Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 227
  1. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    41
    emails and survey sent

  2. #152
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Sorry for all the words....but this is pretty BIG. A lot of official statements about the positives of Mountain Bikers on FS trails...specifically a National Scenic Trail...

    That and the HUGE statement that Mountain bikes are considered a "semi-primitive" mode of travel. Many of these statements directly contradict what the anti-sharing people claim...and debunks many of their arguments to keep us off trails.

    From the Sharing the PCT Facebook page: (edited to remove some content...very long )

    Forest Service made a major announcement in favor of mountain biking on National Scenic Trails. The PCT is one National Scenic Trail; the Continental Divide Trail (CDNST) is another.

    The Forest Service in Colorado has reversed course about mountain biking on a 31-mile planned CDNST reroute and will allow bicycles.

    They recognize that the CDNST's primary use is for hiking and horseback riding, and yet mountain biking should be allowed where it will not interfere with those primary uses. The documents conclude that in low-visitation areas no meaningful interference is likely and multiuse is beneficial.
    __________________________________________________ ________
    The full text of the documents below:
    Decision:
    http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558...T3_1424409.pdf

    Environmental Assessment:
    http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558...T3_1424408.pdf
    __________________________________________________ ________

    Some tasty nuggets from the decision (again from the Sharing the PCT FB page):
    [header: Biking [Is] Not Substantial Interference with Nature and Purposes of the Act]

    We believe the selection of Alternative 5 [allowing bicycling, horse use, and hiking on the proposed 31 miles of new CDNST trail to be constructed] meets the most objectives of both the CDNST and the CT [Colorado Trail] as detailed in our analysis below.

    We have thoroughly analyzed the laws, regulations and policy in order to determine that including mountain bikes on this segment is not a substantial interference with the nature and purposes of the Act. [“The Act” means the Trails System Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq.]

    Our review of law, policy and direction together with the considerations specific to this segment indicates that bikes are an appropriate use of the CDNST. . . . [U]se of bikes on this segment does not cause a substantial interference with nature and purposes of The Act.

    We believe “Maximum outdoor recreation potential for conservation and enjoyment . . .” (16 U.S.C. 1242) is best met through the inclusion of bikes in these multiple-use management areas on both the GMUG [Gunnison] and RNF [Rio Grande] [national forests].

    Bikes are considered a semi-primitive non-motorized use.


    After reviewing the effects analysis presented in the EA, we have found no substantial interference from the inclusion of bikes with the nature and purposes of The Act.

    Our decision to include bikes on this segment supports multiple-use, non-motorized family recreation in a wide variety of unpopulated ecosystems consistent with the goals of the CT [Colorado Trail]. Selection of a hiker/horse only alternative would have undermined the duality of the non-motorized trail.

    more:
    Volunteer base consistent with The Act (16 U.S.C. 1250) is primarily mountain biking clubs in this area. Due to limited agency funding and staffing, the GMUG [Gunnison] and RGNF [Rio Grande] [national forests] would rely heavily on these groups for the sustainable construction and long-term maintenance of this trail. CTF [Colorado Trail Foundation] would be the likely continue to be coordinator/agency partner for this segment of coincident CDNST/CT who would network with other non-motorized groups if bike use were included.

    Many hikers have expressed a desire for trail design that avoids pointless ups and downs, moderate grades, grade control (switchbacks), and proper drainage (all features similar to Trail Class 3 with the designed use of Hiker); these nearly identical design features would also be accomplished though our recommendation of Trail Class 2 or 3 with use designed for Bicycle which has the added capacity for volunteer construction and maintenance that is not likely to be generated by hiking groups alone in this remote area of Colorado.

    While we understand CDNST thru-hiker desires for exclusive use of the trail, exclusion of bikes (and for that matter horses), would not be an environmentally or fiscally responsible decision on our part. We believe that if we considered only hiker/horse use, the trail would never be fully constructed and maintenance would rarely occur because of the lack of established hiker or backcountry horseman volunteer groups...

    Local communities rely on tourism generated by opportunities on federal lands. Rural communities would experience the largest economic benefit from the inclusion of all three user groups who would spend money on gas, food, lodging, supplies and equipment.

    and yes...MORE:
    Commenters expressed concern that the use of bikes on this segment of trail would encourage illegal use of the CDNST in the La Garita Wilderness. This segment joins the existing non-motorized alignment before the wilderness boundary where this had not previously been an over-arching concern. This trail junction further serves as an entry/exit point back to the road system for bikers wishing to make a loop. While illegal use may occasionally occur in the wilderness, it is not anticipated to be more of a concern on the new alignment than on the existing route.

    Many segments of the CDNST in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico (where not in designated wilderness) include mountain bikes as a valid use.

    II. Forest Service replies to comments in the EA:

    Policy (FSM 2353.44b(9)) directs that generally the CDNST should be designed for either Trail Class 2 or Trail Class 3 with a designed use of Pack and Saddlestock. Both of these trail classes and associated design features are very similar for either hikers or mountain bikes . . . . Allowing horse uses which is also compatible with the Act increases the footprint of the trail beyond what is needed for either hikers or mountain bikers. Slope (grade) is not expected to be a factor in the design as it is estimated at less than 10% for the proposed alignment.

    EA has considered whether or not a substantial interference with the nature and purposes of the Act would occur with the inclusion of bikes. EA has considered best available science regarding social and resource impacts. None of the readily available science suggests a relationship to clothing of bikers affecting horses. We would assume that a biker’s physiological response on a horse would be similar to that of other animals which we have discussed under wildlife comments below.

    While designated wilderness areas do preclude recreational “mechanized transport,” many other trails are open to mountain bikes in the vicinity even though the opportunity for specifically non-motorized trails appears to be limited.

