (as of when I left the park in November '99). Bicyclists themselves are fairly frequently injured—crashing after hitting a rut or unseen bump, running into or off a bank, suffering extreme exhaustion—pretty much all preventable accidents. So while injury to other user groups has not been a problem, it is disturbing to other users to be surprised by anything travelling faster than they are, and bikers would find it in their interest to pay heed to the legitimate concerns of other users, even while arguing against the overblown or exagerrated concerns hikers and horseback riders sometimes express. But which is which?

Before I address these arguments based on my experience working at Coe, let me reveal my personal biases: I do not own and have never ridden a mountain bike. But during a 14-year period, I did ride my touring bike a total of about 20,000 miles, about half of which was commuting, the other half long-distance touring. A few miles were on trails before mountain bikes became popular. I am not unsympathetic to the joys of bike travel. On the other hand, I also have a higher than average appreciation for the environment and am more sensitive to human effects upon it than most people. I have also spent a lot of time building trails and observing how trail design affects user impact and behavior. And I know quite a few people, many of them Coe volunteers, who are both true nature lovers and mountain bikers, even while I have seen bicyclists who act like absolute jerks. So I feel like I have a good balance.

1) Bikes do less damage to the trails than horses. In my mind, this is clearly true on a per capita basis. In other words, each individual equestrian does more damage than each individual bicyclist. The impact of hundreds of pounds of horse and rider directed under sharp hooves clearly both kills more vegetation and compacts the soil more heavily than bikes. Compacted soil does not absorb moisture as readily, and if it doesn't absorb the rain, the rain runs off. When the soil has been denuded of vegetation, which hooves are especially effective at doing, the run-off becomes a creeklet, which creates gullies in trails. But there are far more bicyclists at Coe than horses, and I think that bikers, as a user group, do as much or more damage to the trails than horses. I also do believe that bikes would have far less impact than horses if pedalers always followed sound practices, such as never riding across a mucky spot in a trail (get off and carry the bike past instead), never skidding down a trail, and of course staying on the trail.

Not to be overlooked is the contribution that equestians make toward maintaining trails compared to bikers. A greater percentage of horseback riders are volunteers involved with trail maintenance than are bicyclists (at Coe Park, anyway, might be different elsewhere). They are also more heavily involved with patrolling, picking up trash, and other contributing projects. And because horse travel does damage vegetation more readily than any other user group (since off-road motor vehicles are not allowed), they help keep trails open and visible that would otherwise become overgrown. The reverse side of the coin there is that trails which already get enough use to not become overgrown and which are too steep to be environmentally sound are made much worse by horse use. I would not venture to judge whether the good work equestrians do makes them equal to cyclists in their impact on the park.

I will note that the different treatment which bicyclists get versus horses is probably a result of the centuries-long heritage Europeans, North Africans and some Asians have with horses, and especially the more recent lore and mythology of the cowboy. Parks that allow horses while banning bikes are probably doing so because 1) equestrians have long-standing political involvement (when you spend so much time and money to keep a horse, you're going to want to be damn sure no one restricts where you can ride) 2) people are used to the image of horses in parklands from generations of cowboy flicks (if the Old West were full of mountain bikes instead of horses, the situation would be reversed), and 3) equestrians are usually a very small minority in any park since the activity is usually more specialized and costly than mountain biking—so while other users rarely feel overwhelmed by the number of horses in a park, bike riders more frequently converge in parks on weekends and do intimidate a lot more people. If it is any comfort to bikers who feel unduly discriminated against, most of the same folks who would ban bikes from park trails would also ban horses.

Finally, even if you accept the premise that horses cause more damage than bikes, does that mean bikes are okay? The unspoken gist of this justification seems to be that if horses are allowed to screw up the trails, why can't bikers? This always seems to me a sad view, that fairness dictates that if one group is allowed to abuse something, all should be. Better to work out ways to reduce impacts all around.

