So much for the history of how we got here, of why we're excluded from wildernesses and urban trails, and some of the trail-riding codes of behavior that can keep us from being kicked off even more.

Sign? What sign??

The arguments and additional issues surrounding this controversy are many and varied, sometimes (as the saying goes) generating more heat than light. But one thing is certain: Most mountain bikers want to enjoy and maintain the pristine environment championed by hikers and horse people and almost everyone else.

The Bad Apples

The exceptions are the"banzai" or "kamikaze" riders who race along the trails spooking animals and humans, made oblivious to the beauty by the thrill of speed, and who get what they so richly deserve when they slam into trees or do head-plants into rocks — and when ticketed by rangers or knocked off their bikes by fellow bikers and hikers.

Former NORBA Director Chris Ross stresses the fact that most of his members follow NORBA's 11-point code and that a few "bad apples" distort the bikers' image.

"For every two hundred people who follow the code, it only takes one or two banzai guys to ruin things. No one notices all the rest who do no damage; they only notice those who do it wrong."

A Case for Wilderness Exclusion

Sierra Club Officer Sally Reid says the following about non-Wilderness trails: "Trails must be analyzed by land managers for their appropriateness for bicycle use . . . Obviously there are trails which should be left open [to mountain bikers]; I have no objection to bicycles on trails where I can see them, and where they can see me." But on the issue of opening federally designated wilderness areas to mountain bikers, Reid is unequivocal: "No. It's too disturbing to animals. It's too disturbing to people. It's too disturbing to vegetation. Just no!"

A Delicate Balance

Personally, I accept the validity of many parts of the arguments put forth by those who wish a change in the Wilderness Act. I also see the inherent difficulties in the Sierra Club proposal that public land trails be off-limits until officially opened to bikes, rather than the present policy of waiting to conduct trail studies until after official openings.

	State Your Case This is a divisive topic. What do you think about trail conflict (hikers versus bikers)? Do you think that bikes hurt our national forests?

I know these things from my many conversations with fellow cyclists around the nation, and with many Forest Service and Park Service personnel. I would love to see more of the wilderness regions than those few miles I can reach on a day hike. I prefer my bike-and-hike approach to that of long treks in and out with great weight on my back. All these desires would seem to put me squarely in the camp of those of my fellow mountain bikers who would wish wilderness areas open to us.

But, but . . . I must admit to continuing, after all these years, in my support of our wilderness exclusion. My reasons are primarily not environmental, given my agreement that most mountain bikers are concerned about damage and that"tender" soils — at least in the steeper and harder-to-reach wilderness regions — attract few bikers anyway. No, it is almost exclusively for aesthetic reasons that I wish to see our banishment continued.

Notwithstanding the arguments of how mechanical modern packs or skis or high-tech stoves may be, or how unappealing it is to follow a trail recently traveled by a pack train (be that many horses or hikers), these details do not, for me at least, detract from the natural experience that I believe wilderness areas must protect. And mountain bikes, for me and for so many others, do. There's just no getting around the fact that a bike is a vehicle. And they're as out of place in the wilderness as a horse would be for your urban commute.