    [Comment: Bicyclists search for wilderness quality experiences, just like the hiker and equestrian. Bicycling is entirely consistent with the nature and purposes of the CDNST. Bicycling is common in Roadless Areas nationwide.] Reply: User is correct. . . . EA has considered whether or not a substantial interference with the nature and purposes of the Act would occur with the inclusion of bikes.

    We believe proper trail design will minimize conflict potential. Commenter’s signing suggestions are valid. We will work with our partners to determine what works best for this remote and likely little used site.

    [Comment: User conflict will occur, including displacement and disruption of the hiking and quieter trail experiences. The look and feel of mountain bike riding, the speeds, sports gear, relationship to a machine and other aspects of the sport are incompatible with the contemplative, slower paced trail uses envisioned for the trail.] Reply: The Act did not prohibit biking or motorized uses. The Act (16 U.S.C. 1242) describes that National Scenic Trails “will be extended trails 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.” The 1976 Study Report further describes the purposes of the CDNST: “The primary purpose of this trail is to provide a continuous, appealing trail route, designed for the hiker and horseman, but compatible with other land uses. . . . One of the primary purposes for establishing the CDNST would be to provide hiking and horseback access to those lands where man's impact on the environment has not been adverse to a substantial degree and where the environment remains relatively unaltered. Therefore, the protection of the land resource must remain a paramount consideration in establishing and managing the trail. There must be sufficient environmental controls to assure that the values for which the trail is established are not jeopardized. . . . The basic goal of the CDNST is to provide hikers and horseback riders an opportunity to experience the diverse country along the Continental Divide in a manner that will assure a high quality recreation experience while maintaining a constant respect for the natural environment.
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  3. #153
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,362
    ^ an excellent victory for IMBA and mountain biking on public, federally funded trails. I think the ruling is a hyperbole-killer... and shows that the USFS understands how the real world works

    IMBA's summary: Forest Service Issues Favorable Recommendation for Bike Access on Continental Divide Trail in Colorado

  4. #154
    Let's ride
    Reputation: rensho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    7,137
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post

    [Comment: User conflict will occur, including displacement and disruption of the hiking and quieter trail experiences. The look and feel of mountain bike riding, the speeds, sports gear, relationship to a machine and other aspects of the sport are incompatible with the contemplative, slower paced trail uses envisioned for the trail.] Reply: The Act did not prohibit biking or motorized uses. The Act (16 U.S.C. 1242) describes that National Scenic Trails “will be extended trails 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.” The 1976 Study Report further describes the purposes of the CDNST: “The primary purpose of this trail is to provide a continuous, appealing trail route, designed for the hiker and horseman, but compatible with other land uses. . . .
    Two points:

    1. My 2011 Husaberg is getting on in age and should now qualify as a semi primitive mode of transportation.
    2. If mtn bikes existed in 1976, they would have been included in that study report, no question.

    Hiking is a slow paced activity that affords a lot of contemplative time to wonder if one would be having much more fun if one were mountain biking.

  5. #155
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    It is so cool to hear this language. Yet it is not just that old assumptions have been challenged but the power of our numbers and the value of the trail work we do that puts us over the top. We cannot be ignored anymore, we are too valuable.

    This thinking is starting to become more prevalent.
    I don't rattle.

  6. #156
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    IMBA threw their hat in



    yay!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT-1006236_10201064379484531_459371008_n.jpg  

    Click Here for Forum Rules

  7. #157
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Quick update - IMBA expands on gaining access to appropriate sections on National Scenic Trails
    Long Live Long Rides! | International Mountain Bicycling Association


    LONG LIVE LONG RIDES!
    ...The Pacific Crest Trail currently offers no bicycle access. IMBA has already begun advocating for a change in this policy. Not for sections of the PCT that are protected as Wilderness, but in places where mountain biking would be compatible with other uses.

    The revamped “Long live long rides” campaign does not focus solely on National Scenic Trails. We are interested in developing possibilities for multi-hour and multi-day rides wherever we find them. North Dakota’s Maah Daah Hey trail (an IMBA Epic) is a good example of a multi-day ride....

    It was interesting to watch the reaction when a hiking group recently stated, “Some trails aren’t meant to be shared,” and launched an online petition claiming that mountain biking is not an appropriate activity for National Scenic Trails. They were reacting to an IMBA fundraising appeal that pointed to the work I’ve described above. Many of the resulting comments — perhaps even the majority of them — were supportive of increased access for mountain bikers, though plenty of people spoke up for the notion that mountain bikers should not be granted any new access.

    IMBA is committed to the idea that trails can be shared. Mountain bikers do not need access to every inch of every long-distance trail, but there are good opportunities to expand IMBA's shared-use agreements with land managers, and with other stakeholder groups. We are also eager to help, and have much to offer, with volunteer stewardship efforts on these trails. I am utterly convinced that trail experiences are enriched when a diversity of outdoor enthusiasts work together to enjoy and protect common resources....
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  8. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,326
    Too bad IMBA hasn't done much, if anything, for the bay area.

  9. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,687
    It's a great time of year to go see for yourself just how Perfect the PCT is for bikes
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  10. #160
    Let's ride
    Reputation: rensho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    7,137
    Quote Originally Posted by beaverbiker View Post
    Too bad IMBA hasn't done much, if anything, for the bay area.
    They've suckered a bunch of money from the BA!

  11. #161
    Let's ride
    Reputation: rensho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    7,137
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    It's a great time of year to go see for yourself just how Perfect the PCT is for bikes
    What sections would u suggest? PM?

  12. #162
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,858
    Well, they're a political organization like any other. They need wins, and those are nearly impossible in the BA with nutters like Connie, MVD and the rest of the Sierra Club ilk. So, they focus their efforts in other places where they can score some wins. Sucks for us, but I can't blame them completely.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  13. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,326
    Quote Originally Posted by rensho View Post
    They've suckered a bunch of money from the BA!
    Haha, oh yea I bet. People spent a lot of money on empty promises. Meanwhile, a lot of local diggers are out there building trail for free so that all mountain bikers can enjoy nature on the public lands.