2) Bikes may even do no more damage than hikers. I agree that bikes, conscientiously ridden, do no more damage than conscientious hikers. The real question is: Do bikes, as usually ridden cause more damage than the majority of hikers?

First, let's look at what "damage" is. Damage implies loss or harm. Animals are harmed when killed or injured; that is clear. Plants are also harmed when killed or injured; that is also not so difficult to understand, even if fewer people are sensitive to the injuries of plants than to animals. A trail is harmed if its function as a means of easily guiding people through the wildlands is impaired, or if the inherent impact a trail has on the environment is significantly increased. (Trails themselves are an alteration of the landscape which involves a localized destruction of plant life and a new habitat or pathway for animal life which benefits some and probably harms others.)

Specifically, ruts, washouts, and eroded berms make a trail harder to use. Ruts in and parallel to the trail collect runoff from storms, and have a compounding effect as soil is loosened, increasing the cutting action of the water, which cuts away still more soil, which eventually is carried to major creeks. This results in a high silt load in the waterways, which is detrimental to trout populations, and also results in more rapid runoff in general, which deprives plant life on hillsides of much needed water.

So, do the common practices of bikes cause more of this damage than hikers? Let us now look at the practices of each. These are generalities from my own observations, made without benefit of exact counts or notes, and perhaps a good starting point for a more precise study; if you have any of your own observations contrary to or confirming these, please let me know.

First, a greater percentage of bicyclists want to get somewhere in a hurry; speed is part of the thrill, and even a mere 5-10 miles an hour seems pretty fast on a narrow trail. But this speed may be too fast for the cyclist to steer clear of certain forms of wildlife. In the wet months, slow moving newts walk many of the trails, and they are not all that easy to see. During warmer seasons, alligator lizards and many kinds of snakes stretch out on bare trails, and are often slow to react. I've almost stepped on some while hiking and I don't believe that a bike moving faster than a hiker is going to be able to miss running some over. In other words, it is easier for cyclists to accidentally harm wildlife than for hikers to do so at the rate of speed most travel.

The thrill of speed also makes many bicyclists prone to skidding. Skidding loosens soil which then either blows away in the wind or washes away during the next rainy season. If it washes away, it increases the cutting action of runoff, as mentioned earlier. If it blows away, I don't know of any direct significant problems with that, since we are not talking about much dust in the air compared, say, to a park vehicle driving on backcountry roads. The only problem is if the skid is made in an area already rutted or beginning to rut, since this will channel it even deeper. A skid on an outer berm of a trail which needs to be broken down anyway might even be helpful.

Speed also makes most bicyclists reluctant to stop and walk around a hazard, and there even seems to be a point of honor or sport associated with riding over and through hazards such as puddles and fallen logs rather than getting off. More frequently than hikers (as I judge by the tracks), bikers will ride through wet mucky patches in the trail. Trouble is, bike tracks on wet soils form a miniature canal which convey water, inhibiting it from leaving the trail and causing more erosion. When the wet patch finally dries out, hard ridges are left behind which are troublesome to all user groups to get through, including bikes. (Here I am referring to wet patches on trails along steep slopes, as is typical at Coe, not wet spots on the rare flat spot at Coe. As a reader pointed out, some trail experts think hikers and bikers should go through puddles and muck to avoid widening the trail, but this is advice for flat wet meadows which Coe doesn't really have.)

Finally, speed causes some bikers to short cut curves when they are on moderate to gentle terrain, which results in an unnecessary doubling of the trail and destruction of plant life. Usually (though not always) these shortcuts are steeper, and thus more prone to erosion than the original trail. While hikers also short cut trails (more on that below), a bike track short cut is more readily visible than a hiker's tracks, and trail users are more prone to do short cuts when it is evident others have done so before them.

