Committee hears split testimony on e‑bike definitions and trail access in SB 387

Senators heard extensive testimony on Senate Bill 387, which would adopt the federal three‑class system for electrically assisted bicycles (e‑bikes) and add a statutory definition of “electrically assisted bicycle.” Sponsor Senator Greg Hertz argued the change would provide consistency with federal guidance and other states and give land managers and consumers clearer rules about where e‑bikes may be used.

Proponents — including representatives of Bike Walk Montana and retailers — said the bill uses familiar, national definitions and would help consumers and land managers by standardizing classes: class 1 (pedal‑assist up to 20 mph), class 2 (throttle or pedal‑assist up to 20 mph), and class 3 (pedal‑assist up to 28 mph). Mike Talia of Bike Walk Montana urged the committee to adopt a definition so land managers can “be consistent with what’s going on across the country.” Supporters also noted e‑bikes increase accessibility for older users and people with physical limitations.

Opponents — including Wild Montana, Montana Wildlife Federation, Prickly Pear Land Trust, Flathead Land Trust and private industry landowners — asked the committee to separate the statutory definitions of traditional human‑powered bicycles and e‑bikes rather than folding e‑bikes into the bicycle definition. Wild Montana attorney Noah Marion said the draft is “illogical and confusing” because it simultaneously defines an e‑bike as a motorized device and also expands the definition of “bicycle” to include electrically assisted bicycles, which opponents said would undermine longstanding federal and local trail management rules that treat motorized uses differently.

Private landowners and large private forest managers said the bill, as drafted, limits their ability to restrict motorized devices on private forests and could create enforcement problems where ownership boundaries intermix. Jason Callahan of Green Diamond Resource Company and Jim Watson (Flathead) said their trail agreements depend on federal grant terms and private easements that prohibit motorized use; they urged that e‑bike classes be defined in statute but kept separate from the bicycle definition so local land managers, easement holders and federal fund recipients can continue site‑specific rules.

Wildlife and land‑trust witnesses raised safety and wildlife concerns for backcountry use and for user conflicts on mixed‑use trails. Montana Wildlife Federation cautioned that faster e‑bikes increase encounters with hunters, horses and remote users, and urged local decision‑making rather than a single statewide reclassification.

Committee discussion focused on drafting options and enforcement. Senator Hertz said the bill does not strip local control — private landowners and agencies could continue to restrict e‑bikes — and argued the change was mainly to provide a uniform statutory tool. Several senators asked whether the committee could adopt the three‑class text while keeping the bicycle definition limited to human‑powered bikes; sponsors and proponents said that drafting could be done but asked for direction from the committee and suggested work with legislative services.

No formal committee vote was recorded in the hearing. Witnesses from MDT, Fish, Wildlife & Parks and trail advocates offered to work with sponsors and opponents on redrafting options that better separate the terms or clarify enforcement and local control.

Ending note: SB 387’s core tension is statutory classification versus management discretion — sponsors sought statewide clarity through federal alignment while land managers and conservation groups asked for clearer separations so e‑bikes are not automatically treated like human‑powered bicycles wherever those are permitted.