    At least not everyone is a sucker...we had a local guy buy shovels and mcleods for the local trail builders as well as throwing some dirt himself. This guy was just a regular community member, father/husband, and local business owner that happened to enjoy the trails being built and felt like giving back. AWESOME!

    It'd be rad if bike shops had a tip jar by the cash register with all proceeds going towards tools for local trail builders instead of signing up for IMBA.

  14. #164
    I like mtn biking, too
    Reputation: shredchic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,025
    Yes, IMBA has neglected the BA, but I think that's starting to change now. Chapterhood for SVMTB (romp) as well as MBOSC means we have representation. At least, I am hopeful, but maybe that's because I don't have as long a history as some of you here.
    Half the planet is deep into bloody tribal mayhem. We’re just riding bikes (and drinking beer) here.
    ~Fairfaxian

  15. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Spindelatron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    910
    I'd like to think the IMBA helps to support advocacy when it is in its early stages, and then once organizations are well established and can fund themselves locally they can concentrate on other locations that need help nationally.

  16. #166
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Update from the Sharing the PCT FB page:

    We're way behind in updating our loyal audience, for which we apologize.

    The lack of a recent update prompted Maxwell Baker to ask yesterday if PCTRI is dead.

    Not at all. But we're at a stalemate.

    We had a meeting with the Forest Service on April 17 that was attended by top FS brass and IMBA's Tom Ward. We're still waiting for the formal response to that meeting, which will come in the form of a letter. But although obviously we haven't seen it, we understand that it's going to be another "no."

    So, as said, it's a stalemate. We have discredited the moral basis for the no-bikes closure order. We've raised serious questions about the legality of the closure. It appears to be no longer much respected among mountain bikers. But the FS shows no inclination to budge. PCTA remains hostile. We have no idea whether the FS will continue to enforce the closure order in non-Wilderness areas. Maybe it will, if only to prod a mountain biker to go to court and try to get the closure order overturned so that the FS can get this monkey off its back. There's no way to tell. (This comment, by the way, should not be construed as an invitation to ride the PCT against the FS's policy or as a statement that fighting a ticket in court would be likely to succeed. The courts are unpredictable and the consequences of a citation could be unpleasant, so don't chance it.)

    Stay tuned.
    What we plan to do is wait for the Forest Service's letter, give you a fuller update on what's been going on, and ask for your advice on what we should do next. This page now has about 1200 or 1300 followers. Your collective wisdom is greater than that of our group, by dint of sheer numbers. (That's why we have the jury system in the U.S.: 12 people chosen at random tend to make better decisions than a judge with 25 years' experience.)
    The above in Red is very true - all suggestions are appreciated, considered and discussed in the overall strategy.

    Bottom line is the PCT (sections) will be opened to Mountain Bikes....its inevitable IMO.

    What we are dealing with is the vestigial thrashings of a vocal minority acting as obstructionists...most hikers (outdoor lovers like ourselves) are happy to share trails in the back country. We all know once you get a few miles from the trailhead it's virtually abandoned...

    my .02
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  17. #167
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,058
    I have received an email recently, from this Pacific Trail alliance, outlining their plans for the next few years. They are very explicit and thorough in highlighting there disdain for cycling and love for slave animals. Does not look like they will cooperate at all. Bunch of HOHAs, smiling in a group picture.

  18. #168
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    I have received an email recently, from this Pacific Trail group, outlining their plans for the next few years. They are very explicit and thorough in highlighting there disdain for cycling and love for slave animals. Does not look like they will cooperate at all.
    Yup - I read their strategy as well. Lots of 'defend the trail' rhetoric. And you are right - ZERO cooperation....to the point of absolutely no willingness to discuss anything to do with bikes.

    But they do not make the rules or the laws....they are an Association. If the FS' ban is questionably legal, and there is virtually zero enforcement - is riding the PCT responsibly really "bad"?

    Now don't get me wrong - the USFS can still give you a ticket (misdemeanor I believe)....but it might not hold up in court (which coming from me is a totally uneducated from the gut guess)....

    There will be more traction on this issue fer sure....and I'll post updates as they come in.
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  19. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    151
    care to post this email axe?

  20. #170
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitewater View Post
    care to post this email axe?
    It was just a link to their "2014-2017 Strategic plan" with some drivel attached.

    You can guess what was my input for their plan.

    After months of hard work by the Pacific Crest Trail Association board, staff, volunteers, partners and you, we are proud to release our new Strategic Plan. Thank you for providing input during the development of this plan. We will use this document as a road map for the future of our work to protect, preserve and promote the Pacific Crest Trail while strengthening the PCTA to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

    The plan includes ambitious but doable objectives that will improve this recreation and wilderness conservation resource that we all know and love. It not only lays out what we hope to accomplish for the next several years, it provides clear methods for us to track and evaluate our progress.

    In addition to day-to-day trail maintenance, we will tackle big issues, such as bringing private parcels that the PCT crosses into public ownership. The ideal of protecting today’s trail experience for future generations of hikers and equestrians will guide all of our work.

    Through strong partnerships, honest relationships and integrity, we will ensure that the PCT is permanently protected, well maintained and effectively managed. And we will see that the PCTA is widely recognized as the trail’s champion and steward and that it has the resources to support this work.

    Now it’s up to us. All of us. Thank you for the important role you will play in implementing this strategy for protecting the trail.

    Sincerely,

    Barney Mann
    Board Chair

    Liz Bergeron
    Executive Director and CEO

  21. #171
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,858
    Liz is HOHA #1. The fact that HOHAs as a group are not very smart nor informed. One only needs to read the nonsense on the PCT-L listserv to get a glimpse in the collective foolishness.

