Found this blog: Going Long | Ryan's Cycling Blog
Loved this piece:
From a litigation standpoint, however, some knuckle-headed hikers adhere so completely to hiker-biker-horse-circle-of-life-on-the-trail signs that I could scream. The sign gives a stubborn hiker license to plod along in front of a biker at a walking pace instead of taking a quick step off the trail to let the biker pass. The vast majority of hikers travel sensibly, but a few follow the sign like a religion. I say, get rid of the signs and replace it with a disclaimer that says: “If you get hurt while acting like an a$$hole, it’s on you!”
Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun
Hi, Empty Beer — First, thanks for posting this article. This kind of material is valuable and could end up in our eventual comments to the Forest Service (or yours if you are inclined to submit one!)
Originally Posted by Empty_Beer
The 1988 closure order was the kind of thing that's usually issued when a campground facility is out of order or a wasp's nest makes it hazardous to use it. It is not meant for wholesale long-term policy decisions. No public notice or comment accompanied its issuance and, if I recall correctly, it was supposed to revisited every 90 days, but it hasn't been revisited since 1988. This is why the Forest Service has to undertake this rulemaking process now, which will include the notice and comment opportunity it did not offer before. It agrees that the closure order is defective.
Originally Posted by zorg
Really.... Not a anti biker, in fact far from it .. sharing ? you can ride the road every day and ask that question.....it will not happen EVER but I deal with it.
I enjoy hiking without my bike and most of the PCT trail I would be pushing my bike anyway. I will fight for better battles and leave the PCT alone. So many people have fought very hard for that route and I am OK with that.
Monterey Bay Cycling
That's fine, Richard. Let a hundred flowers bloom, as the saying goes. Not every mountain biker will support this effort, and not every PCT through-hiker will oppose it.
One thought occurred to me, however. I can't remember when the PCT came into being, but I know it was by 1981, because I backpacked 125 miles of it in Oregon that year. The closure order came into being in 1988. I haven't heard of any complaints from the time that bicycles were allowed on the trail, which must have been the case for a decade or longer.
The bigger issue is the maintenance and upkeep of the trail, especially in remote areas. I come across sections that do not have any use at all and are being lost. Who will do the upkeep? Cyclists.
Fill the void, what section(s) are those? All information is useful for when the time comes to present an argument to the government.
Diesel~ (previous page) mentioned that PCT section O in California is disappearing for lack of use. That's in and/or near Shasta County. Is that the same area you're mentioning?
I noticed that the Pacific Crest Trail Association's official stance is very anti-MTB. They claim that bikes are more damaging to trails than horses and talk about the damage done by illegal bike use. I checked their website recently and was unable to find the article. Unfortunately, the official nature of their organization gives some credibility to their claims.
We've created a Facebook page for this effort. I invite everyone to "like" it.
Currently we have six mtbr.com pages going, and we'll continue to post information on them. The Facebook page, however, will make it possible to post information in one place that people will receive quickly.
Here's the link: https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct
Is the cover picture on the facebook page, a rider on the PCT, politically, that may be unwise? IMO
No, not the PCT. I think it's the fabled 401 trail near Crested Butte, Colo. But others have pointed this out too. Originally I thought about it and decided it wasn't worth worrying about—it's just a cyclist on a trail. But I wonder if I should change it to include a caption. FB doesn't allow a caption AFAIK, but I could edit the photo with a program like Microsoft Paint (yes, I know it's primitive, but it works) to point that out. Any suggestions welcome.
I grabbed shot from FB page, but it's probably not the original resolution that you submitted.
If you want to send it to me in higher res, I can add the caption of your choice.
99% of "earth" damage was committed by those who built the trail. After that, it's pretty much negligible in terms of further impacts
Originally Posted by bpressnall
I can do it also. I'll attend to it. I appreciate your showing it as an example.
Originally Posted by mbmattcor
Done, thanks, using your image. It's not great, but it'll do for now. I have discovered that every single photo editing program I have (all rather basic except for Microsoft Picture Manager) either won't allow me to add text in white (I can only do it in black) or won't allow me to add text at all! Ridiculous. Were it otherwise, I have a ton of photos from my own mountain biking in Colorado that I could use. But again, I think this will do for now.
