The Trail Crisis

THE TRAIL CRISIS

Crisis? Everybody Knows There Is One. In A Vague Way. Now, With The Help Of An Enterprising Journalist, We May Discern Its Shape As It Works Its Way Across The Nation, And Find A Way To Respond.

RON SCHNEIDERS

DURING THE NEXT 18 months the sport of trail riding is going to make its way through a crisis. President Nixon signalled the beginning of the crisis with his now famous Presidential Order No. 11644, possibly one of the most widely interpreted (and misinterpreted) documents in history.

The continuing crisis, in all probability, will not be nearly so spectacular, but it will be just as real as the passenger train crisis of a few years ago. Few of the general public were aware of the passenger train crisis, but suddenly, as though it had happened overnight, there were no more passenger trains.

Is that what’s in prospect for trail riding? Maybe. Right now it doesn’t look that way, but only a fortune teller or an egocentric nut would seriously try to prophesy. Directly involved in the crisis are literally hundreds of small, semi-independent Government agencies, many motorcycling organizations, and thousands of individuals. Indirectly involved are many conservation organizations such as the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society and many individuals who, for one reason or another, don’t like having motorcyclists on trails. You, as a motorcycling trail rider, might be able to affect the outcome of this crisis in some way if you understand the situation and, more importantly, if the bureaucratic steamroller has not already gathered too much momentum and begun, in its typical fashion, to run amok in the midst of the citizenry.

It would be very nice to be able to say, “All will be well if you just get out and work and do all the right things.” Journalistic integrity, though, will not permit any such placebo. Certainly if motorcyclists simply ignore the situation, the anti-motorcyclist faction will prevail because it is easier to restrict and prohibit than it is to make provisions. But the reverse is not necessarily true. Motorcyclists might do everything within their power and still wind up riding in small motorcycle parks. All that can be reasonably offered is a chance.

Contained in that chance, however, is not merely the possibility of maintaining what is now “ours” but the possibility of much greater things. Trail networks, maintained by the Federal Government, are one distinct possibility. These networks would allow a rider to take his family, his bikes, and his camping gear and tour one state or several states on mapped motorcycle trails.

There may be trails constructed into and out of the city so that a rider doesn’t have to truck his bike hundreds of miles to the dirt, a tremendous boon to poorer riders. A patrol system, similar to the ski patrol, guaranteeing reasonable access to medical help in the event of accident is another possibility. So while the future is certainly not totally under our control, it is not entirely bleak either.

The first step in exercising whatever control is available is to gain an understanding of the various forces at work, the prejudices that exist, and the differences of concept that separate not only the forces of conservation from motorcyclists, but motorcyclists of various areas from one another.

For instance: What is a trail? A simple, basic question, right? But across this country and across the wide strata of people from President to motorcyclist there exist many answers—many very different answers—to that one simple question. More than one nonmotorcyclist has suggested that a proper motorcycle trail should be a 2-ft. wide asphalt strip running through a not-toovaluable piece of real estate. Some eastern riders conceive of trails as snake tracks 30-in. wide through dense forests. A desert rider thinks of a trail as a compass direction out to the horizon. A trail in Utah is laid out entirely on gigantic, smooth rocks with the trail marking painted on the surface with the aid of a stencil. Some trails in Idaho and California have been carefully surveyed, graded and constructed with a small bulldozer.

There are as many variations in people’s attitudes toward trails as there are differences in trail concept. Some conceive of a trail as a pleasant way to go from place to place, to go fishing or hunting, for instance. Others care not where the trail goes, as long as it passes through scenic country. Enduro riders think that the chief attribute of a good trail is its toughness. Riding is a continual test of skill and the ability of the machine to hold together under constant abuse.

But what of the other side? How do Forest Service people, conservation people see trails? How about the administrators who never see more open space than is visible from their office window? How does the Bureau of Land Management, which administers thousands and thousands of square miles of land with a mere handful of people, visualize trail riding? How does a small Vermont farmer react to a de facto trail that suddenly appears across his back forty?

Do motorcycles cause harmful erosion? Do they scare wildlife? If so, what kinds of wildlife? Turkeys? Deer? Elk? Migrant birds? Trout? Is noise as much a problem as the motorcycling press has indicated?