    Here is my personal bet:
    - USFS will do nothing because doing something 1) would require a lot of work and 2) would anger a lot of people. They're federal employees, not suckers for punishment. Right now, they feel more anger from the PCTA than from us. They go where the wind blows
    - the USFS understands that their order does not have much standing. So rather than having tested in court, they will probably not enforce the ban through citation. That way, they can tell their PCTA friends that the closure is in the books, eventhough it won't be the case on the trail

    I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that it's open season for riding the PCT outside of wilderness and National parks.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  22. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation: X-FXR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    696
    There is no accountability, the Federal Gov’t has no sense of any time line. Six months in the private sector is eons whereas the sloth mopes along with the status quo. There is no impetus to make changes, why? In their opinion hikers and equestrians are the vast majority of users and mt bikers are just a bunch of Neanderthals with no trail etiquette. If you’re not going to enforce it then eliminate the ban for bikes. If one rides on the PCT and no one is there…was it illegal?
    Quote Originally Posted by k1creeker View Post
    "yeah, she's fat, but you'd take her for a ride."

  23. #173
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,362
    I tend to agree with Zorg's bets. Good assessment. Although, while I don't know Liz B. personally, I won't cast her as a true HOHA. In the name of protecting her job, she has to denounce MTB... otherwise, the angry villagers will have her head. The PCTA is a textbook example of groupthink. Even if one or some of the employees feel that bikes aren't a big deal and adding more supporters, volunteers and donors to the mix would benefit the trail and the PCTA, they likely can't vocalize that without fear of backlash or losing their job.

    While I also agree with X-FAR's initial assessment, I don't agree with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by X-FXR View Post
    In their opinion hikers and equestrians are the vast majority of users and mt bikers are just a bunch of Neanderthals with no trail etiquette.
    The USFS is generally a friend of mt. biking. I believe they see the fanatical hikers as the neanderthals, and they don't want to deal with the massive amount of whining that would come from even opening the topic for discussion. And I believe they realize if they gave mt. bikers an inch, it would result in un-ending lawsuits that will cost more time and money. Thus, they don't enforce the rule.

    I suppose they are equal opportunity slackers... not gonna do their job to publicly discuss opening the trail, and not gonna do their job to enforce the closure

  24. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by chasejj View Post
    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.
    Back at the beginning of this thread I told you this would happen.
    The various "theories" and other lame defense of the USFS as being on our side is utter nonsense as well.
    They will wear you down with the beaurocracy of responses and meetings and do nothing. Because doing nothing and extending these processes makes it look like they are busy. The only thing they understand is lawsuits which is what the enemy undrstands all too well.
    Give it up or organize a mass protest as a big FU to all of them. Move to Idaho. They haven't been to infected by the California Liberal attitude all that much.....yet.
    Better yet. Don't go to Idaho. I want to keep it nice.

  25. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation: X-FXR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    696
    Either do the job or don't the half arse approach is just chicken #$%%#. Perhaps I over generalized but it is the appearance that they are portraying from what I've interacted with them. I hope I'm reading all wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by k1creeker View Post
    "yeah, she's fat, but you'd take her for a ride."

  26. #176
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Quote Originally Posted by X-FXR View Post
    Either do the job or don't the half arse approach is just chicken #$%%#. Perhaps I over generalized but it is the appearance that they are portraying from what I've interacted with them. I hope I'm reading all wrong.
    ???

    not sure who you are referring too.....the PCTRI, or the USFS....or the PCTA???
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  27. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation: X-FXR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    ???

    not sure who you are referring too.....the PCTRI, or the USFS....or the PCTA???
    USFS...either enforce the law or revoke it. Nothing like well we don't want to deal with all that's involved to change it but we won't necessarily enforce it either.
    Quote Originally Posted by k1creeker View Post
    "yeah, she's fat, but you'd take her for a ride."

  28. #178
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,058
    Quote Originally Posted by chasejj View Post
    Back at the beginning of this thread I told you this would happen.
    The various "theories" and other lame defense of the USFS as being on our side is utter nonsense as well.
    They will wear you down with the beaurocracy of responses and meetings and do nothing. Because doing nothing and extending these processes makes it look like they are busy. The only thing they understand is lawsuits which is what the enemy undrstands all too well.
    Give it up or organize a mass protest as a big FU to all of them. Move to Idaho. They haven't been to infected by the California Liberal attitude all that much.....yet.
    Better yet. Don't go to Idaho. I want to keep it nice.
    I am sure your Idaho senators could help out with influencing USFS policies, couldn't they? Not sure how this is a solely California liberals issue.

  29. #179
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,337
    I have been a long-time major supporter of the PCTA and became a mountain biker only a couple years ago. I wrote Liz Bergeron and Barney Mann a strongly worded letter urging support for limited bike access (limited to non-wilderness areas and mostly remote areas with a few key connector sections) to which Liz gave a thoughtful response, but I may be dropping my support this year given that they have refused to soften their stance. I have to think about it some more.

    PCTA is not run by HOHAs but there are a lot of them in the constituency, and from their perspective it is much safer to stay on the "no bikes" side. Until we get even more numerous, that is. Lest there be too much PCTA bashing, they have done and continue to do a tremendous amount of excellent work. Many parts of the PCT would not exist at all but for their work.

