This commentary is by Suzanne Bhatt, an avid hiker and bird watcher who volunteers in several capacities supporting plant and animal life in Boulder County. She is a member of the Boulder County Conservation Committee, serves as a volunteer naturalist leading hikes and birdwatching trips, and conducts bird surveys for the Boulder County Nature Association. The views expressed here are her own.
In recent weeks, the mountain biking community has raised concerns about proposed changes to trail use, as reported in the April 30 Boulder Reporting Lab article “Boulder County proposal to limit multi-use trail access draws backlash from mountain bikers.”
The county’s proposal would test alternating trail use on selected multi-use trails, limiting activities such as biking, hiking or horseback riding to specific days or times on selected trails.
Some concerns have included the lack of bike-only trails and the possible restriction of some trails to bikers on certain days of the week to reduce user conflicts and allow a safer, quieter experience for hikers and other non-bike users.
Arguments have been made that bikers make up the majority of users on the trails proposed for a county pilot study of alternate-use days and therefore should not be subject to restrictions. Some also argue that the number of reported trail conflicts is very low, suggesting that no meaningful problem exists to be solved. I would like to offer some additional perspectives on this issue.
It is true that there are a number of trails in both the city and county open spaces where bikes are not allowed. This reflects significant study over the years by open space agencies regarding where bike use is most appropriate based on ecological and habitat concerns, as well as concerns for the safety of trail users. Appropriately, a variety of trails have been deemed appropriate for multiple uses, including bikes. However, when fast-moving bikes are added to hiking trails, very real safety and user-conflict issues arise.
Our open space trails host visitors of all ages and abilities. Many are seniors or have physical limitations. Many, especially on weekends, are families with young children. Others are bird watchers or other nature observers, binoculars in hand, gazing into trees and bushes.
Even when courteous riders give an “on the left” warning when coming up behind a hiker, they tend to come up quickly, resulting in a startle response and a need to react immediately to jump aside, including making a split-second decision about which direction to move. On hilly or winding trails, which are often favored by bikers, the speed of approach tends to be much faster. Older people, people with special needs and families with young children may have difficulty in executing those quick reactions.
The frequent result is that hikers abandon those trails after one or two such episodes and frequent non-bike trails, with a subsequent increase in user density on those trail systems. The likelihood that many of those hikers report trail conflict is almost certainly very low, unless the episode has been especially egregious. Instead, they just quietly don’t return.
Thus, any arguments that conflicts are very rare based on numbers of complaints are questionable. Statements referencing the high percentage of mountain bikers among trail users at Heil Valley Ranch, Hall Ranch and Betasso on multi-use days would seem to confirm the existence of trail abandonment by other non-bike users.
A valid scientific research study quantifying the actual changes in trail usage where bikes are allowed would be most welcome, but those of us who have had the opportunity to talk with other trail users have repeatedly heard that hikers are simply giving up on multi-use trails.
Some in the biking community argue that the answer is to build more trails and connections for bikes only. This is an environmentally unsustainable proposal that would risk damage to open space lands. New trail construction inevitably cuts through and fragments wildlife habitat and sensitive ecosystems, raises the risk of introducing invasive weed seeds that often outcompete native plants, and can lead to more erosion.
Our open space lands already host many trails, and if measures are to be taken to allow hikers to quietly enjoy multi-use trails and reduce trail conflict, the environmentally responsible way to do this is to make use of existing trails, not create new ones.
There is room for all of us to enjoy Boulder County’s incredible beauty and natural areas with which we are blessed. Kudos to county staff who are exploring ways to balance the needs of all users for a safe, enjoyable experience with the protection of our wildlife ecosystems and habitat.
I stopped going to hike Heil Ranch because of cyclists. Cyclists were barreling down the twists and turns and giving hikers the stink eye for moving too slowly. I actually heard on cyclist suggest to a friend that hikers should be banned from this lovely trial head to trail head hike. I never filed a complaint so I am going to suggest this letter writer is likely correct that actual data is sparse. And whatever the county and city decide, some basic rules of the road etiquette would also be helpful.