Second, mountain bikers are no more prone to short-cutting than hikers. Because the force of inertia tends to keep bicyclists more in straight lines and gentle curves, the short-cutting done by some bicyclists tend to be, as mentioned above, a straightening out of a gentle to moderate curve in the trail. Hikers do that also, and in addition, short-cut steep switchbacks. Renegade bikers don't usually do the latter because it is too much of a bother to stop, turn 90 degrees, ride/slide down a steep slope without careening off the edge of the trail below, then turn again 90 degrees to get back on the trail. But renegade hikers do this because it is easy for them. Both groups have in common laziness and lack of insight into the damage they cause.

I think the worse short-cutting damage I saw in the park was caused by bikers. The popular Middle Ridge Trail had a section of several short switchbacks (built before mountain bikes were popular and without thought of them) which bikers ended up sliding down; what was formerly a 1 to 2 foot wide trail was converted into a 12 foot or more wide barren swath. Overall, though, I think the groups are about equally culpable in this practice.

Third, I do not see any significant difference between bikes and boots in compaction of the soil, on a per mile travelled basis. In other words, the area rolled upon by wheels is not all that much more than the area trod upon by boots, and the bike does not add all that much weight to the individual user, not in comparison to horses and to prohibited motorcycles. But bikers, on average, travel much farther than hikers, which means that they have a greater impact per person. I am not comfortable with using this as a reason for restricting bikes, for I have no qualms about encouraging hikers to work up to travelling twice as far as they are accustomed to doing in order to experience more of the park, but which would double their impact!

Is compaction of the soil a problem? Yes and no. If the trail is poorly constructed or poorly maintained, it is a problem because the more compressed the soil is, the less rain and runoff it absorbs, and the greater the flow of water down the trail you have, and greater flow cuts with a greater force. On the other hand, if the trail is properly constructed and maintained with moderate to gentle grades and planned drainage, compacted soils, though shedding more water, may also carry less silt and soil, and thus be less prone to cutting deep new ruts. Compacted trails are also easier to keep more consistently even; newly constructed, uncompacted trails are easily pockmarked by horse hooves or scored by bike tracks.

Trouble is, the great majority of trails (and roads) at Coe Park are poorly constructed and poorly maintained. The main problem is that most are too steep, or at least have inadequate drainage. Users who have only hiked the trails within a few miles of headquarters may not notice the problem, since these trails are better than average. And in my experience, most observers don't notice the first signs that a problem is developing, such as a shallow rut that can only get deeper, and only notice it when it is already difficult to fix.

Park maintenance sometimes makes the problems worse: The repeated grading of roads to smooth out ruts has in some areas resulted in roads which are themselves broad water channels which then need grading ever more frequently. The park management has also encouraged the reopening of exceptionally steep, overgrown trails, particularly in the newer southern acquisitions, in the name of recreation; these trails will inevitably become rutted and increase the downslope sedimentation of creeks. In my judgment, most of them should have been left overgrown and kept closed because of this, and replaced by thoughtfully-surveyed, carefully constructed new trails as staffing and funding permit. Repairing rutted slopes is tough work (I've done it); why open bad trails and create yet more work in future needed repairs when the task of maintaining the existing 200+ miles of roads and trails is herculean in its scope?

The park is rerouting steep old trails and building completely new ones. Because I anticipate that Coe Park's paid staff will fluctuate widely with the economic fortunes and woes of the coming decades, I rather expect that it will take at least 50 years before most trails in the park are not too steep and poorly maintained. So meanwhile, if park users wish to preserve and indeed heal the marvelous ecosystem that it is, we must try to minimize our impact.

