Mountain biking has become a very popular sport over the last decade. New biking trails are opening up everywhere allowing for quick access to nature and everything that it has to offer. Many people enjoy biking as it allows them to spend quality time with loved ones, exercise in a fun way and explore the great outdoors. That being said, mountain biking has attracted a negative side. This can be seen in Palm Springs California. Doug Scott, the author of “keep bikes off our wilderness trails”, explains that a conflict has arisen over the issue of bikes being allowed in wilderness areas and on wilderness trails. Some say bikes in the wilderness are a positive thing, while others consider it a negative (Scott Par 1). I will be arguing in this essay that bikes should be allowed on wilderness trails as they do not cause a threat to the environment, and that biking can bring actual aid to a wilderness area.
Palm Springs California is home to some of the best wilderness trails in the world. It is world-renowned for its views and scenic routes. Some of the best mountain biking in the world are available. According to Scott, “These last vestiges of our wild heritage” (Scott, par. 2) have been the subject of a fierce battle in recent years. This battle resides around whether or not to allow bikes on wilderness trails. This may not seem like a big deal but there are larger problems to be taken into account. Scott explains that allowing bikes on our wilderness trails could open up a precedent that would encourage further efforts to open up the wilderness. This would threaten the natural environment and leave it susceptible to damage. The preservation of wilderness areas that have been untrammeled by man is the utmost priority as these areas need to be maintained (Scott, par. 2). This has been a hot topic and many different opinions have been shared. Many have argued for wilderness to remain untouched, this being with no interference from cyclists. Others have argued that there will be little to no impact on the present and that they should be allowed. After all, there are certain parks in America not run by the federal government that allows cyclists. There have been no major impacts with the present. Scott explains that bikers are unable to ride on the trails in the first place due to a law established in 1964 known as the Wilderness Act. This law forbids the use of any mechanical transport in federal wilderness areas. However, many cyclists are arguing that when the law was established, mountain bikes were not yet popular or widely used. (Scott par. 4). Scott touches on the point that if Congress knew about mountain bikes, they would have allowed them and considered their presence in the wilderness (Scott par 4). Unfortunately when the law was established bikes did not yet exist which raises the question of how effective old laws are. However, there are certain cases where motorized vehicles are allowed in the wilderness. Scott explains that many park rangers can use whatever it takes to rescue a person who is in danger. He continues to explain that Disabled people may use non-gasoline-powered wheelchairs and that Snowmobiles and motorboats are allowed for subsistence hunting and fishing in wilderness areas (Scott Par 6). Many people argue that if this is allowed biking should be as well.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In a greater sense, the law is really about protecting our wilderness and making sure that it does not get damaged. Scott emphasizes that if the law was jeopardized this would put the American wilderness in danger (Scott Par 12). This law was put in place for a reason. Scott references certain points stated by Senator Lee. A well-known senator in the US. Lee has argued that this legislation is intended to strengthen and enrich the American enjoyment of the outdoors while making it easier for people to bike in wilderness areas. The preservation of American wildlife is what is at stake here. There is a lot of tradition rooted in this argument as well (Scott Par 9). People don't want to go against laws because change is questionable. They are not against biking but they do see it as a threat to wilderness areas and wilderness law. Scott explains that 600 million acres have been set aside as national parks, forests, and federal lands. This is an extra layer of safeguarding for wilderness protection. Much of the rest is available to cyclists. Wilderness areas are set aside for protection and that's the black and white of it. (Scott par 4).
The article accurately tells both sides of the story and summarises the positives and negatives of having mountain bikes in the wilderness. A notable point in the article relating to the precedent that bikes on wilderness trails could set explained that the introduction of bikes would cause motorized vehicles to use the trails and destroy them. This is a compelling point as it lays out the unknown impacts that bikes will have and questions whether they should be introduced. Another notable point in the article refers to the lack of knowledge congress had about bikes due to the fact that bikes had not yet been established. Bikes are considered to be mechanical forms of transportation so they, unfortunately, fall under the list of things that are banned in the wilderness according to law. This is interesting considering that other mechanical things similar to bikes are used in the wilderness currently. Things such as cross-country skiing involved a mechanical component similar to biking. The main point of the essay really stood out the compromise between the two arguments. It is explained that in the end the argument really comes down to protecting our natural environments. There can be a compromise worked out between bikers and the opposition but it needs to be a very detailed one with certain rules and regulations. I enjoyed this part of the article the most as it leaves the reader off on a good note and does not create a bias for one side or the other. I found this so compelling this I changed my opinion on the topic.
As per my thesis, I will be arguing in this essay that bikes should be allowed on wilderness trails as they do not cause a threat to the environment, and that biking can bring actual aid to a wilderness area.
My first argument is the environmental impact of bikes. Many think that bikes cause excessive wear and tear on trails while hikers do just as much damage. John Fisch the author of “responses to the 10 most common arguments against allowing mountain bikes in wilderness Areas” explains that independent scientific research has proven that given similar conditions, hiking and biking wear on the land is similar, and both are far less severe than equestrian use, which is allowed in Wilderness areas. With that being said, the wear on the trails is the same in the end (Fisch, sect. 4). Fisch explains that like trail impact, wildlife impact is also falsely assumed to be greater from bikes. Again, multiple studies show that a variety of species flush at similar distances and with similar frequency from hikers and cyclists. Some species even flushed more frequently and at greater distances from hikers than from cyclists.” (Fisch, sect. 4) In the end, hikers have a bigger environmental impact than cyclists concluding the first point of my thesis.
Secondly, biking can bring financial stability to certain areas that have an abundance of wilderness. If we are so focused on preserving our natural areas and keeping them safe why not have extra funds to support this? If wilderness trails allowed mountain bikers they would have the ability to tell them for a riding session. This is usually through a daily park pass. This money goes right into the pocket of the park and can aid in the preservation and sustainability of the environment. If trails do get damaged by bikes the funds are there to repair them due to the income from the riders. More money allows the park to implement more maintenance staff, park rangers, and game wardens who hold the frontline for wildlife protection. Andrew Fenton, the author of “how mountain biking is saving tiny towns around the world” explains that most mountain bike riders are wealthier than average and that there easily convinced to try new trails and travel long distances. This could be beneficial for an area in need (Fenton, Par. 3). Andrew Fenton also explains that the financial benefits can be huge with upward gains of 7.6 million for areas that have wilderness bike trails. There is a lot of profit to be made from riders and there are many positive aspects that come with their introduction of them(Fenton Par 3).
Overall, I strongly believe that bikes should be allowed in the wilderness. Throughout this essay, I have accurately summarized the article, laid out some compelling points, and startedне my own opinion on the issue. While I was writing this essay I really enjoyed tying everything together and drawing out larger implications from the text. Both sides of the essay's argument were compelling and allowed me to rethink mine in a different way. My own attitudes towards the essay were that it was written with strong points and it reflected well on its given topic of whether bikes should be in the wilderness. The larger impact or message in the essay is essential that we should always protect our wilderness environment to allow it to be preserved for years and decades to come.
Stuck on your essay?