The answers to these and thousands of other questions are the stuff of understanding that is necessary to the motorcyclist. But these questions are also important to land managers and legislators who in one fashion or another are going to have to deal with the question of motorcyclists on trails during the next 18 months. Way back in February of last year the Motorcycle Industry Council realized that (1) land managers didn’t know very much about motorcycle trails, and (2) that it was going to be necessary to do some rapid education if trail riding was to prosper. So they hired the author to research and write a book that would hopefully guide land managers in their tasks. About the time the research was completed, they changed their minds and cancelled the project, leaving an immense pile of data and no book. So, for whatever information and help that you get from this article, you are indebted in part to the MIC.

Researching the subject of motorcycle trails is a mind-bending experience. For all the motorcycles there are in this country, there is extremely little in the way of factual material available in print. One could find much more, for instance, on the subject of growing avocados or building catamarans. We (my wife and I) approached the problem from two directions. First, we composed a three-page questionnaire and mailed it to every land manager for whom we could find an address or a title. Then, while my wife was handling all the correspondence, I took three trips around the country, first driving through the western states in my van, which was loaded with motorcycles, cameras and tape recorders, then flying to the Midwest, the South and the Northeast with all the cameras and tape recorders and firm promises of bikes at my stopover points.

I interviewed everyone who had any knowledge of motorcycle trails and could spare the time to help, along with quite a few land managers who had no knowledge of bikes. I inspected every trail that anyone would show me.

Although at the time I was conducting the research I was planning to write a book for land managers, much of the information gained was so pertinent to motorcyclists that I immediately included this article in my plan.

The questionnaire we sent out was divided into four parts. The first part was general, asking the name of the person answering the questionnaire, his position, the amount of land he managed, and so on. Following that, we asked for a fairly complete physical description of the land, including the type of vegetation, the type of soil, the amount of precipitation, the number of days of snow and rain, and high fire hazard, the extremes of altitude and temperature, both summer and winter. In the last category, we were anticipating numerical answers, so we simply supplied fill-in blanks: Temperature, High—Low —Mean—. In a burst of Freudian genius one forest ranger from a Northern state simply checked “Mean!”

The next part of the questionnaire was only to be answered by land managers who have no motorcyclists riding their land, and it asked essentially why this was the case. Were motorcyclists prohibited by law or ordinance of bureau regulation? If not prohibited, were the motorcyclists unaware that the land was available for riding? Was the area accessible? If problems were keeping motorcyclists out, we asked what they were and whether the person answering the questionnaire felt they could be resolved.

"First we must define the simple question: What is a motorcycle trail? To some, it's a 2-ft. wide asphalt strip running through a not-too-valuable piece of real estate."

Part three questioned those whose land was regularly ridden by motorcyclists. This part occupied an entire page and asked how many riders used the land, whether the use was seasonal, whether parts of the land were restricted, whether competition events were held, and if so, what type. It asked whether there were designated trails for cyclists, hikers, horseback riders and others, and if so, how much. We asked if they had made any studies of off-road riding, and whether they thought they knew enough to build a reasonable trail, if money for the project were available. Finally in this section we asked about problems that they had, particularly problems with user-conflicts and erosion, and about their plans for the future, whether or not trails were planned, whether there was money available, and so on.

In part four we asked if the respondent knew how to ride a bike, how long he had been riding, and, if not, if he would be interested in learning. The last question was, “Would you be interested in exploring this problem in greater depth at a meeting in your office?”

Perhaps the most significant fact about this questionnaire was the number of people who responded to it. Questionnaires of this sort usually draw in the neighborhood of 10 percent replies. This one drew better than 50 percent!

This is even more remarkable in that it was not an easy questionnaire to fill out. Few of the respondents could have been expected to have the facts required at their fingertips. Undoubtedly, research was required. And on top of that, many went beyond the questionnaire itself to write personal letters and to add comments and clarifications. One can attribute this to several possible motives ranging from cynical to altruistic, but from the tone of the letters I felt that most of the men contacted were sincerely interested in solving problems (and eliminating potential problems) in a fair, equitable manner.

