Originally Posted by
jono
I think our comments need to point out the need for trails offering solitude, long distances, and quiet, scenic views to backcountry bicyclists. These kinds of rides occupy a specific place on the ROS which is essentially identical to the experience sought by hikers and equestrians who travel deep into the backcountry, but we choose (or are pushed by physical, economic or environmental considerations) to use a bike instead of a horse or a few extra days with a pack and tent.
Closure of these trails represents the destruction of a federally-owned resource, since the trails disappear without maintenance or use, and the recreational opportunity (itself the resource of value) goes with it. Trails in this category represent a large investment, whether by volunteers, the USFS or the WPA, and the land managers are tasked with protecting these investments. Letting roads fall off the map presents the same problem for motorized users (and others, like loggers, which is why it's a popular idea with conservationists). Letting the FS call an old road a "trail" is doubly problematic: roads make shitty trails in a now "roadless" area.