  30. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,687
    It took 5 years of lobbying by the HoHa’s to get the Forest Service to close the PCT to bikes, the PCTRI is into it now for a little over a year there’s a long road ahead. Even two of the surviving 3 foresters that signed the now expired order think it would be ok to have bikes in the non-wilderness sections today. You would be surprised at the number of forest Service employee’s that really could care less about bikes on the trail, that attitude goes “VERY” high up the latter. Like others have said it’s easier for the forest service to do nothing than to fight the screams of the vocal minority, the additional work and the enviable lawsuits from the Hoha’s. So I think it will eventually come down to someone getting ticketed and challenging the closure in court or a lawsuit.
    Jfloren you mention the PCTA doing excellent work in keeping the trail open and I don’t doubt that statement but it’s far than enough. Having spent plenty of time on the PCT and the bike legal feeder trails and other nearby bike trails, it’s the bike trails that a far better maintained than the PCT between overgrown trails and downed tree’s they just cannot keep up.
    The fact that the PCT will soon be stealing away two bike legal trails from us that we have ridden for decades in the Sierra Buttes and in exchange giving us the old PCT alignment to ride along with motorcycles without any modifications to the PCT, speaks volumes on the old ******** line the Hoha’s use about how the trail was not designed for bikes. BTW they will terminate this section of the PCT before you can get to anything interesting by decommissioning a section of the PCT before it gets to Deer lake trail which is a joke. how long do you think it will be before a use trail develops to reconnect? Probably even created by hikers that rather stay on the crest than drop down to Packer saddle campground.
    If you choose to ride it, be super courteous, yield to all other users. If you encounter though hikers take time to chat to them, they are on a grand adventure and I have yet to meet one that does not have an interesting story to tell. Do your best to make ALL those trail encounter’s positive.
    Last edited by TahoeBC; 11-13-2013 at 12:23 PM.
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  31. #181
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfloren View Post
    I have been a long-time major supporter of the PCTA and became a mountain biker only a couple years ago. I wrote Liz Bergeron and Barney Mann a strongly worded letter urging support for limited bike access (limited to non-wilderness areas and mostly remote areas with a few key connector sections) to which Liz gave a thoughtful response, but I may be dropping my support this year given that they have refused to soften their stance. I have to think about it some more.

    PCTA is not run by HOHAs but there are a lot of them in the constituency, and from their perspective it is much safer to stay on the "no bikes" side. Until we get even more numerous, that is. Lest there be too much PCTA bashing, they have done and continue to do a tremendous amount of excellent work. Many parts of the PCT would not exist at all but for their work.
    Hard to argue facts....

    But some of the PCTA staff goes out of their way to work with other anti-bike cohorts on appealing pro-MTB access decisions like Mike Dawson (PCTA Trail Operations Director and Former AT guy) did with Teresa Martinez (former AT and current CDTC) when they had the CDNST La Garita decision rescinded by appeal.

    That decision by the USFS shattered all the BS fantasies about erosion, safety and trail design....and put an Official positive spin on MTB'rs and their contributions...

    I also have a mess of background info of PCTA award winning volunteers/associates advocating booby trapping of trails and/or other violent fantasies...

    The PCTA needs to actively separate themselves from these lunatics...or get lumped in with them....
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  32. #182
    Like a boss.
    Reputation: Piranha426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    659
    IMBA just held a Bay Area summit this past Saturday with representatives (including myself) from the Marin County Bicycle Coalition, Access 4 Bikes, Silicon Valley Mountain Bikers, Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay, and Monterey Off-Road Cyclists. Tom Ward has his hands full with both the Bay Area and the rest of NorCal - what IMBA really needs is a Bay-Area focused rep, which is something that ideally the chapter program can help with. But I don't think they've necessarily "neglected" the Bay Area.
    Quote Originally Posted by jbt56
    Are you a whiny Marin liberal, or a hand-wringing Berkeley liberal?

  33. #183
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,858
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    It took 5 years of lobbying by the HoHa’s to get the Forest Service to close the PCT to bikes, the PCTRI is into it now for a little over a year there’s a long road ahead. Even two of the surviving 3 foresters that signed the now expired order think it would be ok to have bikes in the non-wilderness sections today. You would be surprised at the number of forest Service employee’s that really could care less about bikes on the trail, that attitude goes “VERY” high up the latter. Like others have said it’s easier for the forest service to do nothing than to fight the screams of the vocal minority, the additional work and the enviable lawsuits from the Hoha’s. So I think it will eventually come down to someone getting ticketed and challenging the closure in court or a lawsuit.
    Jfloren you mention the PCTA doing excellent work in keeping the trail open and I don’t doubt that statement but it’s far than enough. Having spent plenty of time on the PCT and the bike legal feeder trails and other nearby bike trails, it’s the bike trails that a far better maintained than the PCT between overgrown trails and downed tree’s they just cannot keep up.
    The fact that the PCT will soon be stealing away two bike legal trails from us that we have ridden for decades in the Sierra Buttes and in exchange giving us the old PCT alignment to ride along with motorcycles without any modifications to the PCT, speaks volumes on the old ******** line the Hoha’s use about how the trail was not designed for bikes. BTW they will terminate this section of the PCT before you can get to anything interesting by decommissioning a section of the PCT before it gets to Deer lake trail which is a joke. how long do you think it will be before a use trail develops to reconnect? Probably even created by hikers that rather stay on the crest than drop down to Packer saddle campground.
    If you choose to ride it, be super courteous, yield to all other users. If you encounter though hikers take time to chat to them, they are on a grand adventure and I have yet to meet one that does not have an interesting story to tell. Do your best to make ALL those trail encounter’s positive.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TahoeBC again.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  34. #184
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Latest update - We finaly received the letter from the USFS....and it was as we expected

    THE LETTER HAS ARRIVED

    As expected, we have received a letter from the USFS, which can be effectively summed up in two letters: “NO”

    Although not what we were hoping for, none of us here at the PCTRI are even remotely surprised by this, as it has been the anticipated response since our initial meeting with them. Let us be clear, that we are not by any means considering this a defeat. Quite the contrary actually, as our movement is gaining momentum. We are currently in the process of planning our subsequent actions and will be updating our site as we march forward.