Not all of the replies were helpful, of course. Some were filled out in an obviously careless fashion and some were openly antagonistic. One supervisor said that a trail on his land was designed and built to accommodate motorcycles but because of conflicts between horsemen and motorcyclists, he was proposing to close the trail to bikes!

In a not particularly clever attempt to locate very biased replies, we included a question relating to userconflicts that was really off-the-wall and probably amused most of the land managers. Among the possible responses to the question of conflicts we listed hikers, horseback riders, cattlemen and others who used the forest. We also included bicycle riders! Two land managers reported that they had experienced difficulty stemming from conflict between trail riding motorcyclists and bicycle riders. Both were in remote districts receiving little use of any kind.

Believing that the information that we needed had to come from people actually dealing with the problems on a day-to-day basis, we sent most of the questionnaires to forest rangers and district offices. This was a fortunate decision in many ways. First, we discovered many problems and some solutions that are local in nature but may apply in many localities. Elk, for instance, are very sensitive to disturbance at calving time. Rangers who have a shiall band on their land and who are trying desperately to increase its size to such that it has a chance to survive are very concerned about the effects of motorcycles on their elk herd. On a forest level, or state level, this would not even have been mentioned, or if mentioned would have appeared out of proportion to its real importance.

Many forest rangers have worked with clubs or other groups to provide or maintain trails and their experiences are invaluable as a guide for other groups who want trails or want to promote enduros. Again, though, it is a local action and would not even be known by those at higher levels.

We did, however, receive many replies from the higher echelons. Some were quite helpful, but most of them became increasingly bland as they ascended the marble steps of bureaucracy. In some states successively higher levels sent out letters and memos stating that their office would answer for the entire region, either an entire forest or an entire state. California, state level, directed their supervisors to answer some questions, and answered the rest from the state office, providing in total less information than could be obtained from one of the many brochures that are available for the asking. We asked specifically the reason for various closed areas on forests (and there are many such closures with many, many reasons). The answer from the state office, though, was “Public law. Need to preserve natural conditions.” Whoopee.

To the question asking the number of miles of trail designated for specific purposes, such as cyclists and horseback riders, no answer was supplied. The supervisors were instructed not to answer, and the state office skipped the question. Considering the very great inequity between the number of miles of trail for horsemen and hikers and for any other users of the forest, I’m not surprised at their reluctance to answer that question....

Fortunately for us, the wheels of bureaucracy grind exceedingly slow, and by the time the letter went out, many districts had already replied with some useful, factual information.

While the numbers on the questionnaire summary are interesting, it would be very foolish to draw any conclusions from them without considering a number of facts and circumstances. Obviously all parts of the country are not equally represented (or in some cases, represented at all). In some cases this is because there is no public land, and in some cases no one answered the questionnaire. What is not so obvious is that some representation is not as extensive as it appears. In Nebraska, for instance, there is a reply from one forest, and you might be tempted to say, “Well, how many forests can Nebraska have?” The answer is that they have several, and the reply came from a very tiny one. That tiny forest, though, is the location of Nebraska’s most well-known, and perhaps only, enduro. There is a large motorcycling population in the town of Chadron, only 20 miles from the forest. That reply in the light of those circumstances cannot be considered to be typical of the state.

"We sent most of the questionnaires to forest rangers and district offices. This was a fortunate decision...The replies became increasingly bland as they ascended the marble steps of bureaucracy."

It may also be noted that not all the responses under various headings total “correctly.” Almost all respondents skipped one or more questions; quite a few of them answered in a contradictory manner (answering essentially “yes” and “no” to the same question). We recorded the answers as they were, ignoring both omissions and contradictions in the interest of presenting the most accurate possible picture.

Judging from the questionnaire, one would assume that there is not much trail riding in New England, but of course this is not true. In this case, though, most of the trail riding is done on private property, and for information from this sector of the country we had to employ means other than the questionnaire.

The estimate that the various respondents supplied concerning the number of riders on a given Sunday should not be taken very seriously. Quite a few replies indicated that they just didn’t have any idea how many riders used the land, and some had estimates with such wide limits that it was obvious they had no real facts. Most agencies utilize a concept known as the “visitor day” which is one person in the area for a period of one 12-hour day or 12 people for a period of one hour each, or any other such multiple. But most agencies only make counts at campgrounds and if a rider simply rides into the forest or desert, or parks his truck next to the road and unloads his bike, he makes no mark on the record. One tends to suspect that the estimates are very low in many instances.