Sarah I am sorry for your experience at Heil Ranch but that is not representative of all mountain bikers. Responsible riders have a bell on the bike, they yield to hikers, and always say thank you when they pass a hiker that moves to the side.
The real solution involves having bike only downhill trails, keeping the trail users separate when the bikes are most dangerous and descending down the mountain.
I agree with Suzanne Bhatt. On narrow trails it’s startling to have fast cyclists hurtling down. I go to hike for peaceful respite, and prefer not to have to be on alert for bikes. We need tranquil places for reflection!
In terms of conflicts with bikes (or dog) where would one register a complaint?
Janet, the solution is downhill only trails, that way the cyclists will not be blazing past you on the trail, only climbing past you at a slow rate. There are zero miles of bike only downhill trail in Boulder county open space, hence part of the problem. Courteous mountain bikers use a bell to alert people of there presence and you can here mine ringing from a 100 feet away. When I’m biking I feel in peaceful respite, what makes your peaceful respite more important than mine?
At Heil, the Grindstone Quarry trail is hiking only. At Hall Ranch, there are over 6 miles of trails that are only open to hikers and horses. There are far more hiking only trails on Open Space than there are trails open to bikes. Why do you need to hike on trails open to bikes that are almost entirely maintained by the mountain biking community when you can have your peaceful experience on a hiking only trail?
What is this pilot trying to figure out? It feels like an attempt to find excuses for a permanent bike closure on the main connector because previous surveys didn’t support one. Of course hikers (already with endless options) who don’t like bikes will like it better when no bikes are there…
As someone who hikes, runs, and bikes, multi-use should mean multi-use. Why punish the majority of cyclists for a few bad actors? When I bike, I pull way over to let hikers pass—even when they don’t acknowledge the courtesy—because it’s the right thing to do. How about diverse and mixed stakeholder sessions and trail etiquette pilots.
Regarding “conflict,” I actually get more “stink eyes” from fellow hikers while running or hiking (or biking). Coming from the Midwest, I just assume they are in their own world or from a culture where you don’t smile at strangers. Much of this friction is just intolerance, not a safety crisis. Furthermore, the environmental argument is flawed—hikers driving to a trail create a larger footprint than a cyclist riding there.
Hikers already have endless bike-free options. Meanwhile, intermediate/advanced biking trails close to home are limited to a handful of spots like Heil, White Ranch (shorter = Hall, Betasso). Will the County study how this closure impacts those other trails, or pilot opening Betasso both weekend days to ease Sunday congestion? I hope we can focus on cooperation, not discrimination or a smaller groups’ discomfort. The discomfort is real but they can go at off times or to a hiker-only trail.
Also, families aren’t the ones who are upset. They are the ones there biking!!! There is no issue about small kids and seniors on Wapiti. Like my friend was telling me, that is a far hike for a hiker with mobility issues or small kids.
New bike only trails are the solution to the problem. And yes there might be environmental impacts from the creation of new trails, but creating anything at all is going to impact the environment. The population of Denver and the suburbs is growing and is going to lead to increasingly crowded trails, which will lead for the need for more trails. I hope you post a similar article when trails inevitably get proposed for hiking use.
Great idea. I hope it gets traction.
Actually the population is declining. Folks are leaving Colorado at a faster pace than they are moving here. But I think that is neither here nor there. You know, environmental impacts actually matter. It is one reason why bikers were actually banned from so many trails originally. The whole “leave no trace” ethos falls off in the face of bike tires. I don’t know what the solution is but to dismiss enviro concerns and to ignore the reality of how many bikers actually treat walking recreationists is somewhat disingenuous.
Quick Google search says denver population is stagnant. And the suburbs population is growing.
Do your shoes not leave marks and rubber on the trails or am I missing something? Yes bikes leave rubber, let’s talk about mitigating the pollution not banning bikes. There are far worse things for the environment than tires.
Like the PFAs that leach off of all the waterproof clothes the hikers wear
Environmental concerns matter, but limiting mountain bike access is not automatically the best solution. Research suggests that hiking and mountain biking can have similar trail impacts when trail design, slope, soil, and use levels are considered, and impacts are often driven more by poor design or overuse than by the activity itself.
