"Forest owners want money for biking" headlined Blick in March. The association WaldSchweiz hit a nerve with its paper. Making landscape available in exchange for money is something that moves many people. The media response is correspondingly great.

For those addressed, the mountain bikers, it is about more than feelings. Especially those who are committed to access to single trails - to mountain bike infrastructure - had to ask themselves: Do we have to buy the space in the forest now? How expensive will that be? Or is money even the solution in tricky negotiations?"

Two months after the announcement by WaldSchweiz, Swiss Cycling has put its position on paper. The demand for money is mentioned only once in the last few lines, and only indirectly. This is probably so as not to place it at the center of the discussion. Nevertheless, every sentence of Swiss Cycling's argumentation reads like a reply to the Swiss Forests position paper.

First legally, then ecologically and finally socially, the authors develop the position that although mountain biking is hugely popular, it is still just one activity among many in the forest. The impact of mountain biking should be set in relation to that of other forest uses; from walking dogs and jogging to hunting and forestry.

Against the scapegoat role of mountain bikers

In fact, quite a few people seem to take away from the discussion about mountain biking that it is the only or at least by far the greatest burden on Swiss forests. "It is not right to blame a single user group for alleged damage to the forest - especially as there is no scientific evidence that the effects of mountain biking differ significantly from those of hiking, horse riding and other recreational activities in the forest," Swiss Cycling defends itself.

The association points out that the greatest burden on the forest is a newly created path or a trail built especially for mountain bikers. Their effect on the ecosystem is much greater than when mountain bikers join walkers, dogs and joggers as users on existing paths. Not to mention the mushroom pickers, scouts, orienteers, hunters and forest managers who don't stay on the trails.

In one of the last paragraphs, the forest owners' demand for money does come up: "We are not fundamentally opposed to compensation," it says. It would then have to be clarified which infrastructure would be compensated and whether this would be used by mountain bikers alone.

Swiss Forests and Swiss Cycling have thus now staked out their positions on paper. For concrete projects, however, the local stakeholders need to come to an agreement. The two associations are also aware of this. As a rule, they do not sit at the negotiating table.