One thing, though, is clear. Even if the estimates are off by a factor of 1000 percent, there is still a great deal of public riding land on a per capita basis. Dividing Oregon’s reported 32,000,000 acres by the estimated 4000 riders on a summer Sunday, this leaves each individual rider with 8000 acres to play in! The problem, then, is not one of too many riders but of too many in some locations. Several land managers reported a mind-bending 2,000,000 acres with an average use of four or five riders! Quite a number of land managers reported no use at all of their land by bike riders, and often they controlled in excess of 500,000 acres.

We will limit this discussion to only a few general observations. First, the percentage of land now closed is fairly small, and judging from the replies of most of the on-the-ground rangers, it is likely to remain fairly small, a happy situation for us.

This depends, however, on whether we can manage to solve some of the major and legitimate complaints these men have. One fact that might upset this pleasant picture is the possibility of blanket directives from the higher echelons, who seem as a general rule to be more biased and less aware of the situation than the men under them, most of whom are younger and much less inclined to manage from behind a desk. We also find the younger men much less committed to the concept that the horse is the only reasonable method of transportation through the forest. This doesn’t mean that the district men are necessarily committed to motorcycles. One comments that, although he knows how to ride a motorcycle, he rides “as little as possible. A motorcycle is almost as poor a method of transportation as a horse!”

In view of the responses, it would seem that such efforts as we might direct toward Forest Service and BLM policy should be directed not at forming policy, but at preventing the formation of blanket policy, which will almost certainly be more restrictive and less realistic than the policy formed on the ground.

As far as competition is concerned, one fact is very evident. Racing on public land is almost nonexistent. The only significant exceptions to this general condition are the desert areas of California, Nevada, and Utah. Note that the numbers on the questionnaire tally refer to the number of responses indicating a particular form of competition, not to the number of events. On the questionnaire we asked how many of each type event were held on a yearly basis, but we got so many “don’t know” replies that the numbers were statistically meaningless.

Not many clubs have worked with the land managers in the promotion of events, but of those that have, the overwhelming response of the land managers was that the event worked out well. This is an over 70 percent correlation.

Since events that work out well can be expected to be allowed in the future, the message is clear: Get with the local forest ranger or BLM man and get him to work with you. Remember that if he is involved at all, he has a professional stake in seeing that it works out well. One ranger answered both that he had worked with a group and that the event had worked out well. He then added a note saying that the club drank so much beer the night before the event that they didn’t actually hold the event the next day. He didn’t say whether he felt the non-event was successful because of the great party or because no problems were created by the non-riders!

One of the most significant questions to motorcyclists concerns the number of miles of trail designated for specific purposes. It doesn’t take a statistical genius to see that horsemen and hikers have a much greater percentage of the available trail for their exclusive use than could possibly be considered fair under any understanding of the word. In some areas snowmobilers are getting a pretty fair chunk as well.

As yet there is little trail for the exclusive or primary use of cyclists. Cyclists are permitted on multi-purpose trail, but quite often this multi-purpose trail is in fact low standard dirt road and not trail at all, though it might be perfectly acceptable for riding. A primary and immediate goal of every organization using the public lands for riding should be the determination of the number of visitor days on a given section of land that are attributable to motorcyclists and the number of visitor days attributable to other users. These figures can then be compared to the number of miles of trail for each group. If necessary, this information can be obtained from Forest Service and BLM maps.

In many agencies the amount of money the agency is allotted from the overall budget is determined by the number of visitor days that he can show. It would not surprise this writer at all to find out that visitor days supplied by motorcyclists were being cited in order to get the trail maintenance money for hiking and horseback riding trails!

If this can be shown to be the case, then a threat by cyclists to boycott a particular section of forest or whatever, thus depriving them of the moneyproducing visitor days, might result in a more equitable arrangement.