3) Any damage that is caused by bikes is a result of poor trail design. I agree with this, but . . . That is a little like saying that if a bull causes damage in a china shop, it is because of poor design of the shop. Well, I don't really equate bikes in parks with the proverbial bull in the china shop, but the analogy is fitting in that the shop is designed for careful, unbullish behavior, but some bulls want to enter it without changing their behavior. Similarly, some mountain bikers (and other users too) don't want to recognize or modify the destructive grossness of their behavior. As mentioned earlier, I do believe that bikes can be ridden on trails with no more impact than hikers. The key is care and caution. If you roll slowly downhill at or only slightly above walking speed, eyes alert for animals on the trail, conscious of the impact of your wheels, getting off and walking over or around muddy spots or steep areas where you might otherwise skid, ever willing to give horses and hikers the right of way and alert them of your presence, and not all dressed up like the neon advertising billboard that other park users would rather not see, no one could ever make a case against you.

4) Bikes enable users to get out farther into the park and appreciate more of it. The first part is certainly true, that bikes enable users to go farther. Though bicyclists new to the park who start from Coe Headquarters are sometimes surprised that they don't get very far. They end up pushing the bike up so many hills they might have been able to travel the same distance on foot with less exhaustion. Appreciation, of course, depends on the individual. A mode of travel which requires intense concentration to keep the wheels on the trail may not afford the rider much time to view the scenery—unless he/she makes the special effort to stop and see. Indeed, while working or resting just a dozen or two feet from the edge of a trail, in plain view, I've had numerous bicyclists pass by without noticing me. They were so focused on the trail, they could pass by innumerable sights more wonderful than my fine figure and be completely oblivious.

Lack of perception can certainly also be true with hikers, but the slower pace does not require quite as much focus on the trail to the exclusion of the greater landscape. Actually, riding on a horse is probably the best way to appreciate more of the scenery, since the horse does the work of following the trail!

Some bicyclists may argue that it's the physical challenge that is most appealing to them about the sport, not viewing nature. That's fine, so long as park resources are not damaged. But in those cases, they may as well ride laps on a two mile loop if they don't really care about seeing new aspects of the park.

So yes, bikers with the stamina can certainly see and appreciate more of Coe Park in a given time period if they stop frequently to enjoy the views. If you're one of these, great! Just don't spoil the wilderness experience of other users by illegally taking your machine into the Orestimba Wilderness. Instead, ride to the edge and turn around, or better yet, hide and lock your bike to a tree at the edge and walk in.

5) There is a renegade few who disobey rules, but the majority of mountain bikers are as law-abiding as any other group. I agree that it is a minority who cause problems, but in my judgment, that minority is more prevalent than in any other user group (with the probable exception of young male fisherman, who are prone to make illegal campfires, littering, and camping without registration!). By this I mean that the minority is a larger percentage of the group as a whole. Actually, on the specific problem of excessive speed, I believe the majority of mountain bikers are guilty of this. I define excessive speed as travelling so fast that if a snake or lizard was basking in the trail ahead, or a hiker was just around a blind corner, he or she could not stop in time to avoid running over the animal or colliding with the person. My assessment is based on years of observing trail riders descending hills, and the ones who I've seen coasting at wildlife-friendly speeds always stood out because they were exceptional.

It is frequent that bikers ignore trails clearly marked as closed. I see no way to compare this with hikers, since no trails are closed to them. Equestrians have one more trail closed to them than bicyclists, but it is rare that they violate the closed areas. I can't fairly give horseback riders credit for this, however, since they are such a small percentage of Coe users (less than 1%), and they so infrequently visit the Coe Headquarters area where closed trails are located, that I have no sense of whether they really do better, percentage-wise, than bicyclists.

And when I worked there, a greater percentage of mountain bikers ignored the fee signs and entered the park without paying the day parking fee than other trail groups. The most frequently stolen signs were the "No bikes" logo signs at the head of closed trails.

As to helping the park in general, participation by mountain bicyclists in the volunteer program was proportionately lower than the percentage of mountain bikers who use the park during the almost ten years I worked there. I'd estimate no more than 10% of uniformed volunteers mountain biked, compared to about 30% of users.

6) Bike riders are taxpayers who have the equal right to share the trails. Yes, they are taxpayers, but they are also citizens who have the obligation to obey the rules and regulations established by the managing authority. To some, this sounds dictatorial. But we live in a republic, with representative democracy, not a direct democracy. At least in the case of parks, this is good! Most people involved in managing the parks are more environmentally aware than the average citizen. Citizens through their elected and appointed representatives do set the general mission of state parks:

To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation.

Park professionals then decide in a manner prescribed by the elected representatives what regulations are needed to actually fulfill the mission. If it were left up to the visiting public to decide what the above mission statement meant for their visit with no other rules, the parks would be considerably degraded. Weekend visitors who spend the rest of their week writing software programs, pumping gas, cleaning hotel rooms, flipping hamburgers, ringing up groceries, selling clothing, preparing balance sheets, or whatever, can't be expected to truly understand the effects of their recreational actions on the plants, wildlife, and overall ecological health of a park.

This includes trail use, of course. Just because bicyclists are taxpayers doesn't mean that they have equal right to "share" the trails—if park officials determine that their impact is greater. I've already stated above my view that mountain bike impact is greater, not so much because of any inherent harsher damage by wheels over boots, but because the mountain biking subculture promotes damaging practices.

Coe Park management, in my opinion, has erred on the side of allowing fewer restrictions on mountain bike use. For example, State Park policy used to be that roads were open to mountain bikes and single track trails were closed to mountain bikes—unless otherwise decided on a trail by trail basis. Coe policy has been, in contrast, to keep all open, except for those single tracks marked otherwise. (This has given some extra incentive to steal the "No Bikes" signs, for if all trails are open unless posted as closed, they could claim ignorance if the sign was missing. We tried to prevent this excuse by stating on the bike information sheet that trails shown on the map as closed were closed even if signs were missing.)

In the mid-90s, the Coe superintendent actually allowed a mountain bike race organized by a private for-profit promoter to occur within the park during two consecutive years—though this meant the park was in effect sanctioning the exceeding of the 15 MPH maximum speed limit. (Fortunately, no more races were allowed. The word from higher up was that such events were appropriate for State Recreation Areas, but not more highly protected State Parks like Coe.)

In contrast, Garland Ranch Regional Park in Carmel Valley, where I used to work, still does not allow mountain bikes anywhere except a small area near the administrative office, even though it has plenty of fire roads well-suited for them with minimal user conflict. And it has a laxer level of resource protection than California State Parks—allowing dogs on trails, for example. This, I think, is too strict a policy, based on supposition of accidents that might occur but which rarely do in practice. I mention this for the benefit of those readers who might suspect that my views are tainted because I "just don't like mountain bikes"!

To the avid mountain biker, then, I can only add my words to those of many others: If you want to preserve your rights to bike the wildlands of California parks, ride responsibly: observe and understand your impact, minimize or eliminate them by slow speeds, give attention to plants and wildlife, attention to trail conditions, and respect for the hikers and equestrians you share the trail with. Stay off closed trails. Speak up when you see renegade behavior, make it clear to the renegades, land managers, and other user groups that mountain bikers are not all alike. Treat "Share the Trail" as a slogan marking your willingness to make accommodations to other users, not as a demand that "they" share with "us".

By giving respect, you will gain respect—and allies in the cause of getting wider acceptance of mountain bikers on public lands, and in the greater cause of the acquisition of yet more public wildlands to explore.

Henry W. Coe State Park, California An unofficial website created by Lee Dittmann and published by Mindbird Maps & Books
Home Page	Photo Tour	Location Map	Recreation
Trip Reports	Publications	Free Maps	Staff
Wildlife	Plants	Coe Songs	Donations
You can help support the development and maintenance of this website by your purchases of maps, books, optics, waterproof journals, and other wonderful items from the publisher's website, www.mindbird.com. The site is dominated by the large selection of maps, which include trail and topo maps for parks and forests throughout the country, as well as wall maps of the USA and World, geologic maps, international travel maps, US state road maps, city street maps, and much more—almost all at discount prices.