Here are some studies that I found interesting.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479723025896
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479711002817
When there are too few legal bike trails, use gets concentrated on the remaining trails, which can increase damage and conflict. It can also push some riders toward unauthorized social trails, which are often more harmful because they are not sustainably designed or maintained.
A better approach is to provide enough well-built, legal mountain biking trails to disperse use, reduce illegal trail building, and manage conflict through thoughtful design, signage, education, and enforcement. Public land decisions should be based on evidence and responsible recreation, not just anecdotal complaints.
That idea mostly comes from early assumptions in the 80s and 90s. Since then, recreation ecology research, including work by Jeff Marion and others, has found that hikers and mountain bikers have similar impacts on well-designed trails. The bigger factors are trail design, drainage, and maintenance, not the type of user.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/5211390
There is plenty of local evidence that hikers are just as, if not more, impactful than bikes. Go to NCAR and walk the main trail after a snow melt, and within a half mile there is a field that gets trampled by hikers avoiding mud. You can see the same thing in the South Mesa, or really any hiking trail in Boulder, since OSMP only closes multi-use trails due to mud.
This perspective is wildly one-sided, and I don’t think this article is written in good faith. If the author truly believes their final statement, “There is room for all of us to enjoy Boulder County’s incredible beauty and natural areas with which we are blessed”, then why does this article support limiting bikers’ abilities to use multi-use trails? And if there truly isn’t room on the existing multi-use trails for bikers and hikers, why isn’t it fair to limit some trails to biker use, and some to hiker use? It seems to me that being aggressive and making trail conditions unsafe for other users is hardly a behavior exclusive to bikers.
I’m sorry for any hiker that has a negative experience with cyclists, reported or not. But why does the solution need to be to reduce bike access and not other trail users? If adding bike only trails is not an option then why not ban bikes on some days AND ban hikers on other days. The proposal only adversely affects one trail user group and it’s the same one that already has the least access… Betasso limits when bikes are allowed yet hikers can use that trail system any day they want. Equitable solutions are either build more bike-only trails or equal restrictions for all trail user groups.
Limiting bikes to certain days while not equally doing so with hikers is just using my own tax dollars to discriminate against my equal access to these trails.
I’m an avid hiker and don’t hike on trails which allow bikers. Those trails that have bikes are often very degraded. Wildlife also seem to avoid those areas.
Kathleen I’m sorry but your experience isn’t universally applicable. You need evidence, not just it seems like this. Mountain bikers volunteer to do trail work all the time, we put in a lot of effort to maintain trails. You should be advocating for downhill bike trails or bike only trails. Or do you hikers not allow other people having fun?
Curious:
Is Sanitas so degraded because of the bikes?
Is a large portion of native grass at the Chataqua meadow dead because of bikes? And the glitter and champagne corks and dog bags and unbagged poop? Bikes?
Did the hikers who were smoking at Chatauqua and likely Heil who started the fires do it because of bikes?
Are the cigarettes I picked up at Brainard and Chatauqua because of bikes?
Do only bikers see wildlife on multi-use trails because I see a lot when biking but not as much when hiking.
Just kinda wondering.
I like hiking and biking and yoga and running. And go to different places for all of these things personally. It feels threatening when a group who has so much of Boulder already tries to come for the few good mtb trails. Thanks for understanding.
“The frequent result is that hikers abandon those trails after one or two such episodes and frequent non-bike trails, with a subsequent increase in user density on those trail systems. The likelihood that many of those hikers report trail conflict is almost certainly very low, unless the episode has been especially egregious. Instead, they just quietly don’t return.” Ditto that! The expansion of cross-county connecting trails has made this much worse. I’ve been walking Open Space trails for decades, and now avoid most multi-use trails due to increased bike use. Wheels, feet and paws do not co-exist well, especially on narrow, twisty trails – which is the majority of our Mountain Park and Open Space trails. Sharing space through alternating days on multiuse trails seems like a fair solution.
This isn’t what is being suggested, Joni. Claire Levy has made it clear that she only intends to restrict biking in certain days and put in place 0 restrictions for other users.
This could easily make the trail worse for everyone on the unlimitted days because now the bikers are pushed into a smaller number of days and further outweigh the hikers. Do the hikers really want to limit their use to only the 2 hiker-only days like Betasso offers?
The pilot program specifically states that it doesn’t include any provisions for new trails or redesigning existing trails. So instead of addressing the problem with proven solutions, they’re instead looking to an outdated thought process that limits how residents can enjoy their local open space.
If building new bike-only trails is out of the question could we make some multi-use trails bike-only?
Joni, unfortunately this is not a “sharing space through alternating days on multiuse trails” proposal, which is why the biking community is up in arms. It is ONLY restricting bikes on particular days. Those restrictions are not reciprocated through days that are restricting hiking. Therefore it is an inequitable proposal, not a “fair solution”.
That would be the logical solution where fairness reigned, but this is being pushed by those that dislike bikes on trails and typical Boulder over-reaction by a righteous and idealistic minority. Those constituents would fight tooth and nail to not allow bike only trail conversion happen. Luckily the bike community is fighting this in the same manner and will continue to do so. There is enough ground swell that some commissioners are very likely to lose their seats next time around.
It’s baffling that people choose to hike on a trail open to bikes when there are, in fact, far more trails that bikes are not allowed on. The problem is not access, it is entitlement. These same trails being considered for further closure to bikes are mostly maintained by the mountain bike community. Of all the trail work days I’ve participated in at Hall, Heil, Picture Rock and Betasso to name a few, it’s always been cyclists and never hikers or equestrians showing up to do the work.
Also, there are far far more kids riding bikes on trails than going for walks or hiking. Do people supporting these closures really want to tell the kids they need to go ride on the side of a street where they can be hit by cars??
As a hiker, I have had 0 issues with mountain bikers. I’ve found mountain bikers to be friendly and polite. Maybe hikers need to practice a little situational awareness when using shared trails.
Three of the most popular open spaces in BOCO already accommodate hiker only options. Hall has the Nighthawk trail, Heil has Grindstone Quarry and Lichen Loop and Betasso already has non bike days. There are already many hiker only trailheads, just look at the Flatirons and adjacent areas.
Also Suzanne’s point about conflicts being under-reported is not supported by any data. The theoretical lack of data can’t support any valid conclusions.
Instead of further banning already limited access for bikes I would suggest trail courtesy outreach programs that target all user groups.
A few commenters have alluded to this, but to be clear this should not be called an alternating use pilot. There is no alternating use being piloted. The proposal is for evaluating a periodic bike ban. The only possible conclusion from this approach is that the true goal is a permanent bike ban, not the implementation of an equitable use policy. There is no way to get scientific information unless the pilot also evaluates exclusive cycle and perhaps equestrian only restrictions.
I don’t understand the point of this. The article claims “safety issue” but I couldn’t find a single case where a hiker was meaningfully injured by a mountain biker in Boulder County. Perhaps the county should focus more on the actual safety issues we face with regards to wildfires, floods, traffic accidents, etc. Y’know, the things that actually do injure and kill people here.
I guess I hike way more than I bike so I don’t care too much, but this seems like wasting public time and causing strife for no meaningful benefit.
The commenters on and author of this opinion piece claim to advocate for “others” (seniors, children, families) yet those are not the users who would be on the Wapiti Trail and they are not the ones complaining. Over the past 5 weeks at Heil, I have seen many families and a few older people using the area in this way:
-An older couple: man biked, woman read
-Two families with 2 kids each under 4; Woman road a long ride, dad took kids on Schoolhouse Loop
-2 older couples hiking on Overland Loop (on way to Wapiti for me): I stopped, they insisted I keep going and then cheered me on, one grandma stating “you go girl” to my mid-40s self
-Two dads with 8-10 year old boys biking in group of 4, have seen twice, biking to the bench at Picture Rock. I assume mom was having a lovely time doing her thing elsewhere.
-One dad seen repeatedly at PR: kid in bike seat, bonding and sensory activation happening, mom likely enjoying respite.