That sort of tactic, though, should only be employed as a last resort. From the tone of the responses that I have seen, simply presenting a documented case pointing up the inequity would probably produce good results. In presenting your case, do not overlook the fact that for an equal day’s enjoyment, a motorcyclist requires about five times the length of trail that a horseback rider requires, and ten times the length that a hiker requires.

It will be noted from the tally that relatively few areas have plans for future trails for cyclists. But more important, almost none have any money budgeted or available for the construction of trails. Supplying the Forest Service with visitor day statistics could help them get some money, but in many areas, that won’t be nearly enough. In addition, the money to construct the trail is only the first step. The big drain is in maintenance money and no conscientious forest supervisor is going to allow the construction of a trail until he has some assurance that the trail can be maintained. Trail maintenance is mostly labor, and paid labor which is expensive. Motorcycle clubs, though, have a pool of potential free labor which is as welcome to the financially starved forest ranger as the first robin in spring. Get the picture?

To the question, “Do you feel that you have sufficient information at your disposal to build a trail suitable for motorcyclists that they would find enjoyable and would use?” we received almost equal number of positive and negative replies. Significantly, however, almost all respondents who indicated that they had built trails or attempted to designate trails for motorcyclists replied negatively, that they did not have sufficient information. This, of course, indicates that land managers are just like everyone else and adhere firmly to the old saw, that “You don’t know how much you know until you try to do something.”

But there’s something else in this that’s a lot more important. Those who answered negatively generally noted the areas in which they felt deficient. Many of these answers concerned technical problems, such as gradients, proper drainage, and the properties of soils suitable to motorcycle use. But by far the largest percentage of the negative replies stated that they simply didn’t know what kind of trail motorcyclists want.

Did they want trails that go somewhere or loop trails? Were they interested in scenery or strictly in the operation of the machine? How difficult should the trail be? What should be regarded as a minimum safety standard? Would cyclists use the same trail year after year or would they become bored with it? Would they stay on a trail, if it were routed through a sensitive area? In short, they don’t know anything about us, and thus are in a poor position to help us. The answer to the question, “What do riders like?” can come only from Riders, and if we don’t supply those answers, we’ll have no one but ourselves to blame if suddenly all our trails start looking like miniature versions of an interstate freeway.

"The problem is not one of too many riders, but of too many in some locations."

The last few questions should furnish some useful ideas. Most of the agencies are using motorcycles in some portion of their land management. A few noted that they use trail bikes to maintain their horse trails! Many of the people who responded stated that they themselves ride, but this is not to be taken too literally. Quite often their mounts are Tote Goats, or Honda Trail 90s, which are not exactly typical choices of most sporting trail riders. Quite a few stated that they would be interested in learning to ride if given the opportunity, which would seem to be a fine dooropening opportunity for clubs and people-minded businesses.

A word of warning, however. Quite a few respondents simply didn’t answer that question at all, and in an interview I found out why. They felt that by answering “Yes” it might appear as though they could be bribed! Obviously, anyone who offers to teach land managers to ride, especially on loaned bikes, will have to make very sure that they are aware that it is on a “no strings attached” basis.

The last question, asking whether or not the person would like to discuss the matter farther, was generally answered “Yes,” as the numbers indicate. What the numbers don’t indicate is the degree of enthusiasm that was registered. A few printed YES in letters half an inch high and followed with an exclamation point. Some suggested particular topics they would like to discuss, some suggested they would like to have their entire staff in on a meeting. They have some problems and they’re for the most part eager to have any sort of help to solve them. In my tour of the country I was unable to accept even a small percentage of the offers to discuss the problems and work out solutions, so the opportunity is there for you and your club.

If there is one overall conclusion that can be drawn from this accumulation of information it is that each area of the country is unique, with its own problems and possibilities for motorcyclists. Any attempt, either by cyclists or land managers, to apply specific solutions to problems over the country as a whole, or even throughout a large state, is bound to result in disaster for all concerned.

We can, however, draw some general conclusions and make a few predictions, always bearing in mind that the unknown quantity, Presidential Order 11644, might literally cut the ground from under us.

We can divide the country into a number of categories based on the degree and type of problems that exist. There is a large section of the country where virtually no problems exist because as yet there are very few motorcyclists. Within these areas there are often specific trouble spots around large population centers; but as a whole, thq| area has received little impact. In this category are states such as Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, Utah, Nevada and New Mexico.

