Good luck! I've been involved in land use issues in Eldorado Forest and throughout Northern and Central California for 35 years. It will never happen until the political winds in Sacramento shift dramatically. In other words you have to marginalize the liberal treehuggers who have been exploiting the sedentary suburban/urban voter bloc with feel good nonsense and playing on emotions. Same as they do with race and abortion. Cali is for the most part a lost cause in the land battles going on in the US. But I applaud the effort to get involved. Your eyes will be opened by the pettiness and outright ugliness you will observe.
BTW-Those comments the USFS/BLM will solicite are tossed in the trash. They do what they feel they can get away with and it is always against shared use.
Well aren't you full of sunshine and rainbows! So I guess we don't do anything but mope?.... or should we at least try to blow the political winds in another direction? Care to share specific examples of how you got your spirit this broken?
Czar-35 years of seeing the door shut by the same people and the year to year continuous effort to shut down non Wilderness areas for recreational uses by the same people with no intention of ever collaborating might have done it. I choose to do it through other means now. It is so much larger an issue than getting MTB's on PCT. But I encourage you to go through the process. You will see.
Originally Posted by Czar Chasm
Just a couple of links to add:
The actual order in .html format:
Six Rivers National Forest - Alerts & Notices
Ouch: "A violation of this prohibition is punishable by a fine of not more that $5,000.00 for an individual or $10,000 for an organization, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. "
The PCT-L doesn't seem to have heard about this reconsideration so far, but there are a few vigilantes openly posting about their malfeasance.
BTW, IMBA got almost 4x the contributions of PCTA last year. There is a chance to make this happen.
Biggest topic on the PCT-L this month is whether it's okay or not to burn TP... :)
Originally Posted by Fast Eddy
I agree with that. To get anything changed in the face of opposition is usually an uphill battle, and this one will be, but I think we have a decent chance.
Originally Posted by Fast Eddy
So what went down in 1988 that resulted in the "Order" to ban bicycles on the PCT? Was there any sort of public comment, hearing, etc., or did some people freak out about these new things called "mountain bikes" and quickly write up the "Order" without due process?
Based on this article I found from '88, it seems like recreation via bicycle fits in with their vision of the future... especially since their children's children are riding mountain bikes now :D
I'll write letters when the time comes, but I'm pretty much sure there is no way it will open up, just reading some of the PCT forum posts and the amount of vitrol spewed out towards cyclists, the HOHAs I'm sure will shut this down pretty quickly.
You do find a post with a bit of fresh air occasionally, but it's rare... see example below I pulled from the forum:
I've read with interest the various suggestions that we crack down on
the PCT with 1) more federal money and government agents patrolling the
trail or 2) private, armed, bounty hunters gunning for mountain biker
scalps and reward money or 3) cameras cameras cameras. None of those
ideas is going to happen,
none would work...and nor should they because they would be an
indication of a society (and the PCT along with it) moving in precisely
the wrong direction. We seem to be overlooking a fourth option, and
this one would actually bring additional resources to the trail (rather than
drain them) and potentially
solve once and for all the problem of irresponsible, illegal bicycle
use of the PCT. Wait for it...here it comes...pure heresy: share the
To rebut Edward Anderson's initial assertion, NO, we do NOT all agree that bikes are a
serious safety hazard and that they cause more erosion than other uses.
That's because some of us live in a world where - by some
special magic - we successfully and peacefully share many hundreds of
of public trails with our fellow outdoor enthusiasts who choose to
enjoy the backcountry by bicycle. And, stranger still, we see many
hundreds of miles of trail that appear to be sustainable, ecologically
sound and perfectly manageable despite heavy bicycle use.
How have we
achieved the impossible? The answer has many elements, but every one of
them sounds more attractive to me than 1) massing federal agents at
trailheads, 2) paying private wackos (oh yes, they will be wackos) to
chase down bicyclists, 3) wiring the trail to a high-tech video surveillance system and, all the while,
continuing to spread fear and division in the trails and conservation
community. Instead, good trail design and maintenance (made easier by
the involvement of cyclists) and ongoing education and socialization of
all trail users (made easier by
the involvement of cyclists) seems to work rather well. In fact, those
the same tools we've always used successfully to reign in and reduce
the numbers of
uneducated and irresponsible hikers and equestrians that have created
management challenges since the beginning of time. It hasn't been easy, but it beats the pants off of every "us vs. them" suggestion that I've seen.
environmental impacts are always legitimate concerns when it comes to
trail management, and since it's clear enough from many of the posts
here that exclusion, division and vitriol aren't working so well, how
about focusing on the tools and techniques that are actually effective
at creating positive outcomes? Let's
finally take those safety and impact issues seriously and work -
together - towards a better future for the community and for the PCT. Or maybe we can pass the collection plate and buy some military drones equipped with powerful anti-cyclist lasers!
