Published by the Radical Life Studios / MTB Report
Some sentences land like a match in dry leaves. One of them appears in a press release from the Stuttgart district/regional branch of BUND dated October 8, 2020 — written after an on-site visit to a forest area near “Sieben Linden” in Stuttgart-Uhlbach. The tone is unambiguous: the “mountain bike problem” in the woods is said to be “exploding,” prohibition signs are allegedly ignored, and the damage is framed as substantial.
Then comes a small but rhetorically powerful turn: alongside nature arguments, a safety image is introduced — conflicts with walkers and hikers, “including many families with children.”
That line is a strong entry point for the March report, because it closes the loop: this conflict isn’t new, it isn’t “a recent outbreak,” and it has long been told in a familiar pattern — conservation, safety, morality. High emotion, low context.
The conflict is older than Covid — Covid only made it more visible
Anyone telling 2020 as a “starting point” is only telling the second half of the story. In Baden-Württemberg, mountain biking in the forest has been shaped for years by a legal framework that structurally charges the issue: cycling in forests is generally possible, but not permitted on paths under two meters wide, while exceptions can be authorized by the responsible forestry authority.
This matters because it explains the mechanism: a sport that naturally thrives on narrow, nature-close lines runs into an everyday reality that says “exactly not there.” Friction becomes inevitable. The dispute is therefore not only about “behavior,” but about supply, steering, and political reality.
Covid did not invent that friction — it intensified it. FVA analyses and related evaluations show that forest visits increased markedly during the pandemic period (one survey describes an increase from an average of 2.7 to 4.2 visits per week).
That means more people in the woods, more encounters, more potential for irritation — but also a greater social significance of the forest as a space for recovery and mental health.
Why “families with children” is a problem inside an environmental narrative
The “families” line is not problematic because safety doesn’t matter. It’s problematic because it shifts the debate: from “What is happening to nature?” to “Who threatens whom?” And once that happens, nuance dies quickly — the discussion turns moral, binary, and emotionally expensive to contradict.
If an environmental organization uses safety as an argument, the fair expectation is: provide context. How often? What kinds of incidents? What data? In the BUND statement, there are no figures — it remains a sharpened claim inside a press-communication format.
A sober counter-look helps: in the FVA study “Walderholung mit und ohne Bike II,” 89.4% of respondents said they did not feel disturbed by other visitor groups on the day surveyed; 7% reported feeling disturbed.
That is not an all-clear. But it is a corrective to the “explosion” framing. Conflicts exist — yet across the broader picture they are often less dramatic than headlines suggest.
Wildlife and birds: disturbance is real — but the enemy image is too simple
BUND also argues in 2020 with wildlife disturbance, especially during breeding periods. That is not automatically absurd. Recreation can influence animal behavior — depending on location, distance, intensity, and sensitive times.
The key point is: wildlife responds to humans, not to “mountain bikers as a species.” Anyone trying to protect seriously must be precise: Where are sensitive areas? When are critical periods? What steering measures, what distances, what rules — and what kind of legitimate offers make those rules workable in practice?
If that precision is missing, the conversation slides into a reflex: bans, removal, pressure. That can look “quiet” short-term, but long-term it often produces defiance, displacement, and new conflicts — exactly what everyone claims to want to avoid.
The “scientifically proven” moment — and why it often doesn’t lead to solutions
A classic move in German land-use disputes is the sentence: “This is scientifically proven.” It may be true — and still function as a debate stopper when used without transparent reasoning. The BUND statement is assertive (soil compaction, vegetation damage, disturbance), but in its press format it does not provide a traceable chain of measurements, methods, and trade-offs.
That’s unfortunate, because research on trail impacts is valuable precisely because it is rarely simplistic: effects depend heavily on conditions — moisture, soil type, gradient, line design, drainage, intensity. If you want to translate that into practical consequences, you end up with management: protect sensitive sections, build good alignments, bundle use, communicate rules clearly — not with a narrative that marks one group as the root of all harm.
Leinfelden-Echterdingen: an official building block — but (still) not a coherent system
Leinfelden-Echterdingen is a useful example because it shows how multi-layered “legalization” can be in practice. The city reports that after an intensive planning phase two routes were built, and that the local MTB community created the trails largely by hand across autumn/winter 2024/2025. At the same time, the city explicitly notes that together with forestry authorities they implemented removal measures on previously unapproved routes.
Analytically, this is neither “good” nor “bad.” It points to a typical German tension: an official offer emerges — and in parallel, established lines disappear elsewhere. Whether this is perceived as a net conservation gain depends on whether it actually results in a functional, attractive system that measurably bundles use.
That is exactly where the earlier public demand in the region matters: already in 2020, it was argued publicly that a multi-kilometer trail network would be necessary, because “the same few hundred meters” do not reflect real demand — and because a real network could reduce pressure on unapproved lines.
If the end result is not a connected system but rather a small, controllable segment plus removal elsewhere, the underlying tension often remains — only relabeled.
This fits with reports over the years showing how contested such plans are and how long procedures can take. Even where officials emphasize minimal use of heavy machinery, that mainly underlines one thing: implementation is complex, interventions must be justified, and acceptance hinges on details.
- MTB-Report — March 2026
- MTB Report — February 2026 — The MTB Market Has Grown Up
- MTB Report 🇬🇧 – January 2026
- MTB-Report 🇬🇧 – December 2025 – Stone King Rally – The Last True Adventure Between the Alps and the Sea
- MTB REPORT 🇬🇧 – November 2025
- MTB Report 🇬🇧 – October 2025 | Reset. Rebuild. Ride.
- MTB Report 🇬🇧: Rotwild R.EX Ultra, Santa Cruz Vala AL, Avinox,YT Industries, Trade show trends
- MTB Report 🇬🇧: The Battle for the Ultimate Hammerbike 2026 – Which MTB Brands Are Pushing the Limits?
No responses yet