Sandsberry: Mountain bikers belong in the Wilderness
August 15, 2011 by Scott Sandsberry
YAKIMA, Wash. — Having spent three decades backpacking in the boonies, I’m a bit miserly about sharing the trails. When I’m enjoying the breeze in the trees many miles from the nearest road, I don’t much like encountering mountain bikers, motorcyclists, horseback riders or, for that matter, even other hikers.
Motorcycles are noisy, horses drop trail apples, some hikers sing off-key or bring barking dogs, and mountain bikers, well, I resent them for being able to get where they’re going a lot faster than I can.
Fort-unately for cur-mudgeons like me, when I’m hiking in designated Wilderness, I don’t have to deal with mountain bikers. They’re not allowed in Wilderness, which means they’re locked out of nearly 4.5 million acres in this state and barred from more than 171,000 square miles of spectacular backcountry across the country.
But here’s the thing: They shouldn’t be kept out.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 didn’t exclude mountain bikers from Wilderness. They got locked out of Wilderness by a bunch of land-management suits, most of them in the Forest Service, and by a bunch of exclusionary trail-use elitists like, well, me.
Wilderness should be open to mountain bikers.
I believe that’s what the legislators who created Wilderness would have wanted. Instead, with new Wilderness areas being considered every year — including another 226,300 acres recommended for Wilderness in the state as part of the current Okanogan-Wenatchee and Colville National Forest Plan — backcountry trails open to mountain bikers continue to dwindle.
And that’s just wrong.
‘Nonliving power source’
The Wilderness Act was written to preserve areas “untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,” land “retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habituation … with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.”
OK, what about bridges over creeks and mud bogs? Even when built by Wilderness standards — lumber hauled in on horseback, trees felled without mechanized saws — those bridges are still an imprint of man, and they’re certainly built to be as permanent as humanly possible.
Should those bridges be allowed there? Absolutely.
The same goes for some of the other arguably “mechanical” devices we blithely carry into Wilderness areas — fishing reels, spring-loaded trekking poles, high-tech backpacking stoves, IPods and GPS devices. (Yes, you could argue that the latter two are digital, not mechanical, but how are they in keeping with the land’s “primeval character?”)
Even the Forest Service’s 1966 rule amendments regarding Wilderness use specified “mechanical transport” as something “propelled by a nonliving power source.”
Well, I’m here to tell you, a mountain bike is definitely propelled by a living power source. That’s one of the reasons I’m not a mountain biker: In my (very) brief attempt at being one, the uphills turned my “power source” thighs into aching noodles and the downhills made me fearful that I was shortening my stay among the living.
So on those Wilderness trails, I’m always on foot.
The Act and its intent
Frank Church was a young senator from Idaho in 1961 when he became the floor manager of the controversial bill that passed the U.S. Senate in 1961 and 1963 and ultimately became the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Church’s driving support of Wilderness legislation threatened to cost him his reelection in 1962, when Idaho newspapers were filled with references to the “Church Wilderness Bill,” which — he recalled wryly in a 1977 speech — “was not intended as a compliment.”
In that same speech, Church took issue with some of the exclusionary ways in which the Wilderness Act was being interpreted. While he was specifically targeting policies that “make outfitter operations difficult” and a Forest Service plan to burn historic cabins within Wilderness areas “to eliminate the evidence of earlier human habitation,” the inclusive tenor of his oratory is quite telling.
“Such policies are misguided,” said Church, who died in 1984. “If Congress had intended that Wilderness be administered in so stringent a manner, we would never have written the law as we did.
“It was not the intent of Congress that Wilderness be administered in so pure a fashion as to needlessly restrict its customary public use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that Wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans.”
Research done by Ted Stroll (see related story), an attorney on the staff of the California Supreme Court, further revealed that legislative intent. The timing of the Wilderness Act would also tend to support the presumption that the authors would have supported mountain biking — had it been a viable pursuit in the early 1960s.
