|
"The
US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have proposed
the creation of a 50,000-acre wilderness area in the West Hermosa
Creek area. This wilderness designation would close part of the
Colorado Trail and at least six other popular trails to mountain
biking.
Local
riders are proposing a common sense solution that would protect
both natural resources and bicycle access ... The deadline for
comments has been extended to April 11, 2008. ... San Juan Plan
Revision, P.O. Box 162909, Sacramento, CA 95816-2909. ... Mark
Stiles, Forest Service Supervisor, Public Lands Center, 15 Burnett
Ct., 81301."
[read the rest]
Dear
San Juan Plan Revision Star Chamber Members,
The
trails that would be closed to bikes under the proposed plan
for the West Hermosa area are some damn fine mountain biking
trails. Great even. In the trail guide I wrote in 2001-02 I called
the Durango area the best in the world for mountain biking. This
was high praise, especially from a guy who hasn't ridden a mountain
bike anywhere outside the US! Ever! But anyway. You ride trails
like the trails on the chopping block here and you don't need
to ride any other trails.
Given
my obvious love of riding bikes on these trails, and my having
written a book about them and all that, you'll probably guess
that I'll come out against the plan to Wilderness-ize West Hermosa.
But to be honest I'm not so sure. Having been away from Durango
for a few years, I won't pretend to understand the specific conditions
on the trails these days. Maybe the mountain bikers are really
screwing things up. I'm certainly willing to concede that it
may be best if cycling were banned in the area, and I have supported
efforts to add wilderness in the past in other parts of the state.
These issues can be complicated and touchy, and it could be that
there are no easy answers. Mountain bikers shouldn't expect to
get everything they want all the time -- sacrifices must be made
in the interest of the public good as well as the forest. All
we can ask is that you be consistent in your reasoning.
I
know that cyclists have some impact, especially as their numbers
increase. It's undeniable. Obvious, in some cases. And I know
the same could be said for hikers. Throw anyone into the forest
on a trail and it will have an impact. And, since I've been around
the mountain a few times, I know very well that a human on a
horse has far more impact than a human on a bike or a human on
foot. And yet the horses, often led in trains and loaded with
the makings of a large hunting camp, are always allowed in where
the bikes are banned. And it seems to me that the whole discussion
is cattle-driven over the cliff of absurdity because all the
public forests and many of the trails in the area have been trampled
hard-core style by privately-owned herds of livestock, and no
doubt will continue to be.
So
it seems to me that some compromise is in order. Good luck making
your decision.
Love,
Hurst
|