Great Statement Those who Built the Trail. Not worth the fight for us Mtn bikers to ride the PCT..
Originally Posted by Empty_Beer
The PCT Association for the most part has always been anti-bikes...anti a lot of things but this trail is one of the best hiking trails in the country for that reason.
Originally Posted by Jfloren
Well, so far the reaction from members on the PCT-L is less than enthusiastic!
The level of hysteria is pretty funny. It ranges from bikers tear the trail, mow us down, assault your mom (okay I made that one up) to "I own a road bike, so why should they be on trails?".
This is going to be quite interesting.
Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun
Hmmmm...perhaps the point is, rather, one of the best trails thus far reserved for hikers.
Originally Posted by Sworksrider
Some interesting tid-bits on the origin of the PCT and the original plan...
President Lyndon Johnson's original quote from a speech in 1965, that ultimately gave "birth" to the PCT, as part of the National Trails System Act of 1968:
"TRAILS: The forgotten outdoorsmen of today are those who like to walk, hike, ride horseback or bicycle. For them we must have trails as well as highways. Nor should motor vehicles be permitted to tyrannize the more leisurely human traffic.
Old and young alike can participate. Our doctors recommend and encourage such activity for fitness and fun.
I am requesting, therefore, that the Secretary of the Interior work with his colleagues in the federal government and with state and local leaders and recommend to me a cooperative program to encourage a national system of trails, building up the more than hundred thousand miles of trails in our National Forests and Parks.
As with so much of our quest for beauty and quality, each community has opportunities for action. We can and should have an abundance of trails for walking, cycling and horseback riding, in and close to our cities. In the back country we need to copy the great Appalachian Trail in all parts of America, and to make full use of rights of way and other public paths." -LBJ - 2/8/1965
The original PCT plan: Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail - Comprehensive Plan
While mt. biking as we know it didn't exist when all this work was being done, I have to believe the overall vision of the PCT (and President LBJ) supports enjoying the trail on a human powered bicycle.
Overview: "-Provides for a diversity of appropriate outdoor recreation opportunities limited principally by the carrying capacity of the area and the Congressional restriction on motorized use. - 5/16/80"
-- "diversity"... not "limited". And "motorized"... not "mechanized".
Page 2:"Each National Scenic Trail should stand out, in its own right, as a recreation resource of superlative quality and physical challenge."
Page 2: "The Pacific Crest Trail traditionally has served horseback and foot traveler. This use pattern, accepted by most visitors to the trail, should be continued."
-- this was 1982. Many, many visitors to the trail today do not accept these as the only 2 means of recreation, fitness and fun.
Page 3: "The routes of national scenic trails should be so located as to provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass."
-- "maximum"... not "limited"
Page 12 (regarding Management of the trail, circa late '70's-early '80's): "Complaints were received from users regarding conflicts between equestrian and foot traffic."
-- before hikers had mountain bikers to whine about, they whined about equestrians
Page 18 (regarding the more remote/primitive portions of the PCT): "The user will enjoy maximum opportunity for solitude and testing of outdoor skills. Feelings of regulation will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Feelings of physical achievement will be an important part of the experience offered."
-- sounds like an ideal bike ride to me!
YES... Great Point
Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike
We as Mtn Bikers need to work on other solutions then try to battle the PCT and its politics. The population growth and overcrowding has caused many conflicts on the trails,roads, etc. with no answers.
We could try to build and maintain trails in heavy hiking areas that are BIKE only trails. Sounds impossible but with some time and great community support it can be done. There is a perfect example of a great trail locally in a County Park that is dedicated to MTN Bikes Only..
Hopefully the outcome in the end will be left to the individual land mangers which are many to decide if sections should be opened up or not. I do not think the PCTA has any authority what so ever to decide if the trail is closed or opened to bikes, although there opinion may weigh heavily with the feds.
Of course Wilderness areas will be off limit, but there are many sections of trail that just opening short section to bike use opens up amazing links for larger rides (These happen to be the most poached sections because of this).