The law’s legislative genesis came during the presidency of John F. Kennedy, who was adamant about the value of a national fitness movement and, after being elected, even penned a Sports Illustrated article entitled “The Soft American.”
JFK also once declared, “Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride.”
Bicycles and trail damage
So, would mountain bikers be worse on the Wilderness trails or that primeval backcountry experience than horseback riders or hikers?
Not according to numerous studies on the trail impacts of different user groups. Cyclists braking on steep downhills cause damage, while extremely popular mountain-biking trails can develop a single-track groove that can increase erosion. But studies say none of that is any worse — and, in most cases, is actually less damaging — than horses’ hooves or even the holes poked by those spring-loaded trekking poles.
“Every user group is having an impact on it,” says Tim Van Beek, who oversees Washington Trails Association “volunteer vacation” trail-maintenance crews. “I’ve seen every user group has done considerable damage out there. That’s part of the deal. It really has a lot to do with how many users are out there using them. If nobody used the trail, they’d be in great shape.
“Any piece of well-built trail definitely will hold up to the use. The difficulty is, a lot of these trails were built by a miner to get up this trail fast. They had no idea this would turn into a hiking trail: What’s hiking? Why in the world would anybody do that for recreation?”
Here’s a simple way to assess what group does the most damage: Just have 20 mountain bikers, 20 hikers and 20 horse riders travel the same trail and then see which group leaves its mark on the trail.
The expectation, of course, is that horses would be the ones having the greatest impact. Do I believe that? Absolutely.
Do I then also believe horseback riders should be banned from Wilderness? Absolutely not. Backcountry Horsemen chapters do a remarkable amount of trail-improvement work in Wilderness areas. Without those horseback volunteers, entire trail circuits would be unusable — by anyone.
Those horsemen belong out there.
So do mountain bikers.
• Outdoors editor Scott Sandsberry can be reached at 509-577-7689 or ssandsberry@yakimaherald.com.
Filed under All, Outdoors
Sandsberry hits the nail on the head, and I say this as a longtime hiker, environmentalist, and ex-Sierra Club member.
The mainstream “environmental movement” has made itself completely irrelevant to anyone under 40 by turning “wilderness” into a place where:
-No one is allowed to have any fun, ever
-In fact, we shouldn’t really even be outdoors, and we should all feel guilty for defiling the outdoors by our very presence
So instead of tackling real, destructive issues like encroaching development, often via sweetheart land swaps on National Forest lands, mainstream “environmentalists” spend most of their time writing angry letters about mountain bikers.
These armchair warriors are actively hurting the cause of preservation by turning an entire sport (and there are more mountain bike trips taken each year than hiking trips: look it up) against the cause of preservation, and into the arms of the Blue Ribbon Coalition. That’s a bad tradeoff just because the sight of a bicycle makes them irrationally angry.
Here’s a piece of news: if you live in a major metropolitan area and go hiking on major holidays, you will not have the trail to yourself!
Furthermore, it’s already nearly impossible to get young people out of doors. If we actively discourage them, and turn “outside” into a place for grumpy old men – which the Sierra Club and others have been actively doing for decades now, via their tireless anti-bicycle campaigning – we will have exactly what we have now, which is younger generations completely uninterested in preserving the few remaining scraps of undeveloped America, and a rapidly aging and increasingly irrelevant environmental movement.
Right now it might seem like you’re winning – look at all this new Wilderness! – but you’re not actually preserving a single acre. All you’re doing is changing a few signs on already-preserved land and kicking out bicyclists, while development continues to chew away at the outdoors. That’s why you’re able to sneak these bills through: because development interests know they don’t really change anything.
Thank you for this article, Scott. Maybe it will open some eyes.
JS
I have been back-packing since about 1969 and mountain biking since about 1981. My observation is that, with a mountain bike, you are limited to the amount of stuff you can carry on a multi-day ride, versus what you can carry on your back. You need all that extra stuff when back-packing because you will be camping in more places while walking versus a trip of the same length on a bicycle. Camping definitely has an impact. The tent space is trampled, food is cooked, waste is disposed of, etc. In this way back-packing has more of an impact than bicycling.
