Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 201 to 227 of 227
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,617
    I really don’t want to share it for a few reasons, one being that I think if to many come in looking alike possibly they are not valued as much, and sometimes I’m not that elegant in forming my thoughts in the most politically correct ways

    Personally I think we should focus less on asking that the PCT be opened to bikes and more on why a private organization is being given the right to say how publicly funded land can be utilized, I think we need to try and keep what we do have at this point. Many new restrictions are being proposed within the PCT corridor with no definition of how big the corridor is? The wording in the document carefully guided by the PCTA seems to override the temporary closure order and pretty much closes down the future of any potential access to the non-wilderness sections by bike. They seem to be getting carte blanch to reroute the PCT onto existing mutil-use trails if they choose. The PCT splits the entire west coast in half; it's not fair to limit any new crossings of the PCT by bikes.
    Last edited by TahoeBC; 09-22-2014 at 03:29 PM.
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Wilderness Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    it's not fair to limit any new crossings of the PCT by bikes.
    This is 100% true but does not go far enough...not just crossings, the trail itself should be open to bikes. Bikers are not out destroying or negatively impacting anyone's experience any more than hikers or equestrians do..

    We're talking about a trail that runs on federal and state land in non-wilderness areas...keep in mind that we all support and pay various aspects of this with our tax $$.

    It would be another story if bikers were the enemy or evil but come on..we are stewards of the land as much as hikers and equestrians (except we don't sh*t on the trail)....
    Always respect rangers, they are doing their job-Everyone else has no authority, so get out of the way of the of the ATrain!

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,617
    I completely agree, but I think the fight for access to the PCT is another one to be fought another day. If this goes though and is adopted by other regions in the future we are truly hosed. I think we have a somewhat better chance of effecting this proposal without demanding access to the PCT. Try to get all the bike related stuff out of it and removal of a Private Lobbying groups ability to have the final say of what happens is key IMHO.
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  4. #204
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    I completely agree, but I think the fight for access to the PCT is another one to be fought another day. If this goes though and is adopted by other regions in the future we are truly hosed. I think we have a somewhat better chance of effecting this proposal without demanding access to the PCT. Try to get all the bike related stuff out of it and removal of a Private Lobbying groups ability to have the final say of what happens is key IMHO.
    Spot on, TBC. This is all about opposing the Management Area proposal at this time, which the PCTA so desperately wants. Submitting comments about why bicycling should be allowed aren't necessary here. This is the scoping phase of the process, and comments that disagree with the "proposed action" will keep us "at the table" as the forest plan revision moves along.

    Here is the posted timeline for the entire process:

     Aug 2014 – Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register and 30-day scoping process starts. (Ends Sept. 29!)
     Sep 2014 – Tribal Forums and Public Workshops.
     Nov 2014 – Tribal Forums and Public Workshops.
     Apr 2015 – Notice of Availability of a draft EIS published in the Federal Register and 90-day public comment period starts.
     May 2015 – Tribal Forums and Public Workshops.
     Mar 2016 – Notice of Availability of a final EIS published in the Federal Register and 60-day objection filing period starts.
     Sep 2016 – Final decisions signed by Forest Supervisors.

    Please get your comments in. They don't have to be verbose or show super understanding of the issues.... you're simply opposing the Management Area proposal and the authority it may give the PCTA to make management decisions.



    Here's what the hub-bub is about (from the doc linked earlier):
    Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Corridor

    Desired Conditions

    1. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT) corridor is permanently protected to provide outstanding primitive hiking and horseback experiences:

    • Roads and motorized trails, including snowmobiles, do not intersect the trail except at designated crossings which should be minimized, preferably fewer than one crossing per 5 miles of trail;
    • Lands or interests are acquired where needed to protect the trail experience;
    • Visitor use is managed to protect the experiences and other overlapping land management desired conditions.

    2. The trail corridor provides panoramic views of undisturbed landscapes in a tranquil scenic environment, and features historic high country landmarks where they occur. The corridor is of sufficient width to encompass national trail resources, qualities, values, associated settings and the primary use or uses. This includes vistas (key observation points), campsites, water sources and other important resource values.

    3. National Forest System lands within the PCT corridor meet or exceed a high scenic integrity objective, and those within the middle ground and background landscape distance zones meet at least a medium scenic integrity objective.