Saying that the trail was not built to sustain bike traffic is ridiculous, if it was built to sustain horse traffic it fine for bikes. A buddy of mine who builds lots of trails was explaining how much longer it takes to build trails to support horse traffic, not only the trail bed, but clearing a large swath both horizontally & vertically allow a horse with panniers to pass.
Getting bikers involvement with the trail will only improve the trail as MUCH more maintenance will occur on sections being overgrown and with tree removal. Not to mention the monetary effect of people joining the PCTA.
Some how 1000 of miles of trails are shared between Hikers / Horses / Bikers, for the most part without indecent, and guess what the trails seem to hold up ok.
Ideally some sections will open up. Possibly with an odd/even day thing, or something seasonal, like Sept 1st till the first snowfall when the though hikers are done.
There's one example of a 1/4 miles section of PCT blocks the connection of 100's of miles of trails, do we really need to create another parallel trial in the forest, just because this 1/4 mile section that runs next to a major freeway cannot be shared? pretty unbelievable.
You are simply wrong and calling me silly names does not prove your argument. I will stand by my statement as a citizen who has been involved intimately with this issue in this state for longer than many on this board have been alive.
Originally Posted by hurtssogood
Trail access and logging are separate issues entirely. I have had 50 yo legacy trails that had mega hours of volunteer work destroyed by USFS allowing the logging activities you show there. Hey it sucks, but logging is a necessary and essential activity for the forest as important as any other for economic survival in the areas we like to ride. Until you stop living or using anything made of wood, your argument against has little validity. As it will be done here or in other areas any way you look at it.
Originally Posted by Diesel~
I will take the pro resource extraction conservative and argue the USFS logging policy any day over a "lock it all up and patrol it " Liberal Democrat any day of the week.
I see that the thread is moving away a bit from the narrower question of comments about the PCT (and what we all can do to facilitate gaining access to it when the public comment process starts), and toward a general debate about people's stubborn views on the left and the right, broadly speaking.
I'd like to say, to reassure any skeptic who thinks we're in for a big surprise when we find out how stubborn and unyielding our opponents are, that we know what we are doing. We have, collectively, many years of mountain bike access advocacy experience. We are aware that people and groups often do filter this issue through ideological lenses that inform their views on a wide range of issues.
So there's a kernel of truth to the stereotypes about people and groups who are firmly embedded with the "left" or the "right," to oversimplify, and who approach this narrow issue of increased mountain bike access to trails from that perspective. There are people who sincerely feel the U.S. is far too restrained in extracting its resources—they would prefer we be more like Australia or Canada—and support increased mtb access because they wish to bring us into their fold or use us to disadvantage their conservation-minded opponents. And there are other people for whom any mode of transport in the wild, even the most environmentally benign human-powered travel, that wasn't available to John Muir is sinful, and who adhere to their purist vision with a kind of religiosity that mirrors the intensity of religious fundamentalism in the Bible Belt. Or, on a more practical level, there are hikers and equestrians who are selfish and who believe the roadless public lands belong only to them; and there are commercial dude ranch interests who want to keep bicycles off trails so they can continue to sell as many luxury packstock and horse "expeditions" as possible, without complaints from nervous clients about bicycles.
Our task, as we work to get the PCT made available to cyclists, is to worm our way through these ideological and financial-interest currents and try to get to the finish line with something to show for it. We welcome everyone's help, as I've said before.
Imtnbike, I think we met in my office a few weeks ago...
So hopefully this is an addition to the discussion rather than just prattling on, but most of what I hear about the Bikes on the PCT discussion from "the other side" has nothing to do with bikes on the PCT. There is concern that with the limited management tools in the public land manager's toolbox, opening the door to allow bikes on the PCT (or wilderness for that matter) could only be done by removing the door from it's hinges basically, removing the ability for land managers to make decisions regarding land management. I.E. once the horses head is in the barn, the whole horse is coming in.
I don't know to what extent this is the case, but addressing it up front might be helpful in mitigating these concerns, if they are real and are mitigate-able.