Mountain Biking and Forest Conservation: Baden-Württemberg Finally Needs a System — Not Another Ban – MTB Report

24/02/2026 /

What is the value of the position paper “Mountain Biking and Forest Conservation” published by BUND Baden-Württemberg?

Published by the Radical Life Studios / MTB Report

It’s rare that I read a position paper and nod along before I start tearing it apart. With the BUND Baden-Württemberg paper “Mountainbiking und Waldnaturschutz”, that’s exactly what happens. The opening is surprisingly fair: experiencing nature strengthens ecological awareness, outdoor sports can have positive effects — and mountain biking is explicitly welcomed as a legitimate nature sport.

And then it tips over. Not necessarily because BUND is “evil” — but because Baden-Württemberg has been stuck for years in a logic that creates conflicts and then pretends those conflicts prove the “ban-first” strategy was right all along.

The core issue isn’t “the trail.” The core issue is: Baden-Württemberg refuses to build a connected network.

BUND argues that illegal trails in protected areas and user conflicts should be prevented. That’s a legitimate goal.

But the real question is: what replaces reality out there? A handful of legalized “islands” run by clubs, starting somewhere and ending nowhere, while everything in between remains a grey zone? That’s not management. That’s a fig leaf.

If you want to steer mountain biking responsibly, you need a connected, continuous trail network. Not just a few “legalized” fragments that exist on probation — but real, usable infrastructure: natural paths that link up sensibly, clear communication, genuinely protected sensitive zones where necessary — and a culture of respect on shared trails, where hikers and riders use the same corridors without being turned into enemies.

This isn’t romanticism. In a modern leisure society, it’s the only approach that scales.

The “2-meter rule” is not a conservation tool. It’s a conflict generator.

Legally, in Baden-Württemberg, cycling in the forest is generally prohibited on paths under two meters wide — with exceptions possible, but only as exceptions.

The outcome is predictable: you turn normal, natural path use into a legal minefield. You don’t get clarity — you get confusion. You don’t get education — you get shadow use.

And here’s the part people hate hearing out loud: rules like this can even amplify the perception of conflict, because they’re always hovering in the background. The FVA BW study “Walderholung mit und ohne Bike II” shows that the “two-meter rule” is the best-known rule among cyclists — and the data also links rule awareness to reported disturbance/conflict experiences.

Plain language: if you keep framing an activity as borderline criminal, you don’t get peace — you get camps.

And the science? It dismantles the lazy, blanket scare narrative.

If you take conservation seriously, you have to be precise. Research doesn’t say “nothing matters.” It says: impacts depend heavily on context — usage hotspots, trail layout, moisture, gradient, braking zones, seasonal quiet periods, sensitive habitats, and above all: competent management.

A recent review on ecological effects of (e-)mountain biking discusses short-term impacts but also makes clear how difficult blanket long-term claims are, because ecosystems are complex and influencing factors vary widely.

The same applies to wildlife disturbance: effects near routes are real — but the key levers are often distance, frequency, timing (e.g., breeding/raising periods), and zoning, not moral panic directed at a single user group.

So if you genuinely want to protect nature, you build rules that work — not rules that simply ban.

The irony: ForstBW already knows the solution — but the system stays half-baked.

ForstBW publicly states what practice demands: attractive, controlled trails that steer use and balance the needs of all forest visitors with nature protection, hunting, and forestry interests.

At the same time, a state parliament document confirms that the underlying operational instruction exists internally and is not publicly accessible; only a summary is available.

That’s where I get blunt:
If you’re a state that effectively pushes an entire sport into “exceptions,” then you owe maximum transparency, maximum clarity, and a statewide concept — not internal documents and scattered pilot patches.

My demand: A real shared-trail system — statewide, connected, understandable.

Baden-Württemberg must stop treating this like an “order enforcement” issue. If you label everything “illegal” before offering a functioning network, you don’t get compliance — you get people riding anyway, just without guidance. There will always be a few who ignore boundaries — which is exactly why you need a system that brings the majority along.

I want a Baden-Württemberg where a beginner doesn’t need a law degree to understand how to behave in the forest. I want a network that creates connections instead of dead ends: natural trails that are allowed to exist, clearly marked sensitive zones, seasonal rules, real etiquette standards — and yes, shared trails as the norm, not a special permit.

And to BUND: if you truly want conservation, don’t fight for a climate where mountain bikers only show up as a “disturbance.” Fight for conditions that improve behavior, spread knowledge, and concentrate use intelligently. Your own paper contains the starting point — but Baden-Württemberg needs it turned into a political wake-up slap: system instead of symbolism.

If the state keeps failing, it will get exactly what it claims to prevent: uncontrolled use, distrust, and a permanent conflict culture. And that won’t be a “mountain bike problem.” It’ll be a management problem.