The other impact that hiking has over cycling is that it is much easier to go off-trail on foot than on a bicycle. One of the first things my father taught me was how to navigate using a topo map and identifying landmarks. He never used a compass. The GPS wasn’t even a dream for the average person at the time. Since then all my hikes have included a cross-country section, where it is possible to get away from absolutely everyone, whether it be to a high mountain lake or an interesting peak. Try that on a bicycle and you will quickly discover that 28 pounds of metal and rubber is useless ballast. Hiking boots are the ultimate all-terrain-vehicles. Cycling restricts one to trails.
If I were a land manager, concerned with a delicate ecosystem like a meadow or alpine lake for example, I would route trails where they have the least impact and only allow bicycling. I’d have a few designated view spots on the trails, but no hiking or camping would be allowed. I envision a bicycle-only wilderness, with short, medium and long routes. Camping would only be allowed near the trailhead. You wouldn’t have to explicitly prohibit off-trail travel, because this is impossible for 99.999 percent of all cyclists. That first rock hidden by grass would put a stop to it immediately.
I have been on many muti-day trips on foot and by bicycle. Back-packing is hard on the feet and shins (I am fortunate to have good knees) and I am not sure how much longer I can do this. I definitely use hiking poles, and they go a good fraction of an inch into the ground with every step. On the other hand, mountain biking is less painful. I can go at a much more leisurely pace, with plenty of time to stop, smell the flowers and watch the birds. I carry a few spares, some food and water, hardly ever camp and, most importantly, I stay on the designated trails. I bike for the same reasons I hike, but the former has less impact on the land and less impact on my body, so I can take in more of what nature has to offer to the senses, instead of thinking about my aching body so much.
(Cue Mike Vandeman…)
One claim made against mountain bikes is that they damage trails. As a volunteer who has maintained dozens of miles of USFS multiple-use (foot, stock, mtn bike) trails for several years, I have not seen any significant damage from bikes, even on trails on which bikes are the major users. This simply requires properly-built trails: outsloped for good drainage, with turnpike or puncheon across marshy areas, and with swales rather than waterbars.
Bikes cause significantly less damage to properly-built trails than do deer on crossing game trails, and any damage caused by trail traffic is trivial compared to the routine vicissitudes of mother nature (blowdowns, rootball tipouts, stream washouts, slides, etc).
In Wilderness, we quite legally use brace and bit (looks like a bike crank), wheeled pedometers to measure trail mileage, and (in NPS) chain saws. Put them together, and you’ve got a bike. Can’t find evidence in the Wilderness Act itself that was intended to be illegal, or that wheeled travois should be illegal.
We build and maintain trails so that they may be used… by anyone, as far as I’m concerned, and the more, the merrier.
http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=738323&sid=4d279e9ab6b18b7bec4b558f129f7db3#738323
comments on nwhikers.net
Interesting editorial. One area he doesn’t cover is that how as mountain bikers are limited more and more from lands that become classified as wilderness, these same people stop supporting wilderness designation. These are generally people who support protecting lands, and it would be better if they were working with those who want to protect lands, not working against the process just because they have been excluded.
Would you not also be against wilderness if it began to restrict you from the activity you were previously allowed to do in that area (hiking, horseback riding, etc.)? That is the issue we are facing in Virginia/West Virginia; tracts of land that we have previously been able to access by bicycle that we may no longer be able to if the Wilderness designation gets placed on it. I’m sure you would feel the same if your favorite backpacking route was closed to foot traffic for some reason.
At one time I was an active member of the Sierra Club. And then I discovered mountain biking as an ideal way of enjoying remote areas. I now know many active, passionate mountain bikers, who will work tirelessly to enhance and preserve the trails they ride on. This is especially true with the more remote trails, which tend to attract the more passionate, experienced mountain bikers, who have a deep appreciation for the trails they are riding on. It’s unfortunate that some seek to exclude these people. My guess is that wilderness trails would be better off, in terms of trail maintenance and advocacy, with mountain bikers than without. It’s nice to hear a hiker express a pro-mountain bike view.
