For about twenty years, the rule governing motorized and e-bike access on national forest land has worked the same simple way: a route is closed to vehicles unless someone has specifically marked it open. That's the Travel Management Rule, and on August 21 the U.S. Forest Service announced it wants to flip that logic. Under the proposal, routes would default to open unless a local land manager specifically marks them closed. It sounds like a small change in wording. In practice, it would rebuild the whole system around a different starting assumption, and it's already splitting the outdoor recreation world into two very different camps.
What's actually on the table
The Travel Management Rule covers ATVs, e-bikes, and other motorized and mobility vehicles on Forest Service land, and it's the reason some routes are open to them and others aren't. Right now, a road or trail has to be specifically designated for that kind of use before you can legally ride it. The new proposal would reverse the default, opening routes automatically unless a land manager takes the extra step of closing them. Mike Boren, the USDA undersecretary who oversees the Forest Service, framed the change as cutting red tape: "The existing travel management scheme creates unnecessary barriers for Americans to enjoy the national forests and grasslands that they own," he said in the agency's announcement, adding that the goal is to give local leaders the tools to keep roads, trails, and trailheads "open and appropriate for public use."
Not everyone reads it that way. Peggy dePasquale, national forests wildlands director at the Wyoming Wilderness Association, pushed back on the idea that the current rule was ever really about restriction. "It's about making access sustainable and well understood by everybody," she told Wyoming Public Media, and she worries that flipping the default could lead to riders carving informal routes that damage habitat before anyone has a chance to weigh in. On the other side, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a group representing off-highway and e-bike riders nationally, called the current rule "overdue for a fix," pointing to years of complaints from riders and rural counties about gridlock and inconsistent access from one forest to the next.
Part of a bigger pattern
This isn't an isolated proposal. Three days earlier, on August 18, the same administration announced plans to repeal the Roadless Rule, a separate policy that has limited road-building in about a third of national forest land since 2001. Together, the two moves point toward a broader push to loosen restrictions on how forest land gets used and accessed. The Roadless Rule proposal alone had drawn more than 38,000 public comments within its first week, which gives some sense of how much attention this whole category of policy is getting right now, from both sides.
Nothing has actually changed yet. Both proposals are still in the public comment stage, and the Forest Service is required to review that input before any rule takes effect. The comment window on the Travel Management Rule closed September 23.
Where this leaves riders, and where we sit on it
If this rule changes the way it's currently written, it could mean more forest routes open to e-bikes and other vehicles by default, in more places, without waiting on a formal designation process that can take years. It could also mean the debate over habitat impact and route proliferation that dePasquale raised plays out on a much wider scale than it has before. Which outcome actually shows up depends on how individual forests choose to implement it, and that's still months if not years away.
TerraGnar isn't a land management group and we don't have a seat at this table — we make gear that gets bikes to the trailhead, not the rules for what happens once you're there. But access is the whole premise of what we do. A rack only matters if there's somewhere to drive it to, so a policy fight over how that access gets decided is worth understanding, even from the outside. We don't have a position on how this should shake out. We just like having places to ride, and we'd rather understand the fight than get surprised by the outcome.
← Back to the Journal