    We’re still in the process of digesting the information contained within the letter, but one thing is clear: the PCTRI and the USFS continue to disagree on several fundamental points, and it may take a much higher authority to formally sort out our differences. Whether or not we want to pursue such avenues remains to be seen.

    At this point, we’re still in the planning phases and are continuing to add supporters of our cause with each passing day. We hope that you all continue to spread the word about the PCTRI and as always, we welcome your thoughts, suggestions and ideas. A copy of the letter has been posted to our history page, and can be found there or by clicking here: USFS November 2013 Reply
    bottom line...this is a stalemate.

    USFS has no interest in changing, nor do they have any real interest in enforcement (my opinion only).

    from the Sharing the PCT FB page Moderator:
    The issue may be decided, for a fraction of the cost, if a Forest Service employee encounters a mountain biker on the PCT and cites her or him, and she or he decides to bring the citation to court and challenge the legality of the closure. This page has hypothesized before that the FS might even be looking to cite a mountain biker so as to get to court and have a court put an end to this morass, one way or the other. Judging by its recent letter to PCTRI, the FS appears not to be happy about those Unabomber-style threats on PCT-L (the PCTA-affiliated discussion group) to sabotage the PCT and/or assault mountain bikers.

    As this page has stated before, however, don't make yourself a guinea pig for a citation. With modern computerization of criminal record systems, even a misdemeanor conviction can present problems, such as not being eligible for a job you want or being unable to visit the United Kingdom or Canada. The closure could be legally valid—the FS says it is, anyway—so people should not defy it.
    For more up to date discussion you can visit the Facebook page on this subject:
    https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  35. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ABud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    123
    Please Humor this idea.

    Has it ever been considered to ride the PCT with the intent of getting arrested. This would give us standing for a run at the Supreme Court. I believe we could make a strong argument for access. This would be a huge calculated risk but the outcome would be a game changer. Of course this would require tremendous preparation and deliberation prior to execution. We would also require financial and appropriate legal backing.

    If this has been considered then never mind. If it has not then please don't dismiss without further thought.

  36. #186
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by ABud View Post
    Please Humor this idea.

    Has it ever been considered to ride the PCT with the intent of getting arrested. This would give us standing for a run at the Supreme Court. I believe we could make a strong argument for access. This would be a huge calculated risk but the outcome would be a game changer. Of course this would require tremendous preparation and deliberation prior to execution. We would also require financial and appropriate legal backing.

    If this has been considered then never mind. If it has not then please don't dismiss without further thought.
    Many folks have ridden the PCT with the understanding that they might be cited (arrested? Highly unlikely). For your scenario to play out someone would need to get cited and either 1) have deep pockets or 2) have a large group of riders willing to kick in to fund a challenge of that sort.

    In the meantime, most folks will just keep riding the PCT because hiker encounters (at least in Norcal) are few and far between and ranger encounters are pretty close to the level of Sasquatch encounters.

  37. #187
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Quote Originally Posted by ABud View Post
    Please Humor this idea.

    Has it ever been considered to ride the PCT with the intent of getting arrested. This would give us standing for a run at the Supreme Court. I believe we could make a strong argument for access. This would be a huge calculated risk but the outcome would be a game changer. Of course this would require tremendous preparation and deliberation prior to execution. We would also require financial and appropriate legal backing.

    If this has been considered then never mind. If it has not then please don't dismiss without further thought.
    Not a good idea to intentionally seek out a possible misdemeanor....I would guess a Federal Judge would frown on that.

    BUT - if one was to receive a ticket for riding the PCT outside of designated Wilderness (maybe they got lost)....and posted about it here, or via PM, there could be a strong possibility that the ticketed individual would receive some worthwhile advice.

    Now, it will not take 1 ticket "overturned" in court to remove all the teeth from this semi-toothless dubious ban of bikes on the PCT. It would take a few before the FS stopped pursuing the matter.

    In any case - this idea is by no means a good strategy to gain access...even though it may work, it might alienate a lot of good relationships being developed with the USFS.

    So if you, or you know anyone that gets cited for riding the PCT please post up, or shoot me a PM.....
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  38. #188
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Update:

    response letter from the PCTRI quoted below from the "Sharing the PCT" Facebook page

    Mr. Randy Moore
    Regional Forester
    U.S. Forest Service
    1323 Club Drive
    Vallejo, California 94592-1110

    Re: Nonmotorized multiuse on the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT)—reply to your letter of Nov. 25.

    Dear Mr. Moore:

    Thank you for your letter of November 25.

    We were disappointed, but not surprised, to read that you are not rescinding Regional Order 88-4 at this time. Still we are asking that USFS engage in a public process to consider an order or regulation that is consistent with current best practices and compliant with the Administrative Procedure Act. The 1988 closure order was created and signed by three Forest Service employees only after the Forest Service Chief declined to issue a regulation. We continue to believe that the Administrative Procedure Act calls for a public process to consider the regulation of trail use on the PCT.

    The 1978 Code of Federal Regulations declaration, which provides that the PCT is primarily intended for foot and horse use, is not an impediment to reassessing the current use regime. We have no problem stipulating that the PCT is primarily intended for those historically established uses. As is the case with the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, mountain biking can coexist alongside those primary uses. Mountain biking exists alongside horse and hiker use almost everywhere else, including on those tens of thousands of Forest Service trail and road miles to which your November 25 letter adverts.

    Additionally, and beyond the questions of Administrative Procedure Act requirements and the application of the 1978 CFR provision, the Forest Service rightfully prides itself on its own participatory rulemaking processes. In the case of the PCT bicycle closure, there was not, nor has there ever been, a process that would meet Forest Service standards of practice. A cautionary, temporary rule has become established, but because of the lack of an adequate promulgation process, its legitimacy is tenuous.