-Hikers at Heil: I stop or they wave me on. Several said the pilot is a waste of resources. We exchange friendly hellos. One time exchanged numbers with wife of couple in 60s hiking to ride together sometime.
-Youth bike team like little ducks, never in my way, most considerate humans ever. Future great adult citizens in training.
-Teen trail building day and opportunity to learn how to MTB.
The majority of (hiking) young kids and (hiking) people with mobility challenges are not getting to that Wapiti section of trail that Levy wants to close to bikes (our connector) but they may be on the hiker-only Lichen Loop at Heil. Or, on bikes! The only way for them to get to that portion of trail.
For those who do not like being around bikes and are wanting to enjoy the burnt section of trail (Wapiti) at Heil, it is very quiet and has low visitation during these times: ALL weekdays; Mid to late afternoons on the weekends. Sometimes I even get creeped out by myself.
I frequent the below list of trails for hiking and running. They are hiking-only and you may enjoy them too. We need to share and there needs to be places for our large MTB user and nature-lover community to go; this includes mixed-user families, friends, and couples visiting together. Closing one trail puts pressure on all of the others and Heil handles traffic well and was designed to do this. Bikes are not causing conservation issues. Why are people who have so much now coming for more? Let everyone, not just you, enjoy OUR open space. You have so many options:
Hiking Only (not exhaustive)
-Eldorado State Park
-South Mesa network
-Shanahan
-Chataqua & trails along Flagstaff
-Walker has bikes but very few
-Red Rocks
-Anemone
-Lions Lair
-Sanitas
-Dakota Ridge and Valley Trail
-Wonderland Lake and associated uphill fingers including Old Kiln Trail
-Hogback Ridge
-Anne U. White
-Hiker-only trails at Heil/Hall
-Wednesday and Saturday at Betasso; also very few hikers overall on those days
Alternating should mean hikers some days and bikers some days. This proposal is only “alternating” whether bikes are allowed or not. The bad attempt at deception is more galling to me than the actual proposal.
As an avid hiker, I have never had an issue with mountain bikers. This proposal seems unfair to them. Please consider more equitable policies.
The original article makes the cyclists’s case better than they realize. If a hiker has a negative encounter with a cyclist, they may quietly abandon that trail in favor of trails that ban cyclists. If a cyclist has a negative encounter with a hiker, they… um… well, what can they do? Cyclists don’t have the same options.
Correct – with less than a hand full of bike trails, versus 100’s for hiker only, abandonment by a cyclist is not a reality.
Let’s agree that yes, there are a few bad actors on BOTH sides. I’ve had hikers intentionally block trail when I’m on my bike. I’ve had bikers coming down hill and not yielding to me as a hiker as the should. Even hiker on hiker – like not yielding to uphill hiker as is established etiquette – happens to me all the time on hikes like Sanitas. And biker on biker for that matter!
Saying there are no bad actor hikers it not embracing the truth. People are people and some people are just not as amazing and aware as they could be.
So no group is void of bad actors. That doesn’t mean one group (bikers) should be punished inequitably just because you don’t want them on (the very limited) local trails, which is what this initiative is about…otherwise it would be truly ‘alternating’ or just promoting getting along, let’s stop cloaking the truth here.
The further west one goes in Boulder County the worse the mt. bike behavior and imprint on the land. It’s not all love and oneness and grand stewardship of the land in Boulder County. Self interest and disrespect for basic rules and the needs of nature are beyond the pale.
I feel the same way about entitled hikers and dog sh*t bags everywhere. It’s almost like there are poor trail users among each user group, and we all need to do better about graceful sharing of the land. Barring specific user groups based on feelings alone, which this absolutely is, is not the answer.
As others have noted, nothing about this plan is ‘alternating’, as only bikers will be required to limit usage on certain days, with no specific bike only days. What is most frustrating is the lack of problem definition coming from leadership, leaving staff rudderless. Instead of being given a problem to solve, they were mandated to deploy a specific tool, an alternating use program, but to what end? Are they trying to reduce user conflicts? Is it really, as this author indicates, an issue of users being scared off of multi-use trails completely such that those conflicts are not being represented in the data? If that were the case, a successful pilot would need to demonstrate that those users were being drawn back to these trails as a result of the program. A pilot is a test, so how can the results of this program be interpreted if we have no understanding of what success looks like?