I anticipate that the only replies I'll see to this post are from
people who are completely convinced that there isn't one inch of the
2,650 mile PCT that could possibly be shared with bicycles. But for
those readers on the list who know, believe or even just hope that working with
bicyclists could be productive - just as it has been elsewhere - I hope you'll chime in with whatever constructive thoughts or concerns you may have.
[pct-l] Bikes on PCT- alternative enforcement idea
I agree with everything you stated in this post. But you are missing one important thing.
The Liberal Democrats who have dominated Cali politics and all of the government beaurocracy have taken over the day to day mgmt of the USFS and BLM. To such an extent that the only remedy for change is supporting fiscal and public policy conservatives.
In my 35 years I have never seen a conservative candidate (Republican mostly) flat out dismiss our and other recreationists concerns. If they do not endorse our concerns they at least get out of the way.
In every case I have observed Democrats and Liberal Independants always side with radical enviro interests who's objective is lock out any recreation that does not meet their definition of acceptable use. There is NO give and take on this. If they get a judges ruling to use current law or precedence they will sue using ridiculous ESA claims to shut it down.
Many MTBers I have met self identify as a liberal tree hugger. If you really are concerned for your access to riding in the future, you seriously need to become educated on this as you are on the wrong side. :madman:
We need to tell the PCTA, the Sierra Club, et al that we will not stand for their HATE!. They need to show TOLERANCE to all groups no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation or wilderness travel preference.
We celebrate diversity in the city, why do they refuse to celebrate diversity on the trail? Their bigoted hate will not stand.
That said, OMG(!) if the PCT opened to bikes that would be epic!
My guess is that calling many cyclists uneducated and on the wrong side of politics may not bring them to your side. :)
Originally Posted by chasejj
That being said, I do agree with your overall premise that die hard liberals have taken over many governmental jobs in California and that's definitely working against our access.
Question 1: How are we going to get anywhere on this, unless people stop poaching the trail?
We need to police ourselves here. Friends don't let friends poach.
Also, if you are on a legal single track and you see a hiker or horse, get off...let 'em pass and say "hello"
Historically, a few bad bike interactions with hikers and horses have got back to legislators and land managers and then that's how this all ends (again)
I'm trying not to be a hypocrite here, but I do admit strava makes me do dumb things. There is bigger goal/future to think about here, then a KOM.
Originally Posted by mbmattcor
in Downieville recently a group of us decided to not poach the PCT on our way to a trail - it was Saturday and busy with hikers so we thought we'd be considerate and climb a stupid fireroad.
Every single damn hiker we ran into openly accused us of poaching the PCT to get to where we were going.
Also, I have the mindset that actively using any public trail system in a responsible and considerate fashion is fine and dandy....it goes towards opening doors and proves that true multi-use can coexist.
it's working in my neck of the woods (State Parks)
* be warned, tix can be hefty....so do at yor own risk ;)
Next time you should reply: well, I did not, but since every single hiker accuses of riding the PCT, next time, I'll make sure to ride it.
Originally Posted by CHUM
At any rate, believing that respecting the inane rules and hoping that it will get us access is misguided. That's what the antis want us to do so they can say that everything is fine and therefore no change is needed. Riding noncompliantly actually helps our cause by forcing the issue.
You must be joking or not really care the trails your ride? Seriously, stop poaching trails? What planet do you live on my friend? It's only poaching if a ranger sees you, otherwise it's riding a trail.
Originally Posted by mbmattcor
You can do that and not ride the PCT or other 'closed' trails but that is your decision. Just like how some choose to drive the speed limit. It's their decision. And if I and or others want to ride trails such as the PCT, which I do, I will.
There is no advantage to not riding a trail that says it's not open to bikes except that you miss out on a great ride. Now that is your right to not ride a trail but don't force it on others...what's next, pulling over the guy in the car next to us for talking on the phone?
Getting trails to open up does not happen over night, next month or in one year. It takes years, and I for one will support all efforts 100% but no way will I wait for that to happen b/c if I did, I just might be too old to even ride my bike on that trail when it finally does open.
Why not use the tactic so many of those I scorn on a daily basis use. Occupy.
Organize and occupy the trail to make a point. Not really my style but it would actually force the issue if done correctly with proper media in attendance.
Do it a bunch of times and the lame authorities enforcing unreasonable trail cosures will look like fools. What are they gonna do arrest a bunch of bikers riding down a trail? Ooooooh what an outlaw!! Is that a reasonable use of taxpayer dollars? Don't they have pot dealers to bust or something? The optics are powerful to consider.
I guess the problem is the community as a whole is far to scattered. Unless you joined with other users also locked out.........