Completely agree with the article. Thanks so much and could somebody please link this to the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club amongst other environmental organizations who need to see this.
It is time to bring these silent users (bicyclists) into the fold among silent, human powered uses. The future of many acres of land could sure be protected with these people as allies.
People aren’t stupid, and banning trail use using specious arguments invites poaching, conflicts between users, smugness, and a host of other social disease that nobody wants. Be logical people! If mountain bikes don’t damage the trail any more than hiking or horseback riding, let ‘em ride!
How about the impact that bikers, by traveling fast, have on hikers? I know horses have an impact on hikers, too, and that it can be a pain to stand aside for them, but it’s mitigated by a friendly greeting. Whereas bikers, going fast down a trail, can at best yell out a friendly warning and hello. Also, what about the serenity in the wilderness when you’ve hiked 10 miles? Bikes can cover a lot more ground. Letting them in would be a bit like building more roads. I love the roads that get me into the wilderness, but I can see the need to limit building them.
If bikes are allowed, then horse drawn carts should be as well. Also, hand carts and wagons seem to fit in the same logic. While we are at it, why aren’t people allowed to parachute into the wilderness if they want to? It is totally silent, as are hang gliders. Why not rickshaws?
Seriously – bikes ARE allowed into the forest, on roads and some trails (BLM, DNR, WDFW). What the bike proponents are mad about is that they aren’t allowed EVERYWHERE. Grow up people!! Walking or riding a horse equals four miles an hour – tops. If you really need to speed down the trails, start running! Otherwise, you are complaining about something that inconveniences YOU – and ignoring how your backwoods behavior inconveniences and endangers others.
But aren’t you also complaining about something that inconveniences YOU (as a hiker) as well? How difficult is it to step aside and let someone go by? Whether they are on a bike, a horse, or even jogging?
Your argument is self centered. I don’t like being passed by bikes. If you want to carry that type of logic to it’s fullest I propose the following.
I don’t like jet noise. We should ban all aircraft from flying over/near Wilderness so I don’t have to hear it.
Fortunately, your argument is what the Sierra club and others know to be the only real argument for banning bikes from Wilderness. They won’t admit it, but it’s the truth and the basis for their policies.
Thank you for speaking the truth.
Bikes have brakes mate, I always slow well down for walkers and deliver a friendly greeting…
You people amaze me. In one sentence you complain that bikes are quiet and fast so they startle you when approaching. In another sentence you say we make noise and ruin your solitude. Really? Which is it?
The bike will only disrupt your serenity for a moment, then it will be gone. The hiker disrupts the flow of the mountain biker as they have to slow down. Sharing trails is not perfect for either side but with limited resources we all need to learn to share.
Granted, bikers can and do more easily get into ‘wild’ behaviors than horse riders. However, under current management, nothing degrades an outback experience more than the flies horses attract to wilderness destinations, especially in the prime month of August. How about bike travel limited to Monday thru Thursday, and then horses omitted during mid-summer ? How about revocable licensing of bike riders (passes) for safe forest travel ? The current all-or-nothing management scheme is flawed.
I wonder why mountain bikers can’t ever tell the truth??? Mountain bikers aren’t ever discriminated against: the EXACT same rules apply to everyone. Mountain bikers are NOT excluded from Wilderness. They can WALK there, just like everyone else! It’s BS to talk about being excluded. Why are mountain bikers too lazy to walk???
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1994: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm . It’s dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don’t have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else — ON FOOT! Why isn’t that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking….
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it’s not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them, but scientifically, they are worthless.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it’s NOT!). What’s good about THAT?
For more information: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtbfaq.htm .
*** Comment deleted by moderator. No personal insults. ***
Ah, no surprise that our dear friend Mr. Vandeman is here (That would be the Mike Vandeman convicted of three charges including exhibiting a deadly weapon and battery).
An excellent article Mr. Sandsberry. Thank you very much for writing it.
