Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness: Navigating Unknown and Dangerous Rhetorical Terrain

A Paper Presented to The Conference on Communication and Environment, 1999

Flagstaff, Arizona
July 24-27, 1999

Jim Hasenauer, Associate Professor
Department of Communication Studies
California State University at Northridge
Northridge, CA 91330-8257
818-677-2086

Abstract

This paper examines the rhetorical situation facing mountain bicycle advocates as they evolved a position on bicycle access to designated federal Wilderness. It first examines the historical background of backcountry bicycling and the 1964 Wilderness Act. It notes that in the 1964 act bicycles were not expressly forbidden from designated Wilderness. Originally "mechanized transport" was defined as "propelled by a nonliving power source". Of course, the 1964 Wilderness legislation predates the invention of the modern mountain bicycle in the 1970's and its enormous popularity since the mountain bike became generally available. In 1984, language was inserted into the Code of Federal Regulations to expand the definition of "mechanized transport" to specifically ban bicycles.

Early mountain bike advocacy in the late 1980's set aside the Wilderness issue and focused attention instead on access to recreational trails on non-Wilderness public lands. Early attempts by anti-Wilderness groups to appeal to cyclists were rejected and mountain bicycle organizations took clear steps to align with mainstream environmental interests.

Today, the rhetorical terrain is different. The acceptance of mountain bicycling and the growth of mountain bike advocacy organizations has been concomitant with the acceptance and growth of advocates for new designated Wilderness. In the past few years the number and size of proposed new Wilderness areas, especially in California and Utah, has led to both dialogue and tension between these groups. There is also a dialogue and tension within the mountain bicycle community itself. The problem is clear. New Wilderness will exclude mountain bicyclists. Should cyclists support Wilderness designation for its intrinsic environmental benefits and sacrifice their own potential recreational interests or should they try to limit or even oppose new Wilderness and preserve trail access? Should new designations be created or should the 1984 bike ban be revisited?

These questions are explored in the context of the proposed Utah Wilderness as it is the first major Wilderness planning process where mountain bicycling organizations have been included in the planning process. In 1998, the Utah Wilderness Coalition (UWC) invited the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) to be a member. The paper examines the rhetorical demands on IMBA as it dealt with different internal and external audiences and a lack of consensus on the Wilderness issue. It examines the position of the mountain bike organization as a rhetorical one developed in light of the competing needs to reflect the views of its membership and to maintain principled, yet fragile alliances with the environmental community. Finally, the paper identifies issues which polarize mountain bike activists and Wilderness advocates that need to be addressed.

Introduction

In a previous paper, I examined the growing acceptance of mountain biking as an appropriate use of trails on public land and the legitimization of mountain bike organizations as they moved from strangers to stakeholders to partners in the recreational trails community (Hasenauer, 1998c). In that paper, I demonstrated that facts regarding the safety and environmental impacts of trail bicycling had exonerated cyclists from a number of anecdotal charges that they were inappropriate on recreational trails, and that the ethic of volunteerism which has emerged in mountain bike organizations has facilitated their acceptance by land managers and other user groups. While that is generally true, a significant polarizing issue emerges from the ban on bicycling in designated Federal Wilderness. Because this issue is potentially divisive, representatives of mountain bicycle organizations have been cautious, some would say overly cautious, in crafting policy and position statements regarding both existing and proposed Wilderness.

In this paper, I'll offer some preliminary analysis of an extremely complex rhetorical situation for bicycle advocates, the case of Federal Wilderness designation. In short, bikes have been banned from designated Wilderness since 1984. At the same time, mountain bicyclists have been largely supportive of land preservation and other environmental goals. Where do bicyclists stand when proposed Wilderness designation threatens to exclude them from existing or potential riding areas? While this is a practical or philosophical question for individual cyclists, the question of where mountain bike advocacy groups should stand has significant practical and rhetorical consequences in public land policy development.

My Standpoint

It's important for readers to know that I am a participant in this discussion, not just an observer. I've been a mountain bike advocate since 1987 and have often been involved when mountain bike positions about designated Wilderness are developed. I am one of the founders of the International Mountain Bicycling Association, a Board member since 1988, and its former president (1991-96).

I intend to be a reflective rhetorical practitioner here. I'll try to be fair, honest and open and I'll appreciate your feedback, direction and criticism if my standpoint gets in the way of my analysis.

Wilderness

The 1964 Wilderness Act is a milestone in environmental history for its recognition that there must be places set aside in their pristine state--wholly untouched by development, roads, vehicles and other human-made changes. The act envisioned "untrammeled" land where humans are only visitors who do not remain. The act immediately set aside 9.1 million acres of Wilderness (Stegner, 1990).

The Wilderness Act did not forbid human visitation, in fact it emphasized "having opportunities for solitude or unconfined type of recreation" but it took steps to minimize human impacts. Section 4c stipulated "there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport..." (Public Law 88-577) (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) defined "mechanical transport" as "propelled by a nonliving power source". The 1964 Wilderness Act allowed bicycle use, but there were very few bicyclists riding in Wilderness areas.