Programs like this are not costless, so what could we have gotten instead? The county is holding open houses to engage with the community, which cost us in the form of hundreds of hours of staff time that could have been spent on something else. The program will require signage, administration, and ultimately enforcement, all of which carry a price tag. Could we have afforded more trail repair? Could we have even paid for new trail construction? The opportunity costs are real.
I’m disappointed that the writer of this article supports Boulder County’s extreme reaction to the very limited data on these occurrences.
I get that it can be uncomfortable to have cyclists blaze on through. However with some outreach and education, I think we could get cyclists to pass at a crawl. Creating practically no more disturbance than a trail runner would or a faster hiker passing you.
The county has chosen to go from doing nothing to the very extreme and piloting exclusion. I thought we were better than going for direct discrimination. Picking winners and losers stinks and creates more division in a society already marked by extreme division.
I appreciate Suzanne Bhatt’s thoughtful perspective and her commitment to conservation and public lands. And I believe she is correct that multi-use trail conflict is generally under-reported for the valid reasons cited. Hikers, bikers, and equestrians use our trails in different ways and at different speeds. No matter how polite we all try to be, some conflict is inevitable. I support finding solutions to give all users the opportunity to enjoy our trails, including alternating access. But from a mountain biker’s perspective, I think an important part of this conversation is being overlooked. The current Boulder County proposal does not yet spell out exactly how alternating-use schedules would work on future trails. But many riders are concerned because the one major local example we already have — Betasso Preserve — is not an equitable model.
At Betasso, hikers receive exclusive-use days while mountain bikers do not. Bikes are prohibited on certain days, but there are no corresponding bike-only days. That matters because it reflects an underlying assumption that only hikers benefit from periods of dedicated trail use. Most riders are completely willing to share trails respectfully with hikers and equestrians. But if you ask riders honestly, many would also prefer periods of dedicated use. Riding has a unique rhythm and “flow” that is central to the experience. Riders move continuously through terrain, corners, climbs, and descents. That flow is part of why people love mountain biking.
That feeling of flow is not trivial. Many hikers and equestrians understand this concept from their own experiences in nature, whether it’s birdwatching, trail running, photography, or simply enjoying quiet immersion outdoors. A fast-moving bike can interrupt that experience for hikers, just as hikers can interrupt a rider’s momentum and rhythm. The empathy needs to go both ways.
Mountain bikers at Betasso would gladly support true bike-only days just as hikers currently enjoy hiker-only days. Riders would move more naturally and confidently through the trail system if they knew they would not suddenly encounter hikers around blind corners, improving both enjoyment and potentially safety as well.
The larger context matters too. Boulder County already has many trails closed to bikes entirely, while there are effectively zero bike-only trails in the county system. Compared to many outdoor-oriented communities around the country, Boulder remains comparatively restrictive toward mountain biking despite how large and established the riding community is. That is why many riders continue advocating for new directional or bike-optimized trail construction as part of a broader solution. Across the country, purpose-built directional trails have reduced user conflict while improving safety and enjoyment for everyone.
Arguments that no new trails should be built because of environmental concerns are difficult to fully support in the foothill areas under discussion. These landscapes already contain roads, trail systems, and nearby development. Roads have vastly greater ecological impact than narrow natural-surface trails. The community benefits of thoughtfully designed trail expansion in the foothills very likely outweigh the comparatively small ecological impact in an area already busy with human activity.
If Boulder County moves forward with additional alternating-use pilots, they should avoid replicating the inequities already present at Betasso. A genuinely balanced approach would include:
Equal consideration for all user experiences
Equal opportunities for exclusive-use access
Expansion of alternating-use opportunities on trail systems where bikes are currently prohibited
Long term, a winning plan for our beautiful foothills will focus on equal access and pragmatic expansion of our already amazing parks and open space network. Thank you to so many in our community already dedicated to these goals