Only because the mountain bikers LIED, as usual. No surprize there!
Yes Mr Vandeman. Mountain bikers all lie and the courts got it wrong. It’s all a big conspiracy you were innocently walking along, mindlessly hacking away at vegetation with your handsaw when those mean old lying mountain bikers just rode into it…
yawn
If Mr. Vandeman really thinks mountain biking is lazy compared to walking, he ought to give it a try. I believe he’ll be surprised! Then again, I think he’s just saying that to be insulting and provocative- he probably realizes riding a bike up a trail is pretty hard work.
When his argument is lost on the merits, he tends to get into flat out insults.
Please go here to review the first hand account of Mike’s trial:
http://peterfrickwright.com/trial/
he simply is an extremist with biased, unrealistic views….and has turned to violence in an attempt to force his beliefs on others.
His writings/posts are hollow and inconsequential..
Mike is no longer a ‘player’ in this silly game of equal access….
Chum is lying, as usual. I wasn’t convicted of “violence”, and I shouldn’t have been convicted at all. The mountain bikers all lied under oath. No surprize there. You just did the same.
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2010/06/03/bicycle-opponent-arrested-for-assaulting-cyclist/
I’ll go ahead and think you have a logical argument when you hike nude, barefoot, and with no man-made implement of any kind. After all, they are inanimate objects that have no rights.
I have started to trail run in places that I cannot bike and on days that are not bike days on local trails. I find that hikers get just as pissed at me as I run by them as they do when I bike by them. This pleases me when I am running because there isn’t a dam thing they can do about it. They are just grumpy old people set in there ways.
Firstly, I am not a mountain biker. Secondly, kudos to Sandsberry for nailing it. At the risk of over-simplifying, this all seems akin to discrimination and the civil rights era; exclusion for no valid reason. Why in the world should we prohibit others from enjoying our earth, outdoors, life, if they do so responsibly? As stated, an oversimplification, but you get my point.
I live in a community littered with mountain bikers. I happily move to the side for them on the trail, just as they do for me; big deal. They build and maintain so many trails due to their passion for riding and the outdoors. Sure, there are areas they are allowed to ride; but, does that make the exclusion from other areas right?
Good grief.
WHAT “exclusion”? Mountain bikers are NOT excluded from Wilderness or anywhere else. They CAN walk, you know….
This “they can walk” argument you have is the most stupid thing I have heard. Funnily enough, for us, mountain biking is something we enjoy doing, if we enjoyed hiking we would be doing that. Personally the idea of walking for miles on end doesn’t appeal to me.
In my area there are many mountain bike specific areas that we, the mountain bikers who maintain these trails, share with hikers, horse riders and their horse poo, and apart from the occasional spout of profanities when said horse poo flicks up into my face we don’t complain.
Stop being such a grumpy old man Mr Vanderman, enjoy your hiking and learn to tolerate the 5 seconds of inconvenience we may cause you as you have to step one meter to the side as we ride past.
There are some places, like Sedona, AZ, for example, where the Wilderness boundaries prohibit mountain bikers from using short sections of trail that run through the “wilderness”. Some of this wilderness is less than 1/2 mile from a major highway and helicopter tours are frequently seen and heard in the “wilderness”. But it’s against the law to ride a bike through the .5 mile section of trail that runs through a neck of “wilderness”. And it would take an act of Congress to change that.
Consider the use of Jet boats in the Rogue River Wilderness. The boundary was drawn so that the river itself isn’t designated wilderness (to allow the continuance of the use of jet boats), but the land on either side of the river is designated wilderness. So, while you can take a commercial jet boat trip up and down the Rogue through the Wilderness, you can’t legally ride a bike on the trail that runs along the river. How does that make sense?
A good percentage of trail in designated Wilderness would not be fun at all to ride on a mountain bike… it would be hiking while carrying your bike. So it’s really not that many trails that would see mountain bike use in Wilderness areas.