Mountain bike technology had not been invented and the bike technology of the time was not well suited to trails on natural terrain. Bikes were either heavy, single speed or lighter, fragile, 10 speed "racing bikes". While there is a history of bicycle travel on dirt since the bicycle came to the United States in the late 1800's and some of it took place in what would become Wilderness, in the 1960's and 70's, the numbers were small enough to be unnoticeable.

Mountain Bikes

People had always modified bicycles to go off road. In the early 70's, in Marin County, California near San Francisco, enthusiasts riding these modified "klunkers" began to ride and race regularly on local trails and fire roads. In 1977, Joe Breeze, one of those riders, built 10 bike frames specifically for riding off road. Most people identify this as the birth of the modern mountain bike. A few small custom builders followed suit and the activity began to get attention in road bicycling magazines.

In 1981, Specialized Bicycle Company introduced the first mass produced mountain bicycle, the "Stumpjumper", and by 1984 a number of bike companies were producing mountain bikes. The mountain bike revived a stagnant bicycle industry. The bikes were relatively light, multi-geared and strong enough to endure long off-road rides on rough, rocky, primitive trails. Technological advances in materials, suspension and gearing continue.

When mountain bicycling first became popular, land managers didn't know what to expect from the activity or its participants. Many were justifiably cautious. There was an abundance of data used to guide decisions on other types of motorized and non-motorized recreation, but virtually nothing about off-road bicycles. The concerns and complaints of hikers and equestrians, especially in urban fringe areas, led some land managers to close trails.

Mountain Bike Advocacy Organizations

Cyclists organized to prevent and reverse these closures and an incipient social movement was born. In 1983, the National Off Road Bicyclists Association (NORBA) was founded and took up the missions of developing rules for competition and being the "organized voice of off-road bicyclists to secure access to public lands.".

Early on, four planning issues emerged: environmental impacts, user safety, liability concerns and most significantly, user conflict. The cyclists themselves played a pivotal role in the framing of these issues. They argued for fact based decision making, empirical evidence over anecdote, shared use over exclusion or separate facilities and education as the primary mode of regulating the activity. Now a great deal of experience from more than 20 years of activity has provided some empirical guidance on these issues, but all continue to require new research and dialogue.

Most land managers are charged first with protecting the resource and the primary question regarding mountain bike use was what are its impacts? The large body of data on motorized trail use and the resemblance between bicycles and motorcycles led some to believe that impacts were similar. Cyclists countered that the power differential was significant and that bike impacts were closer to those of other non-motorized trail users. In most places, bicyclists went out of their way to distance themselves from motorized trail groups. Studies have concluded that mountain bike impacts are not significantly different than hiker impacts in most cases. Both of these uses tend to have fewer impacts than do equestrians (Wilson and Seney, 1994; Cessford, 1995).

The second concern has been one of safety. Is bicycling safe for the bicyclist and do bicyclists pose a threat to other trail users? Some hikers and equestrians argue that the speed differential and risk of surprise make bikes inherently unsafe on trails. Cycling advocates claim that education and responsible riding are the solution. Bike advocates point out that while there is potential danger in all outdoor recreation, the number of mountain bike fatalities and serious accidents is minuscule given the number of riders. In both recreation and competition, most mountain bike accidents are minor and predictable (Chow, Bracker and Patrick, 1993; Kronisch, Pfeifer and Chow, 1996). Accidents involving bicyclists and other trail users are extremely rare.

Safety concerns raise questions of liability for both public and private land managers. Bike organizations, like those representing rock climbers, backpackers and others, urge cyclists to take personal responsibility for themselves and their equipment.

Ultimately, concerns about environmental impact, safety and liability give way to the thornier problem of user conflict. There is an emerging literature here (Moore, 1994; Watson, Williams and Daigle, 1991) and communication professionals have much to offer. Among the most significant findings are the affinity between cyclists and hikers (Hollenhurst, Schuett and Olson, 1995) even though hikers do not realize it (Watson, Williams and Daigle, 1991). There has also been the consistent finding that the perception of user conflict is often exaggerated by the multiple complaints lodged by a small number of people (Moore, 1994).

One user conflict issue is the question of aesthetic or philosophical appropriateness. The bike is a machine; it is manufactured; it has wheels and gears; Native Americans didn't have it. Does it belong on backcountry trails? Most cyclists see themselves as human scale and muscle powered with technology not much different than titanium backpack frames, technical clothing or climbing gear. This is not a question of fact and will probably not be resolved by data. While it has been raised in many local, state and regional parks, it is this value issue that underlies the Wilderness controversy.

Reclassification

In 1984, the Code of Federal Regulations was changed and bicycles were specifically identified as a form of mechanical transport. Mountain bike travel was banned in all Wilderness areas. At the time, bicyclists were not aware of any public process that led to the change in the CFR, and it was treated as one more closure. While many of the early closures on recreational park lands were reversed through the efforts of cycling advocates (Hasenauer, 1998c), the Wilderness closure has stuck.