I have been fighting for trial access and the loss of trails for years.. locally the BLM and FORA. But I have to disagree on allowing bikes on the PCT
This trail is already getting over crowded and many sections have quotas on them for a good reason.
We have plenty of trails in the country to ride and many other ones to fight for. Leave this one alone... grab a backpack and enjoy what John Muir and many others fought very hard for.
Hike the PCT slowly and peacefully and you might re-think your stand on allowing bikes on the PCT.
Pack it in Pack it out ...yes your TP
If the trail were opened, then it would then be maintained. Ironically, the current user group(s) are those who say they care, are adament against bikers, are the first to walk around the fallen tree and establish a re-route. Generally speaking the mountain biking community are trail stewards and care about the trails, the land/envioronment and stewardship.
Same argument all the anti bikers use all the time: you got plenty of trails to ride, so leave the PCT/Wilderness/"whatever trail they want to excludes us from" alone. Stats just don't support this. Cyclists have access to maybe 20%-30% of the trails that hikers do. And the PCT has used the best route in many spots. Do you know that the PCTA would not even let a new multi use trail cross the PCT? That's right! How amazing is that? When we have exclusive access to 2600 mile of bike only trail, then maybe we can consider leaving the PCT alone, but until then we should argue for sharing.
Originally Posted by Sworksrider
A good model on a small scale is the Tahoe Rim Trail. Sections of the trail are open to bikes, section of wilderness are not. This could be applied to the PCT. As for overcrowded areas that are not wilderness, keep thise closed as well. With that said, I-80 north has sections that will only see thru hikers, period. Such little use that the trail is being lost and not even close to maintained. These are areas that could be opened to riding. In the past the TRT had odd/even days, it could also be before July and after Labor Day.
There is always the misinformed or confrontational hiker where legal trails cross the PCT. It is about education and information. As for bikers, this is a situation where trail etiquette and education goes a long ways. I see this lacking as a rider to other riders. Since the PCT is generally a XC trail, one would think the majority of the cyclists would be a bit more on the up and up and stewards of the trail and the sport.
You, sir, are a moron. You are so wrong on so many levels here I don't know where to begin. This has nothing to do with what "side" anyone is on. Both sides are a bunch of ******bags, and neither is looking out for the best interests of the vast majority of Americans, on any issue. Do you think ANY of the people making decisions regarding the PCT have ever even been on the trail?
Originally Posted by chasejj
And FYI, being "liberal", in the sense of being an open minded, free thinking, generous person, does not equal Democrat. Just as being "conservative" should not equate to a Republican party that advocates people being allowed to do whatever the hell they want, so long as they don't have differing religious moral values.
Disclaimer #1 I work for a non-profit managing about 20K acres of land, and am our land manager
Disclaimer #2 I'm a little cranky from having just had to fix a bunch of atv damage on one of our non-motorized singletracks (motorized trail less than 100 yards away); went from tight to blown in 1 day. arrrgghhh!
IMO poach if you want, don't if you don't. But the whole "I'm poaching as a civil disobedient" thing... I wonder if that's what the dog walkers that bag their dog poo and don't pack it out leaving it for the 'trail janitor' (me), or the equestrian post-holing up a trail that is very clearly marked as no equestrians, or guy on the atv was doing when he blew up my nice new berms!!!
Edit: I know for a fact that there are atv'ers (and motos, but they at least keep the trails tight still) that at least discuss roosting up berms to keep trails from becoming proprietary to mountain bikers on the trail network east of Truckee. That is not really poaching because they are all user-created though.
But the PCT is over 2,600 miles long. Most of the high-pressure sections you mention are in Wilderness or national parks and would not be considered for bike access anyhow.
Originally Posted by Sworksrider
Those who believe that "liberal tree huggers" or enviro-wackos are the enemy and cause of the restricted access problem -- just because some of them are hostile and the hostile ones sometimes have a lot of power and influence -- are really showing small-minded thinking. It is the same kind of shallow reasoning and convenient use of broad-brush labels that leads some misguided hikers to think that mountain bikers are dangerous, trail-destroying maniacs.
If only it were so simple. The traditional "conservative" view seems to be heavy on blanket (non-selective) extraction. There are many parts of the PCT in NorCal and Oregon where the clear cutting has left the trail corridor looking like a war zone. Compare that to the surgical removal of timber in the Sierra City area, which demonstrates that issues are rarely so black and white.
Originally Posted by chasejj
This is an important point that you and others are making. The area you are referring to is the notorious "Section O", in the PCT guidebook. It is overgrown and dying from lack of use and maintenance, and there are many places where additional trail use and the increased pool of volunteers that come along with it would be hugely beneficial.
Originally Posted by fill the void
It is the blanket closure that needs to be lifted, and it does not mean that every foot of the trail would be open to bikes.
Long live the PCT!