But the biggest concern is losing trails that we already ride to new areas of designated Wilderness. This historical use needs to be accounted for, and boundaries drawn sensibly to allow continued use. Most of the mountain bikers I know love the woods and the mountains and love being out in it and we are good stewards to the land and put in time building high-quality, sustainable multi-use trails and maintaining them. We don’t mind sharing and realize that all the different users are out there enjoying themselves. The trails are a gift to be enjoyed by all.
I get quite frustrated by environmental organizations that pit mountain bikers against the other users. We are allies. It was great to read this piece and see that there are non-bikers that really get it. Thank you.
Excellent article!
I was a member of both the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society for many years until I started mtn. biking 14 years ago. I ended my membership to both organizations because of their absurd discrimination against mtn. bikers. I now send my money to IMBA. If people want more wilderness they are going to have to be more inclusive about who gets to use them.
There is NO “discrimination” against mountain bikers. NEITHER of us can bring a bicycle into Wilderness. So where is the discrimination? Mountain bikers are treated EXACTLY as everyone else is. Mountain bikers claim discrimination only because they think it will get them some sympathy. Hint: LYING doesn’t generate sympathy.
C’mon Mike. If you don’t bring a bike then you’re NOT a mountain-biker anymore. Paradoxically, then, your argument doesn’t hold air.
http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/10-050610-34.htm
Scott’s editorial is pretty much right on. I’m not a big biker but I applaud those that do and wished that society did more for bikers in general. And here in Central Washington, thanks to lousy logging practices, much of the open space is blocked to bikes due to prevalent snags and waste wood anyway.
Great article. All trail user groups should be working together to preserve and protect more open space. Excluding mountain bikes drives a wedge between the 2 largest groups of trail users who should be working together to stop reckless logging and rampant development.
I have been on some well built and maintained hiking trails, but for the most part I personally see far more trail work being done by mountain bikers. In fact I have seen more trail work done by motorcycle groups than hikers. At least here in Massachusetts. I have read the arguments on both sides and I’m sorry, but the hikers come across as angry and selfish. Most bikers I know are perplexed by the hatred. Honestly most hikers I know are perplexed by it too, its a small, loud percentage of hikers who are perpetrating this ban.
We need to interest younger people in the great outdoors and get them out enjoying it so the next generation will continue to conserve and protect these areas. All non motorized groups should be welcomed on Wilderness land.
In the spring I carry a 5 lb military entrenching tool with me on my bike pack. This is a lot of weight but I carry it to do trail repairs and fix drainage points. I also repair natural trail markers and mark areas to prevent damage to fragile vegetation on desert trails.
I do not support increasing wilderness designation because it excludes me from the areas I use and has excluded me from areas I once was able to use. I do not donate money to any group that supports increased wilderness designation.
I once did support wilderness groups then I lost a favorite trail to them.
Last night my friends and I did one of our Wed night rides on a trail slated for closure since it is in recommended wilderness. This trail is a two mile spur trail that deadends at an overlook into the real “Wilderness.” This is a trail that has been used or mountain biking for at least the last 20 years. We all rode with hand saws to clear the usual blowdown. While we rode up on the trail. We passed several hikers, all of whom were using the shortcuts that the forest service has been hopelessly trying to block off. There are responsible hikers and irresponsible hikers just like there are bikers.
To the Editors:
Scott Sandsberry’s article (8/15/11)states, “The Wilderness Act of 1964 didn’t exclude mountain bikers from Wilderness.”.
The Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577, dated September 3, 1964, states, in Section 4(c) PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES, “Except as specifically provided for in this Act…there shall be no…or other form of mechanical transport…within any such area.”
Perhaps Mr. Sandsberry is making a semantic argument…”mountain bikers” are not prohibited, only their bikes. … or perhaps he is making an argument that mountain bikes are not a “form of mechanical transport”. … or perhaps he is not fully versed in the Act and the clear intentions of the act itself.
In the interests of not fanning the flames of discontent fuelled by inaccurate information, perhaps a clarification would be appropriate?
jack thorne
The issue you mentioned is the focus of the story that accompanied the column.
– Marcus Michelson
Sports Department