In spite of the fact there there is little problem now, there is great potential for trouble in all of these states. Land managers are looking at specific problem areas, such as the population centers, and drawing up plans based on the assumption that all areas will sooner or later experience the same problems. Secondly, since there are few riders, one segment of the cycling population can have its specific desires catered to at the expense of other segments who as yet have not organized sufficiently to present their views.

As examples of these two problems, note that the state of Wyoming, which reports an average use of less than 400 riders on a typical Sunday over some 6 million acres, already has eight areas in which motorcycles are completely prohibited by law or bureau regulation. Certainly these prohibitions do not stem from present or past problems, but from anticipated future problems.

In the forests outside of Pocatello, Idaho, there is one motorcycle trail, a mild, graded, scenic-type trail suitable for family-type riding. A family trail riding group worked with the Forest Service to build this trail and helps to maintain it. A good portion of the forest’s budget was spent constructing this trail. But judging from the shops and conversations with the cyclists in the area, trail riders who would prefer more rugged, less structured riding outnumber the group who produced the trail by 20 to 1 or more. These riders, though, have access to land that is not presently managed and have no organization of any significance. The Forest Service naturally tends to think of trail riders in that area as being primarily the milder family group.

When the land now being used by larger groups comes under management, with the inevitable closures, and this group starts looking for “a piece of the action” in the forest, they will find the smaller group already in control and most of the money spent or committed. There is the distinct possibility of a bitter fight developing which might result in neither faction having a spot to ride.

The second general category we define as states which have many problems, but are on the way toward finding acceptable solutions. These states are characterized by land managers who are cooperative and fair and motorcyclists who are somewhat organized and reasonable. Many of these states already have trail networks for cyclists. Included in this category are California, Oregon, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and a portion of Michigan.

The third major category is best described as nearly hopeless. These are the states with little state and federal land, and with little land of any type that is suitable for riding. Indiana is the most typical example, but Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, Kansas and other Midwestern states all have similar situations. Most of these states have only very tiny forests, which are in many cases extensively broken up by plots of private land. The forests are laced every halfmile or so with straight line, uninteresting county roads. The demands on what little forest there is are staggering.

In a forest in Indiana, I was forced to walk in order to survey potential trails. The forest was entirely closed and it is the only one in the state. The motorcyclists in the area are organizing and demanding that it be reopened. In all probability their demands will be met, but the predictable result is not encouraging. There will be a few trails, woefully inadequate to the need. They will be destroyed through overuse very quickly and then the forest will be closed permanently with overwhelming evidence to support the closure.

"Efforts toward Forest Service and BLM policy should be directed not at forming policy, but at preventing the formation of blanket policy."

Only enduro riders and trials riders seem to have a future in these states. These groups cherish land that most other groups feel is totally useless. Since they are willing to use strip mining sites, dry rocky creek beds, destroyed roads and such, and are willing to act as a group to obtain permission from the owners to use such land, they will probably continue to exist and may even thrive, with their numbers being swelled by frustrated trail riders. General trail riding, though, would seem at this time to have a very bleak future in these states.

The last general category can best be described as the disaster area, and it is defined as an area where there is plenty of potential land not only for riding but also for all other recreation activities, but through misuse of the land and no organization on the part of the riders and unenlightened, biased, or just plain poor management on the part of the land managers, the land is or soon will be closed to bike riders.

Washington is one such potential disaster area, but there are small disaster areas in many states including California, Arizona, Oregon and Missouri that are known. As examples of smaller areas, we can cite Riverside County in California and the Bakersfield office of the BLM as two of the most mismanaged small areas in the country.

Consider these quotes from land managers in the state of Washington:

“There are some trail bike clubs in this area but generally the hiking clubs are much larger and voice their opinions much more loudly. Where we have had meetings to obtain public comment on management of recreation areas, the hiking clubs have dominated the sessions. Thus whenever a management plan for a recreation area is presented to the public there is usually an overwhelming voice against the operation of motorbike(s) and motorcycles. ...This Forest has made a definite effort to keep some high elevation trails available for motorized travel, but it is becoming an increasingly difficult uphill battle against the loud voices of the numerous hiking clubs.