    We, like you, are saddened by the acrimony that has emerged over this issue. It continues unabated and no end to it seems in sight, judging by posts on the Internet. We pledge to you that for our part we will continue to conduct ourselves civilly and with a commitment to the community’s good as we continue our advocacy.

    We welcome the Forest Service’s generous offer to "organize a professionally facilitated discussion in the coming year, with the goal of finding common ground for resolving disagreements" and your invitation to us to help locate a qualified facilitator. We are trying to find a facilitator that we can recommend, and we look forward to participating in the eventual conference or workshop. We will help create meaningful and productive dialogue at any meeting that does take place.

    We feel very strongly that any such process should have clear goals, milestones and criteria toward planning and creating a national trails system that fairly and transparently reflects conservation and societal needs that have evolved since the current system and management practices were put in place.

    Per your invitation, we will be in contact with [the] Regional Trails Program Manager, and/or [the] Pacific Crest Trail Program Manager, on these matters.

    Sincerely yours,

    PCTRI
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  39. #189
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,362

    Survey time

    If you have any knowledge of the PCT between Donner Summit and Jackson Meadow Reservoir, please provide your insights in this survey. Your input is completely anonymous. Share with your non-MTBR pals. Thanks!

    Info: Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail: Section Survey!

    Survey: Survey #5: Donner Summit to Jackson Meadows Reservoir



    There will also be a survey for the segment from Jackson Meadows Reservoir to Wild Plum CG/Sierra City (soon).

  40. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,687
    Besides being a segment perfectly suited for cross country type bike riding much of the segment runs through Sierra Pacific property that they graciously provided
    an easement for the PCT. While "Hiking" this segment last fall I could not help but notice the trees they had felled across the trail, which of coarse they would be
    taking at a later point, but they had no problem driving there heavy machinery back and forth across the trail. God forbid a bike tire hits that dirt though.
    I'm very curious on what kind of jurisdiction the forest service has on this segment though there property if any at all?
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  41. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FKFW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    108
    Done. Thanks for the heads up!

  42. #192
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,362

    Please submit comments to the USFS

    So the Pacific Crest Trail Association appears to be working with the USFS to gain more power, control and management of the PCT, by working with them to create a "Management Area" for three National Forests the trail currently goes through (Inyo, Sierra & Sequoia -- the "early adopters"... more to come). In theory, this is something anyone could support as it does help with permanently protecting the trail corridor from development and extraction. But, giving the PCTA and their anti-bike stance more power is no bueno. They could literally rule that no MTB legal trails can cross the PCT (or get near the trail)!

    So it's time for mt. bikers to write the Forest Service again and oppose this "Management Area" portion of the proposed Planning Rule. It's also a great opportunity to let your voice be heard by the USFS about this ridiculous ban on bicycles on the PCT.

    Make comments here: https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...t?Project=3375 -- Do this by Sept. 27!

    See the details regarding the PCT starting on page 59 here.

    Here are a few letters other trail advocates have shared:

    #1
    "The conservation of the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) is very important to me. For this reason, I take great interest in the current proposal to establish special management areas such as what might be created along the PCT corridor so as to better care for the trail. However, I am loath to support any proposal that may perpetuate the unfair, inappropriate and unnecessary exclusion from the PCT of trail users who would like to experience parts of the trail by bicycle.

    The 1988 temporary Closure Order that is the basis for the bicycle exclusion is badly outdated; reflects 25-year-old management practice; never involved significant public input; does not serve the long-term conservation goals for the PCT; and unfairly prevents a significant segment of the public from accessing any part of the public trail in a safe and sustainable manner. Preserving a 2,650-mile public trail for the exclusive use of a relatively tiny segment of the public is bad policy and it erodes public support for the trail.

    Until USFS agrees to a transparent, public review of the 1988 Closure Order, it is very difficult to support efforts that may perpetuate the plainly outdated ban on bicycle access."
    #2
    "To the Decision Makers addressing the Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests Land Management Plans:

    As an avid outdoorsman and a lover of the gorgeous Sierras, I am pleased to see efforts to sustainably manage this magnificent natural resource. However, I must strenuously object to the codifying of the ill-advised ban on bicycle across these portions of the PCT (as well as non-Wilderness areas across the PCT as a whole)

    The 1988 temporary Closure Order that initiated the bicycle ban is outdated; reflects an incomplete management practice, failed to include significant public input, and most importantly does not serve the long-term conservation goals for the PCT. Preserving a 2,650-mile public trail for the exclusive use of one or two user groups at the expense of an equally low-impact user group bad policy and it erodes public support for the trail. Until USFS agrees to a transparent, public review of the 1988 Closure Order, it is very difficult to support efforts that may perpetuate the plainly outdated ban on bicycle access.

    I have hiked portions of the PCT and cycled adjacent trails which cross the PCT. The portions I hiked were perfectly suitable and sustainable as cycling routes. Moreover, the wording in the plan that implies the possible further removal of cycling access to key trails which cross the PCT is particularly disturbing.

    Hikers often cite bad behavior by cyclists as a reason to perpetuate the ban. However, hikers and backpackers are more likely to build illegal fire rings, smoke in high fire danger areas, relieve themselves within close proximity of water sources, and cut switchbacks, thus creating new avenues for erosion. The point is that no one user group has exclusive claim to either vice or virtue and it makes no sense to ban one but not the other. Where trails are sustainably built, multiple studies, including those commissioned by the USFS, demonstrate the impact of cycling and hiking to be roughly equivalent and both to be far less impactful than equestrian use, which is given top billing in the plan. Cyclists impact hikers, but hikers also impact cyclists; there is no basis for placing one above the other. If you're still concerned about protecting the hiking experience at the expense of cyclists, please consider that 1,000 miles of the PCT's 2,600 mile length passes through designated Wilderness, thus still providing hikers and equestrians with tremendous opportunity for a bike-free experience.