The new regulation created immediate problems where bikes were already riding trails. A case in point was Point Reyes National Seashore, a 71,000 acre park near San Francisco where 24,200 acres of Wilderness were designated in 1976. Point Reyes is in Marin County, where the modern mountain bike was invented and from the very beginning there was a great deal of mountain bike use on both its Wilderness and non-Wilderness trails and roads. The most popular riding was in the Wilderness areas and when the park closed trails to bikes in response to a directive from Washington...

"The reaction of local trail riders was immediate. By September 29, the date of the National Seashore Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting, we had petitions with over 1200 signatures demanding public hearings. The meeting was attended by over fifty fat tire friends. Many chose to speak to the commissioners on subjects such as the historic use of bicycles in the park (and in the same area before it was a park), environmental impact, user compatibility and the trails system so ideally suited to bicycles....The Advisory Committee reacted favorably and decided unanimously to draft a letter to the director of the National Park Service urging him to seek a formal opinion from the Solicitor General..."(Livingston, 1984, p. 17). The policy stood.

NORBA was one year old, a small, relatively new organization ill equipped to take on federal land planning policies. Closures were escalating also on non-Wilderness recreational trails, especially around population centers. Nascent bike advocacy organizations began to concentrate their efforts on these. Wilderness closure was not a high priority. By 1988, NORBA focused exclusively on racing. It relinquished its advocacy work.

International Mountain Bicycling Association

The increasing numbers of closures near cities and NORBA's abdication led to the formation of the International Mountain Bicycling Association in 1988. IMBA's objectives were:

1. to promote the sport of mountain bicycling by educating riders in safe, responsible and courteous cycling,
2. to facilitate the formation of local mountain bicycle clubs,
3. to act as a clearinghouse of information for the advocacy of land access at all levels of government,
4. to lead the advocacy effort at the national level
5. and to promote appreciation of and care for recreational lands by mountain bicyclists. (IMBA, 1988, p. 2)

It was clear that organizations were necessary to earn acceptance and to facilitate communication with land managers and other stakeholders. Clubs tended to form first near cities where dense population and too little open space intensified management issues. Clubs almost always organize around a fixed place, a trail or trail system, a park or a mountain range.

Among the first orders of business was the adoption of codes of conduct while riding. The NORBA code was the first in 1983. IMBA's six Rules of the Trail were adopted in 1988 and have become the standard. They have been translated into several languages and are routinely used on signs, bike shop handlebar hangtags, pamphlets and other materials to guide rider behavior:

IMBA Rules of the Trail
Ride on Open Trails Only
Control Your Bicycle
Never Scare Animals
Always Yield Trail
Leave No Trace
Plan Ahead

Like many advocacy groups, IMBA was first run by volunteers. In 1993, an Executive Director was hired and now there is a small professional staff, but it still relies greatly on volunteer efforts. In 1999, there are some 10-15 million mountain bicyclists, more than 300 local mountain bike clubs, and IMBA with more than 14,000 members, is widely acknowledged as the representative of organized mountain bike advocacy.

Mountain biking is diverse, encompassing a range of riding interests and styles from the occasional bikepath rider to world class, competitive athletes. Recreational riders make up the bulk of the sport's numbers. In the US, they are served by six national, monthly magazines specifically aimed at mountain bike enthusiasts.

From the start, IMBA's priorities were securing access to recreational trails in non-Wilderness areas by encouraging mountain bicyclists to work with environmental groups and other non-motorized trail users. These efforts have done much to reduce conflict and establish partnerships. Cyclists undertook a number of activities to address concerns about mountain bike use. These enhanced their credibility and perceived legitimacy. Bicyclists were building alliances with other groups (Hasenauer, 1998c).

Volunteerism has become an important ethic in mountain biking. IMBA encourages all mountain bicyclists to contribute at least 20 hours a year of volunteer service to their local parks. Organized bicyclists now contribute hundreds of thousands of hours of trail building and maintenance. The first programs were established locally and then publicized through IMBA as models that could be adopted in other places. As IMBA grew, some programs became coordinated from the national office in Boulder, Colorado.

There are mountain bike skills classes that emphasize not only technical riding skills, but minimum impact riding and trail etiquette. When a bicycle magazine runs a story or ad that is perceived as environmentally or socially irresponsible, readers write in to protest. The editorial and advertising contents of the magazines has changed considerably over the last 10 years. There is still a great deal of emphasis on racing, technology and performance, but there is now a consistent portrayal of environmental and social obligations and a diversity of rider demographics, skill levels and riding preferences is presented. Mountain bicyclists have also integrated their educational material into the well established Leave No Trace and Tread Lightly programs. Most mountain bike guidebooks have a section on responsible trail riding.

There are a number of local volunteer patrols who function as roving interpreters, peer educators, and first aid providers. These are loosely affiliated under the National Mountain Bike Patrol based on a ski patrol model. There are youth programs taking at risk or inner city kids on mountain bike field trips. There are partnerships with scout and school groups. There are even joint social events to bring hikers, equestrians and cyclists together.

With the sponsorship of Subaru America, IMBA has two full time, two person Trail Care Crews traveling around the United States. Each team has technical expertise in trail planning, construction and maintenance. They work with land managers and local volunteers on trail projects.

Cycling groups have become involved in public lands protection through lobbying for land acquisition funds and by attempting to monitor and control development on or near open space. Sprung (1997) identifies a number of local projects where mountain bicyclists raised significant funds for public land acquisition. Mountain bicyclists were active with other environmentalists in the legislative campaign which led to the passing of the 1998 TEA-21 transportation bill allocating millions of dollars for trails, alternative transportation facilities and other transportation enhancements. Mountain bicyclists have joined the campaign to revitalize the Land and Water Conservation Fund and are active in the campaign organization at local, regional and national levels.

Bicycle advocates have established programs to encourage racers to act as spokespersons and role models for the sport. These have included giving racing points for volunteer trailwork, placing responsible riding messages in interviews and involving racers in events for youth.

Mountain bike advocates have convinced the bicycle industry to support these advocacy and educational efforts. Most bike manufacturers are members of IMBA and many have taken on special projects to promote responsible riding. The American bicycling industry had been politically apathetic in comparison to other corporate sectors which have lobbying and legislative affairs programs. The mountain bike trail access issue and the road bike alternative transportation movement has awakened an interest in political work. A new organization, Bikes Belong, has been recently established to coordinate lobbying efforts.

These initiatives and activities, mostly concentrated on trail opportunities on parks and recreational lands, characterize the bulk of mountain bike advocacy over the last twelve years.

IMBA and Wilderness

Still, the Wilderness controversy loomed.. In the very first issue of IMBA's newsletter, an article indicated that a favorite cycling trail in the Los Padres National Forest in California would be closed to bikes if the Sespe River drainage was declared Wilderness (Douglass, 1988, p.3). Talks with the land manager, local activists, politicians and others indicated that the Sespe trail probably could have been placed outside Wilderness boundaries if organized bicyclists had been involved in the planning effort. For cyclists, this was an early lesson in the significance of land use planning. Being at the table during preliminary Wilderness discussions became a major tenet in IMBA's approach to the issue. The Sespe was declared Wilderness in 1992.

On August 3, 1989, Congressman James Hansen of Utah offered HR 3172, an amendment to the 1964 Wilderness Act, that would allow bikes in Wilderness (IMBA, 1989, p.1). This was a surprise to mountain bike advocates and was widely debated in the mountain bike community. The position that emerged was a rhetorical one. While IMBA felt Hansen's position was correct, it was unwinnable. Furthermore, supporting it would alienate bicyclists from environmental, hiking and equestrian groups in other advocacy discussions. Finally it was felt that an amendment to the Wilderness Act was bad precedent and unnecessary, since cyclist's exclusion was by regulation in the CFR not in the legislation itself. (Hasenauer, 1989, p. 5) The Hansen Bill died in committee.

The Hansen proposal was a catalyst for more discussion on accommodating bikes under current or more favorable Wilderness regulations and the next several IMBA newsletters featured letters to the editor and guest editorials on the issue. Suggestions included: new land use designations which would provide Wilderness-like protection from economic exploitation, but accommodate more non-motorized recreation; a rubric of Wilderness tiers or zones much like the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum; attention to Wilderness boundaries; cherry stemming non-motorized trail corridors; and especially the importance of preserving access to existing traditional mountain bike routes. In any case, advocacy activity and policy development were still primarily on trail access on non-Wilderness public land and especially in urban fringe areas where there is too little open space and recreational demand is high. In these discussions, bike advocates often argued "we are not talking about Wilderness".

Even the language was problematic. In ordinary language, the word "wilderness" is evocative and ambiguous. It conjures a sense of natural terrain on a grand scale. At one level, readily understood by experienced bicyclists, the very essence of the mountain bike experience is to be enveloped by wilderness. In public land policy deliberations, however, bicycle advocates learned to routinely distinguish between "big W", designated Wilderness, and "small w", wilderness as wildland. For the most part, bike advocates eschew using "small w wilderness".

In 1991, the Wilderness Society made several public statements supporting "appropriate, expanded access for mountain bikes on public lands (other than wilderness) and mountain bike use on trails where appropriate." (DeMeglio, 1991, p. 1; IMBA, 1991, p. 3). Ron Tipton, the field operations director of the Wilderness Society, joined the IMBA Board of Directors. The Wilderness Society support was taken as evidence of the growing acceptance of mountain bikers by environmental groups and emphasized the importance of avoiding polarizing issues like Wilderness (Kelley, 1991, p. 1). IMBA encouraged individual cyclists to become informed and make up their own minds on the Wilderness issue, but avoided supporting or opposing Wilderness as potentially divisive.

By 1992, IMBA had begun strategic planning and was defining its environmental identity with land preservation one of its major goals. It had examined the developmental processes of groups like the National Audubon Society and American Rivers and determined that like them, IMBA needed to work for land preservation not just for its utilitarian value but for its own sake. IMBA leadership felt that this view was widely shared by IMBA members and several studies seem to bear this out (Watson, Williams and Daigle, 1991; Moore, 1994; Bjorkman, 1996). One study of IMBA membership by Hollenhurst, et al. (1995, p. 11) found that "mountain bike opinion leaders are overwhelmingly biocentric in their thinking, believing that nature has intrinsic value exclusive of what it does for humans, that humans do not have the moral license to infringe on this right, and that many of our environmental problems are rooted in our societal tendency to dominate, control, and exploit nature."

Meanwhile anti-Wilderness groups stepped up their appeals to mountain bikers. It was clear they saw the emerging alliance between cyclists and environmental groups threatening. The California Desert Protection Act mobilized large numbers of anti-Wilderness constituencies including motorized trail user groups. For the most part, IMBA sat it out. Its only involvement was successfully supporting a local club in trying to keep the Palm Canyon area near Palm Springs outside Wilderness boundaries (Maag, 1993, p 1). Eight million acres were designated Wilderness in 1994. IMBA took no position on the legislation.

The 1993 Colorado Wilderness Bill passed with little controversy in the cycling community. While a good number of trails were closed to bikes, a compromise in the Fossil Ridge area of the Oh Be Joyful valley created a National Recreation Area that restricted development, but allowed both motorized and mechanized trail use. The planning for Colorado Wilderness had begun in 1981 and cyclists had not been involved until later in the process. IMBA's newsletter editor, Gary Sprung, in his position with the High Country Citizen's Alliance, was involved in securing the Wilderness (IMBA, 1993, p 1).

A significant turning point in bicyclist involvement in Wilderness planning occurred in June 1993, when a local IMBA club, UMBA, the Utah Mountain Bike Association, formally endorsed the 5.7 million acre Utah Wilderness proposal offered by the Utah Wilderness Coalition. The mountain bikers had examined the various proposals, were satisfied that many roads had been cherry-stemmed out of the Wilderness and suggested some boundary modifications to maintain access to some traditional trails near Moab. UMBA director Douglas Alley said:

"The vast majority of UMBA's members feel that there is a place for all of us to enjoy our leisure activities and so it should remain. To our way of thinking, there is only a finite amount of unspoiled terrain left and the setting aside some now while it still exists is critical for the enjoyment of future generations as well as enhanced protection of the land from encroaching industrialization." (Sprung, 1993, p 4).

Working relationships were developing between mountain bike and mainstream environmental organizations. In 1994, after 6 months of mediation, representatives of the Sierra Club and IMBA met in Park City, UT and agreed on 5 principles:

1. To work for Wilderness, park and open space protection;

2. That mountain bicycling is a legitimate form of recreation and transportation on trails, including single track when and where it is practiced in an environmentally sound and socially responsible manner;

3. That not all non-Wilderness trails should be open to bicycle use;

4. To create joint projects to educate all non-motorized trail users;

5. To encourage communication between local mountain bicycle clubs and Sierra Club entities (IMBA, 1994, p. 1).

The issue of access to Wilderness was not an important part of the dialogue. IMBA reiterated that its priorities were on non-Wilderness recreational lands and wanted Sierra Club support for more open trails on these lands. In terms of Wilderness specifically, IMBA argued that their main interest was to be at the table when boundaries were being drawn and to try to maintain access to significant riding areas. IMBA did not agree that bicyclists would never try to secure bike access in existing Wilderness, but assured the Sierra Club that such a move was years away. Rudy Lukez, chair of the Sierra Club's Public Lands Committee said "Our discussions throughout the weekend demonstrated the common environmental interests of the Sierra Club and IMBA. We share the same desire to provide diversified non-motorized recreational opportunities while protecting the land. Sierra Club members are mountain bikers too. (IMBA, 1994, p 4).

In April of 1995, IMBA joined the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, the National Resources Defense Council and more than 20 other environmental groups in endorsing and publicizing the Environmental Bill of Rights urging the 104th Congress to maintain and strengthen environmental protection in the United States (Hasenauer, 1995, p. 3).

The rhetorical impact of IMBA's policies and programs was that mountain bicyclists had been generally successful in establishing their appropriateness and legitimacy. They had working relationships with land managers at federal, state and local levels. They had cooperative relationships and ongoing dialogues with other trail user and environmental groups. New backcountry trails in non-Wilderness were being opened to bikes and many of the trails that had been closed to bikes in the 1980's had been reopened. (Hasenauer, 1998c).

Utah Wilderness Coalition

In 1998, IMBA was invited to join the Utah Wilderness Coalition (UWC). The invitation and the proposal itself created a broad, intense, public discussion in the mountain bike community. For the first time, internet bicycle newsgroups, the IMBA advocacy listserve and enthusiasts' magazines were involved in a significant way. IMBA membership had grown and for the first time, a large number of bicyclists were publicly demanding that IMBA get involved to "save the trails". IMBA's success had created higher expectations from its many members. Those members were diverse in their opinions about bicycle access to Wilderness and the nature of IMBA' alliances with environmental groups, many of whom had been hostile to the cyclists on local trail issues. A large number of riders from Utah had particular concerns about the potential loss of significant riding opportunities.

From IMBA's perspective, the Utah Wilderness issue was dangerous, divisive and resource intensive. Other projects demanded staff and volunteer time. An initiative with US National Parks and a global initiative with mountain bike activists from other countries were in their early stages. A Board election was underway. Longstanding trail access issues near population centers still required attention. Shifting attention to the Wilderness question was at best an inconvenience, and at worst risked the support and solidarity of its membership and its working partnerships with other groups. Still, a response to the Utah Wilderness Coalition was required.

Audiences

One of the difficulties IMBA faced was being responsive to many different audiences both inside and outside the mountain bike community. As noted above, membership was diverse and differed in their historical, philosophical and political knowledge of Wilderness designation.

Historically, the mountain bike press had been unconditionally supportive of IMBA's efforts on behalf of mountain bikers. Over the years, every magazine had written pro-IMBA articles, urged readers to join, to adhere to the rules of the trail, to volunteer with local parks and trail groups and to be politically involved. They routinely gave free placement to IMBA membership advertisements.

Keying on the controversy, some mountain bike magazines expressed criticism of IMBA as being too soft or too slow on the issue. A sense of emergency was heightened by the fact that some of the information that was circulating said that Moab's popular cycling trails would be closed to bikes. The magazines suggested that IMBA was being manipulated by environmental groups and that there was much to lose and little to gain by allying with UWC.

Non-cyclists in the environmental community were part of IMBA's audience and they too were diverse. Members of the UWC had invited IMBA to join to secure support for their proposal. Presumably, they and other Wilderness advocates especially didn't want mountain bikers to be organize against the Wilderness plan. National leaders of the Sierra Club had an agreement with IMBA to work for "Wilderness, park and open space protection". IMBA's behavior here was a credibility litmus test. Some anti-bike environmentalists, sometimes members of local Sierra Club chapters or work groups felt that IMBA's growing relationship with the national organization was problematic. They didn't want bikes on their local trails much less in proposed Wilderness. They looked to discredit IMBA's environmental credentials.

Anti-Wilderness groups like the Blue Ribbon Coalition and several Utah and national motorized recreation groups hoped IMBA would not support Utah Wilderness. They'd prefer that cyclists would oppose it.

It seemed that various land managers were also interested in IMBA's response, presumably to see how mountain bikers might position themselves in the constellation of stakeholder and user groups interests.

This was perhaps the most difficult rhetorical situation IMBA had ever faced. As a rule, IMBA sided with local mountain bikers for more trails and worked to convince land managers and other trail users that this view was reasonable. The sides were clearly drawn. In Utah, the most desirable outcome, a recognition of the legitimacy of bikes on some Wilderness trails, was not even on the table. It was necessary to articulate a rhetorically sensitive response that was practical in this situation and would be flexible in the future. It required a clear sense of IMBA as a mountain bike advocacy organization that is committed to the preservation of public lands.

Inviting Participation

Facing a diversity of viewpoints from a variety of audiences and an exigency to respond to the UWC invitation, IMBA used bicycle newsgroups, the listserve, its newsletter and the bicycling press to solicit written opinions. It invited all interested parties to a public meeting on the issue prior to an IMBA Board meeting in Park City Utah on April 25, 1998. The specific questions were:

1. Should IMBA join the Utah Wilderness Coalition?

2. If not, what role, if any, should IMBA take in supporting or opposing new southern Utah Wilderness proposals--plans that range anywhere from 1.9 million to 5.7 million acres of new Federal Wilderness?

To facilitate this discussion, IMBA adopted four principles to guide discussion of any Wilderness proposal:

1. IMBA will formulate its position on new Wilderness proposals on a case by case basis, just as we do with all major land decisions.

2. IMBA is committed to preserving bicycle access to trails and roads where off-road cycling is a traditional or desirable use.

3. IMBA believes that a federal designation can and should be created that assures conservation while at the same time allowing low impact recreational activities such as mountain biking.

4. IMBA supports the concept that not all trails on public lands must be open to bicycle use. (IMBA 1998a, p. 4)

Prior to the meeting, IMBA received hundreds of letters, e-mails, postings and phone calls on the Utah Wilderness issue. The meeting was attended by IMBA Board and staff, representatives of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Bureau of Land Management, Emery County, the Sierra Club, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah state officials, the Utah Trail Machine Association, the Utah Wilderness Coalition and the Wilderness Society. There were also several US Forest Service and BLM employees and a number of individual mountain bike riders.

As expected, the input from membership was diverse. Some felt that it was important to align with environmental groups wherever possible, that the bike ban would be changed someday and it was more important to create Wilderness. Others felt that it was important to work with Wilderness groups to ensure that bike routes were left outside the Wilderness boundaries.

Many of IMBA's advocacy leaders were against IMBA supporting any Wilderness designation as long as bicycles were banned by regulation. They argued that to support Wilderness under these conditions was to acquiesce that bikes were inappropriate in Wilderness. To them, this was unacceptable. Many bicyclists dissatisfied with environmental group opposition to bike access on their local recreational trails, were unwilling to support those groups on Wilderness. A few bike advocates were aligned with motorized off road groups and were anti-Wilderness. They didn't trust or respect the mainstream environmental groups. For many, Wilderness was a non-issue. They were more concerned with access to local trails on recreational parklands. It was easy to sacrifice hypothetical riding opportunities in faraway places. A great many mountain bikers, undoubtedly the majority, were on the fence.

There was also a diversity of opinion on tactics and strategy. Some felt that IMBA should join the Utah Wilderness Coalition either unconditionally or with stipulations. Some preferred to support the smaller BLM Wilderness proposal. Some felt IMBA should work to amend the Wilderness act or to change the CFR regulations that ban bicycles. Several argued that IMBA should find or help legitimize land use designations other than Wilderness that would protect the land but allow bikes.

While Wilderness proponents argued that only Wilderness could protect Southern Utah, a key metaphor that emerged in the discussion was the "land management toolbox". From the bicyclists' perspective, it was acknowledged that Wilderness was one tool for preserving wild land, but the questions of was it the best tool or was it the only tool remained unanswered.

A number of facts were disputed or unavailable. Those concerning which trails would be within the Wilderness boundary (especially around the Moab and San Rafael Swell areas) and how much mountain biking or potential mountain biking would be lost to Wilderness were especially significant.

Pressure from IMBA's membership and external audiences required a response to the Utah Wilderness Coalitions invitation to join. There was not a consensus and IMBA crafted a response that reflected many of the principles which first emerged in earlier Wilderness discussions. It emphasized IMBA's environmental commitment but also its commitment to its membership which felt unfairly excluded from trail opportunities in designated Wilderness and believed that reasonable alternatives to Wilderness had not been considered.

Ultimately, the IMBA board of directors voted not to join the Utah Wilderness Coalition, but committed to work as a partner with the UWC to protect all the lands in their proposal, although not necessarily all as designated Wilderness. IMBA also produced the following Wilderness Policy to guide future Wilderness discussions (IMBA, 1998b, p. 5):

1. IMBA is committed to protecting wildlands and open space while allowing for appropriate bicycle access.

2. IMBA values the role the 1964 Wilderness Act has had in protecting wild places. IMBA believes that additional Wilderness designations are warranted and will support these when appropriate.

3. Bicyclists must be at the table when Wilderness decisions are being made. IMBA is committed to maintaining access to traditional and important bicycle trails through attention to Wilderness boundaries and the use of alternative land protection designations (e.g., National Conservation Areas, Wild and Scenic River zones, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, National Monuments, etc)

4. IMBA is not advocating the introduction of mountain bikes in existing designated Wilderness areas. However, IMBA believes that bicyclists are appropriate, muscle-powered trail users that are compatible with the philosophy of the 1964 Wilderness Act and the intent of Congress to exclude motorized "mechanized transport" from Wilderness areas. In 1984, the definition of "mechanized transport" was extended to mountain bikes without adequate data, experience or input.

The Future

Talks between mountain bike and Wilderness advocates continue. In Colorado, for example, a small group of bike and Wilderness activists have formed to determine what they hold in common and how they can support one another. Some examples of specific working goals included: Wilderness advocates helping to find portions of roadless areas that are appropriate for singletrack bicycling; bike advocates proactively discouraging mountain biking in existing Wilderness; environmental leaders making clear, positive public statements that support mountain bicycling on public lands; bike advocates educating riders about recreation effects on the natural environment and the values and importance of Wilderness. The group is seeking compromises in proposed new Wilderness areas near James Peak near Boulder and in Grand Junction. (Moore, 1998, p. 5)

In late 1998, IMBA began circulating the details of two alternative land use designations for comment. National Conservation Areas and National Recreation Areas would be organic designations providing high level land and resource protection which would allow bicycle use on designated trails. Comments on these proposals are being collected. (Sprung, 1998, p. 8)

Wilderness designation remains a wedge issue which divides a large mountain bike constituency from the environmental community. As the Utah debate unfolds and as new Wilderness proposals emerge, efforts by both cyclists and Wilderness advocates are necessary to find land use planning tools that provide Wilderness preservation and backcountry, non-motorized trail opportunities. As long as bikes aren't allowed, mountain bicyclists will vary in their support of Wilderness preservation especially when other land protection designations are possible. If the CFR was changed to allow bicycle use on some designated Wilderness trails, there would be overwhelming support of Wilderness protection from the mountain bike community. Do bikes belong in Wilderness? That conversation is yet to take place.

I have argued in an earlier paper (Hasenauer, 1998c) that the discourse surrounding mountain bike use in the backcountry might provide a number of heuristic case studies for communication scholars. This Wilderness discussion illustrates rhetorical choices of identity, credibility and legitimization as a relatively new stakeholder group participates in public land policy planning.

References

Bjorkman, A.W. (1996). Off-road bicycle and hiking trail user interactions. a report to the wisconsin natural resources bureau of research. Eagle, WI.

Cessford, G.R. (1995). Off-road mountain biking: a profile of participants and their recreation setting and experience preferences. Department of conservation science and research series no. 93. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.

Chow, T.L., Bracker, M.D. and Patrick, K. (1993). Acute injuries from mountain biking. Western journal of medicine. 159, 145-148.

DiMeglio, A. (1991). Wilderness society embraces mountain bikers. Land access alert, 4, #3, 1-2.

Douglass, D. (1988). Bicyclists to be banned from new california coast wilderness area. Land access alert, 1, #1, 3.

Hasenauer, J. (1989). Don't amend the wilderness act. Land access alert. 2, #5.

Hasenauer, J. (1995). IMBA endorses environmental bill of rights. IMBA trail news, 8, #3.

Hasenauer, J. (1998a). Strangers in the recreational trails community: the case of mountain biking. A paper presented at the North American Interdisciplinary Conference on Environment and Community, University of Nevada at Reno.

Hasenauer, J. (1998b). Shared use community trail systems. A paper presented at the National Trails Symposium. Tucson, AZ.

Hasenauer, J. (1998c). Stranger to stakeholder to partner: the mobilization of constituency on public lands. A paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference. New York.

Hendricks, W.W. (Ed) (1997). Mountain bike management and research. A special issue of Trends, 34, 1-56.

Hollenhurst, S.J., Schuett, M.A., Olson, M.S., Chavez, D. and Mainieri, T. (1995). A national study of mountain biking opinion leaders: characteristics, preferences, attitudes and conflicts. USDA Forest Service Report: PSW-93-0029CA and PSW-93-0034CA.

IMBA, The International Mountain Bicycling Association (1988). Why imba? Land access alert, 1, #1, 2.

IMBA, The International Mountain Bicycling Association (1989). Congressional bill would allow bikes in wilderness. Land access alert, 2, #4, 1-2.

IMBA, The International Mountain Bicycling Association (1991). Wilderness society continues to support bicycle use. Land access alert, 4, #4.

IMBA, The International Mountain Bicycling Association (1993). Colorado wilderness bill passes. IMBA trail news, 6, #4, 5.

IMBA, The International Mountain Bicycling Association (1994). Mountain bicyclists and sierra club agree to work together. IMBA trail news, 7, #3, 1, 4.

IMBA, The International Mountain Bicycling Association (1998a). IMBA seeks utah wilderness comments from members. IMBA trail news, 11, #1, 4.

IMBA, The International Mountain Bicycling Association (1998b). IMBA announces its position on proposed utah wilderness. IMBA trail news, 11, #2, 5.

Kelley, (1991). IMBA activists enjoy bicycle festivals in washington and west virginia. Land access alert, 4, #5, 1, 6, 8.

Keller, K. (Ed.). (1990). Mountain bikes on public lands: a managers guide to the state of the practice. Washington, D.C.: Bicycle Federation of America.

Kronisch, R.L., Pfeiffer, R.L. and Chow, T.K. (1996). Acute injuries in cross-country and downhill off-road bicycle racing. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 28, 1351-1355.

Livingston, M. (1984). Point Reyes Update. Fat Tire Flyer. 4, #6.

Maag, P. (1993). Proposed wilderness threatens access in palm springs. IMBA trail news. 6, #2.

Moore, B. (1998). "Wildbikers" seek common ground. IMBA trail news. 11, #3.

Moore, R. L. (1994). Conflicts on multiple-use trails: synthesis of the literature and state of the practice. Report # FHWA-PD-94-013. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.

Schmid, J. (1998). Trails Resource Bibliography. Available by request from South Carolina State Trails Coordinator, Department of Parks Recreation and Tourism, 1205 Pendleton St, Columbia, SC 29201.

Sprung, G. (1993). Utah cyclists endorse huge wilderness proposal. IMBA trail news. 6, #4.

Sprung, G. (1997). Mountain biking can foster progressive management. Trends. 34, 15-17.

Sprung, G. (1998). Alternatives to wilderness act could allow cycling and protect land. IMBA trail news. 11, #4.

Stegner, W. (1990). It all began with conservation. Smithsonian. 21, 34-46.

Watson, A.E., Williams, D.R. and Daigle, J.J. (1991). Sources of conflict between hikers and mountain bike riders in the rattlesnake nra. Journal of parks and recreation administration. 9, 59-71.

Wilson, J.P., and Seney, J.P. (1994). Erosional impact of hikers, horses, motorcycles and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in montana. Mountain research and development. 14, 77-88.