“A few areas have been closed to motorized travel because of fragile soil and vegetation. Occasionally these closures have been ignored by motorbike riders and where this happened they have created unsightly scars in meadows and on alpine ridges. These violations by a small minority of motorbike operators provide a lot of ammunition to the hiking clubs.

“Generally, motorbike use of trails does not create excessive trail damage except where there is some particular soil problem or where grades are excessive. In the same situation, horses usually do more damage than bikes. (Emphasis mine.) Most of our trails... were not designed on grades that would permit both horses and motorcycles with a minimum of potential for erosion problems. ...If the few motorbike operators that have poor trail manners could somehow be educated and if the noise level of the machines could be reduced, then this activity should be more acceptable to other users of the trails. It appears at this time that if something along this line cannot be achieved, we will see a diminishing number of trails available for motorized use.” (From a letter by a Recreation and Lands Staff Officer of a national forest in Washington.)

(Continued on page 83)

Continued from page 49

“We do not have enough contact with clubs to discuss problems. Too many clubs and individuals make no effort to contact the District regarding use of trails. If the abuse of trails and meadows cannot be controlled, it will be necessary to close some areas to motorcycles. ” (A District Ranger, Olympic National Forest.)

“We are closing almost all trails to motorcycles and over one-half of our trails to horse use. ” (From a Staff Officer who comments that he owns and rides several bikes himself.)

“Preservationists and conservationists are exerting pressure to prohibit bikes from trails and back country. This is fairly easy to do as the bikers are outnumbered and not very vocal.” (From a Resource Officer, GiffordPinchot National Forest.)

“To be honest, I doubt if we can serve cycles here because of ( 1 ) hiking and wilderness type experience use and (2) erosion problems.” (From a Resource Officer, Snoqualmie National Forest.)

“This national forest has a lOOcc limitation on other than solid-wheeled motorbikes. Only a small portion of trails are closed to bikes but the trend is definitely toward more closures. ...My family of five has five trailbikes and two snowmobiles. ” (From a District Ranger, Gifford-Pinchot National Forest.)

This is a classic case of failure to deal adequately with a problem and the failure exists on both sides. On the face of it, the motorcyclists have failed to take advantage of sympathetic understanding and genuine desire to help. They have not organized effectively and they have not succeeded in educating their ranks in “trail manners.” But that’s not the whole situation.

The land managers obviously realized that there are a lot of cyclists, and from the tone of these letters don’t feel they’re getting an even break. They’re excusing their failure to provide facilities by saying that the hiking clubs shout louder. Land management decisions based on decibel count would seem to leave something to be desired in the way of professionalism.

Several maps were sent to me by land managers in Washington. These maps were generally titled something like “Area and Trail Closures—1971.” First of all, these are psychologically very poorly titled. A trail rider seeing this title is immediately going to feel that the agency is “against him.” A more neutral or even positive title such as “Forest Recreation Trail Map” might do wonders in terms of making riders feel they were not an undesirable element that was being kept at bay.

Secondly, the Trail Closure Map itself seems to be designed to frustrate and infuriate trail riders. The closure areas, which are actually a fairly small part of the total, are printed in bright red, as are closed trails. They visually dominate the entire map and make the situation appear much worse than it is. The open trails are in faint dotted lines which are almost impossible to either find or follow. Quite often trails that are open either go no place or butt against closed areas.

"Relative few areas have plans for future trails for cyclists. Almost none have any money budgeted or available for the construction of trails."

A list of trail designations was also sent. This pamphlet listed trails that are open (that’s an improvement at least), but the trails are actually just segments, none over 10 miles long. Most are 4 or 5 miles long. Since a trail rider will generally cover 5 miles in less than 20 minutes, these segments are of no use unless they can be connected in a 30 to 50-mile loop. Even worse, those segments that butt up against a closed area double the amount of two-way traffic, thus increasing conflicts and the danger of accident. They encourage violations of the closure, since few trail bikers like to turn around and go back the way they came.