    Bottom line: Cycling should be allowed where it can be done suitably and sustainably, which includes some portions of the PCT. There is simply no rational justification for a blanket exclusion on all portions of the PCT to preserve the elitist experiences of a highly vocal, but no more equally valid user group. Please reconsider the perpetuation of the unfair blanket ban against this low-impact, conservation minded user group."
    #3
    "Dear Sir or Madam:

    "I cannot support any proposal that may perpetuate the unfair, unenforceable, and probably unlawful putative exclusion of bicycle riders on the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). It's unclear to me whether this plan does this, but if it does, count me against it.

    The August 31, 1988 closure order that is the basis for the bicycle exclusion is properly deemed temporary under the Forest Service's own rules and regulations, and it expired long ago. It was promulgated by three Forest Service field personnel who typed up the closure order after the Forest Service headquarters rejected a request for a bicycle ban in 1987. Thereafter, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act that the Forest Service is required by law to abide by, local Forest Service personnel let it become a permanent plan with no public notice or comment. And since the public wasn't aware that the plan was implemented with no opportunity for public input, it accepted it for the most part, until the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative challenged it in 2010. (See Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail.) That Catch-22 (no notice, therefore no complaints until 2010) has been bad: bad for the law, bad for the PCT, and bad for public support for wildland conservation.

    Additionally, the PCT bicycle ban is antiquated, reflects the minimal understanding of how to manage nonmotorized trails for multiuse of a quarter-century ago, does not serve the PCT's interests (the trail cannot be maintained with the small cadre of hiker volunteers who currently make themselves available), and unfairly prevents a significant segment of the public from accessing any part of the public trail in a safe and sustainable manner. Granting exclusive use of a 2,650-mile publicly funded trail mainly for the use of a few hundred through-hikers has resulted in public indifference about the trail, and its hundreds of miles of overgrown and poorly maintained sections are the proof of the pudding.

    Until the Forest Service agrees to a thorough-going review of the 1988 closure order, one that complies with the Administrative Procedure Act by allowing public participation, attempts to put patches on the inadequate existing management scheme are a waste of time.

    Certainly in the interim the Forest Service should direct its current and retired employees not to harangue mountain bikers who are on non-Wilderness PCT sections. Their presence there may be entirely lawful."
    More chatter about this on the FB page: https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct

  43. #193
    More Torque
    Reputation: Diesel~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    So the Pacific Crest Trail Association appears to be working with the USFS to gain more power, control and management of the PCT, by working with them to create a "Management Area" for three National Forests the trail currently goes through (Inyo, Sierra & Sequoia -- the "early adopters"... more to come). .....

    Make comments here: https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...t?Project=3375 -- Do this by Sept. 27!
    Thanks for the call to action, EB! Comments submitted.

    -D

  44. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,149

    Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

    I'd proofread those carefully before sending. Sierra is always singular - there is never a "s" at the end, no matter what you read around here. Also how do hikers impact bikers, again? What proof do you have that bikers will be better at not popping near water or camping in improper sites? The letter should site studies to prove that bikes are less damaging than horses. You need hard facts not emotions, you're up against 150 years of tradition.

  45. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,687
    The big issue here is the PCTA will be given the right to say how trails are used withing the PCT Corridor, this is a "PRIVATE" lobbying group how is it that they get veto power over trails that intersect the PCT. This means no new bike legal trails that cross the PCT, a trail that cuts this state and in fact the whole west coast in half. We could even loose access to trails leading up to the PCT, if adopted in Tahoe this could potentially impact trails like the TRT out of Big Meadows, Sayles, Bryant Meadows, Pony Express, DLRT.

    This is a ******** backdoor deal going down as a way to shut out bikes, I think any letters should really focus on not allowing the PCTL to have a final say on trails within the PCT "Corridor"
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  46. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    271
    Thank you for for speaking the truth TahoeBC. I have seen very similar tactics in Eldorado Forest for 30 years.
    Now prepare to be flamed as hater who just doesn't get it.

  47. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,149

    Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

    They all ready issue all through hike permits, long history there.

  48. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,687
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    They all ready issue all through hike permits, long history there.
    So what?? so your willing to give the PCTL final say on how trails can be used on publicly funded land? that's a little different that issuing a permit wouldn't you say?

    "To maintain the outstanding primitive hiking and horseback experiences, new crossings of the PCT by trails for bicycles or other mechanized transport should be avoided except as mutually agreed on by the forest and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Association"

    I like how they don't even define how big the trail corridor is within the document either.

    "The use of bicycles and other mechanized transport and motorized use is prohibited on the
    PCT tread and within the trail corridor "
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  49. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    196
    Tahoe BC,
    I respect your take on the entire issue. Do you mind sharing your letter with us? I'd like to crank one out on behalf of A4B.
    Thanks!

  50. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Wilderness Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    140
    This is a fight we need to force to happen. If we as bikers don't fight this fight it will never happen. Ideally IMBA could identify a very passionate pro mt bike attorney that is willing to take this on. And someone that has the ear of one of our congressman & senators. The economic benefit is very real and measurable to small mountain towns such as Truckee, where mountain biking is seeing explosive growth.

    When I recently wore to Congressman McCintock, I was very clear how an out dated forest service order is negatively impacting the local economy. While at the same time wasting gov't resources as there is talk of creating a parallel trail to the PCT around Donner Summit which would cost hundred of thousands of dollars. Which makes absolutely no sense when a perfect trail already exists and could be open with the swipe of a pen.

    The whole concept of preventing bikes on the PCT in non wilderness areas is just outdated and wrong on every level. Not one legitimate argument exists.

    Will it the PCT open to bikes in the next 20-30 years that I have left of being a mt biker? Odds are against it for sure but never say never..
    Always respect rangers, they are doing their job-Everyone else has no authority, so get out of the way of the of the ATrain!

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •