🚀 go-pugleaf

MV>>Unless of course you live in Marin County and you happen to want to
MV>>use your mountain bike to "get close to nature."  Here (as in many
MV>>areas of our state) state, regional, local, and now national--the
MV>>National Park Service--government agencies are blocking bicycle access
MV>>to otherwise useful and desireable circular recreational trail routes,
MV>>typically without demonstrating that a problem exists which warrants
MV>>such a policy, let alone attempting to solve it without such a heavy
MV>>handed response.

MV>>public land for you to use to your satisfaction."  Increasingly,
MV>>however, our public land is being managed to satisfy less and less of
MV>>the public.  Right or wrong, that places a burden on all concerned.

Regarding the above, Mike Vandeman <mjvande@PacBell.COM> asks:
MV>Have you heard of wildlife? They need and deserve to have land where
MV>they are left alone -- land that is off limits to ALL humans. The
MV>wild counterpart to private property.

Indeed I and others have.  Many of Marin's mountain bicyclists joined
together last year to actively support the (unsuccesful) Congressional
campaign of Bennett Johnston III, former National Director of the
Trust for Public Land, which, like the Nature Conservancy, purchases
land to be set aside for the benefit of wild flora and fauna, just as
you suggest.  Moreover, many members of the Bicycle Trails Council of
Marin have started a fund to support similar efforts in their local
area.  In fact, most if not all of the trail users I know, regardless
of their mode(s) of transportation, favor such land preservation
measures--even though it means fewer places will be available for
their outdoor recreational pursuits.

Perhaps less to the point, but worthy of note, I am one of ten Marin
bicyclists who have joined three organizations in suing the National
Park Service for their failure to perform two EIS's (for two separate
new policies) as required by NEPA.  The purpose of the EIS's which the
government wishes to avoid is to evaluate the environmental impact of
displacing mountain bicyclists from the trails they had been allowed
to ride until this week in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Interestingly enough, the Sierra Club and the Sierra Club Legal
Defense Fund have recently joined with the Park Service to fight
_against_ a strict application of the National Environmental
Protection Act, which is what we are requesting.

Neither the Park Service nor the environmental advocacy organizations
mentioned above have suggested that the environment will be better
protected if NEPA enforcement is lax--which it will be in this
instance if they prevail.  According to the Wilderness Society, which
has also been involved in this issue, there seems to have been an
unreasonable bias against mountain bicyclists in the instant case.
That bias seems to be based on the _presumptions_ that bicycling on
trails is a higher impact use than hiking or horseback riding, and
that a closure of all single-track trails is an effective and
environmentally sound means of controlling this impact.

Undermining these presumptions is the fact that the Park Service has
failed to enforce the ban on bicycling, which they say went into
effect in 1987, due in part to a lack of any compelling evidence that
such a ban is needed (the complaints of a vocal minority of GGNRA
visitors notwithstanding).  We, the mountain bicycling
environmentalists involved in this issue, would like an EIS to be
conducted to document the impacts and available mitigation measures
associated with the NPS's new GGNRA trail plan.  We believe that the
environment is best protected by upholding the laws intended to have
such an effect, and we are quite willing to support and abide by
policies which are carefully and fairly developed on such a basis.

Ultimately, regardless of the outcome of this suit, the NPS, Sierra
Club, and Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund will appear to many younger
mountain bicycling environmentalists to be untrustworthy if not
outright enemies, due to their unyielding posture (the mountain
bicyclists have asked for access to a mere five miles of single-track
trails to be evaluated by an EIS) which is in opposition to a strict
application of NEPA.  That will be a shame, for these organizations
once held an unmistakable position as leaders in the fight to protect
the natural environment and the wildlife which is an integral part of
it.  What makes it all the worse is that this scenario has been
replayed for years throughout the country.

The Wise Use folks most be howling with delight as they watch the
environmental coalition dividing along age and recreational lines in
preparation for a dismal battle against itself.  Can we really afford
to be sparring at a time when we have more opportunities to protect
our undeveloped public lands than at any time in the past dozen years?

Sincerely yours,

Todd Ourston <todd.ourston@ggcs.org>
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . todd.ourston@ggcs.org