Perhaps the worst example of land management in this particular case is the limitation of use on the Gifford Pinchot Forest to bikes of lOOcc or less. A relatively few number of serious trail bike riders ride bikes this small. This size is generally preferred by hunters and fishermen, who are not actually trail bike riders, but people who use trail scooters as a means of transportation. One can only imagine the feelings of a trail rider who finds that bikes are permitted on a forest but only for those who are essentially not bike riders! Perhaps the full circle of absurdity could be completed by issuing hunting and fishing licenses only to bona fide trail riders.

Behind this exercise in mismanagement is the notion, presumably, that small bikes cause less damage. The notion is faulty from beginning to end. Good riders usually will not cause damage on any size machine. Poor riders will often cause damage regardless of the size of their machine, but they will cause the least damage on medium-sized machines (in the 250cc range) because they will have sufficient power to get up hills without undue strain on their limited skills, and they will not constantly be producing wheelspin. On very small bikes, poor riders will try to negotiate a hill or switchback, fail due to lack of skill and lack of compensating power, and will proceed to dig a hole in a vain attempt to extricate themselves from their predicament.

Since most any trail bike rider could have shot down this particular theory, one can only assume that the bike riders in the area didn’t care enough to bother, or that no one in management would listen to them. Obviously, no studies were made, or the Forest Service could have dismissed it themselves. A less savory assumption is that the Forest Service was aware of the faulty principle but wanted to exclude all bike riders except the hunters and fishermen. Whatever the reason, this is one more of the items that assist in making the area a budding’disaster.

It bears repeating that, while Washington has been singled out for this analysis, it is by no means unique. In some states trail bikes must be equipped with full road equipment includin^^ headlights, taillights and mirrors. Sincl^r trail bikers are going to fall down occasionally, these rules guarantee that the trails are going to be littered with glass, red plastic and bits of chrome. The mirror required is not only useless but also dangerous since it sticks up right where the riders’s face is going to be in the event of a mishap.

(Continued on page 104)

Continued from page 83

One Idaho forest requires any motorcyclist to carry a bucket and shovel with him at all times. The shovel must be at least 24 inches long and have a 4-in. blade. Two or more riders must also include an axe in their equipment. The ranger states, not surprisingly, that they have difficulty enforcing this rule. One wonders just where a cyclist would pack such items on a typical trail bike. The hazard to the rider would seem to be of much greater magnitude than any possible good he could accomplish with those minimal tools in the event of a fire.

"Each area of the country is unique, with its own specific problems and possibilities for motorcyclists. Applying these specific solutions to the country as a whole spells disaster."

Not every state has been classified in one of our four major classifications, but it is hoped that the definitions and examples will help each reader to determine where his state and area falls in the national picture. This is important because each trail rider must have sorn^ idea of the situation as it now exist^^ and how his situation compares to that of other areas, if he is to make any meaningful contribution toward improving the situation.

There is no better way to close this article than to quote from a letter we received from a Forest Service man in Nevada, Branch Chief James S. Cochrane, Toiyabe National Forest:

“The demands upon public lands to produce goods and services are increasing at an alarming rate while more of this land is taken out of production each year by road and trail rights-ofway, utility line corridors, impoundments, wilderness and other land uses. Hikers demand their exclusive trails and access through the country, the horsemen demand theirs, four-wheel-drive advocates theirs, etc. As population increases, or society becomes more affluent, demands for exclusive “rights” sky-rocket. Each individual or group feels their demands take precedence over the other while the land managing agencies have fund and manpower cuts. Because we can’t afford to adequately administer man and his machines, we restrict use because the operator, in general, through his ignorance or otherLvAe, can not or will not manage himself. We have the scars and erosion to prove it. Eroded land does not produce the goods and services this country requires. So, it’s a vicious cycle (no pun intended). We all wish we could meet these demands and balance them with true need and wise land management practices. But we cannot, by professionalism, common sense, and even law, permit the degradation of the natural environment.

“The foregoing is philosophically the existing situation. We, on the Toiyabe National Forest, wish you luck with your project. If we can be helpful in any way, let us know. ”

The questionnaire puts some numbers to Mr. Cochrane’s eloquent verbal description of the existing situation. To .some extent it may relieve the hysteria Jbaused by President Nixon’s version of Damocles’ Sword, Order No. 1 1644.