    4. The emphasis will be on providing remote backcountry recreation settings in a predominately natural or natural-appearing landscape. Development levels and levels of use vary by location and do not detract from those experiences.

    Strategies

    1. Use partnerships to achieve the maintenance and management goals for the PCT. (IMBA could certainly be a partner)

    2. Place priority on the purchase of lands or interest in lands necessary to protect the PCT experience as delineated in the PCT Land Acquisition Inventory.

    3. Reconstruct or relocate existing portions of the PCT as needed to enhance the recreation experience and protect resources. Trail relocations will be evaluated using the optimal location review process in partnership with adjoining federal agencies and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Association.

    4. Establish key observations points along the trail corridor that will serve as monitoring points for proposed projects during the life of the plan to evaluate the condition of scenery resources.

    5. Allow timber harvest, prescribed burning and wildland fire to manage vegetation consistent with desired conditions and setting for the PCT.

    6. Wildfire suppression strategies will strive to minimize impacts on PCT values.

    Standards

    1. New recreation events such as foot races or horseback endurance events and fundraising events must be limited to designated crossings only.

    2. New roads, permanent or temporary, are not permitted within the trail corridor unless required by law to provide access to private lands and documented as the only prudent and feasible alternative.

    3. The use of bicycles and other mechanized transport and motorized use is prohibited on the PCT tread and within the trail corridor, except on trails designated crossings where such use is allowed.

    4. Outside the proclamation boundary, PCT corridor lands with easements or outstanding rights will be managed consistent with deed transfer language and the PCT corridor direction.

    5. The PCT is a concern level 1 travelway, and middle ground and background areas on National Forest System lands seen from the PCT must be managed to meet or exceed a scenic integrity objective of at least moderate for scenery in accordance with scenic integrity objectives identified through the scenery management system.

    6. All management activities must meet a scenic integrity objective of high or very high.

    7. For leasable minerals such as oil, gas and geothermal energy, PCT permits and activities within the trail corridor are available for leasing but must contain a “no surface occupancy” stipulation within the foreground and immediate foreground visual zones, based on the Forest Service Scenery Management System.

    8. For mineral materials such as sand, gravel, pumice, cinders and other common variety minerals, extraction is prohibited within the PCT corridor. When existing permits terminate or expire, new permits will be changed to reflect this standard.

    9. All mining claims pre-dating the congressional designation of the PCT are subject to valid existing rights. Any mineral exploration or extraction that causes surface disturbance within the trail corridor is prohibited, including recreational rock and mineral collecting.

    10. Construction of new communication sites is prohibited within the PCT corridor.

    11. Construction of new wind towers is prohibited within the PCT corridor.

    12. New utility lines or rights-of-way are prohibited within the PCT corridor unless they represent the only feasible and prudent alternative to meet an overriding public need. Project design and mitigation will be sufficient to protect trail values. This includes required mitigation measures such as screening, feathering and other visual management techniques to mitigate visual and other impacts of new or upgraded utility rights-of-way. Mitigation measures apply to facilities as well as vegetation.

    13. New buildings and structures associated with special uses that would be visible from the PCT are prohibited within the trail corridor.

    Guidelines

    1. 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.

    2. Road and utility corridors should cross at right angles to the PCT wherever possible to minimize scenery impacts.

    3. To provide outstanding opportunities for primitive hiking and equestrians, apply Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) primitive class wherever possible, with a second preference for semi-primitive non-motorized within the PCT corridor. In locations where the existing condition is semi-primitive motorized or roaded natural, that ROS may be retained.

    4. To minimize impacts to desired conditions for natural resources and visitor experiences, such as solitude, implement visitor use management strategies such as planning and managing visitor use and the recreation setting through education, site management, regulation and enforcement.

    5. Management of overnight camping and recreation use should recognize different levels of use and desired recreation opportunities consistent with overall PCT desired conditions.

    6. To enhance the recreation experience and protect resources, consider reconstructing or relocating existing portions of the PCT as needed. Trail relocations should be evaluated using the optimal location review process in partnership with adjoining federal agencies and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Association.
    ---------

    Note this is for the first 3 of 26 National Forests the PCT passes through. Let's get it right the first time.

  5. #205
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,020
    I think the title of this thread is misleading. It should be "Feds to try to screw us harder on PCT"

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    It's worth repeating that this ludicrous proposal would allow the antibike PCTA to jointly decide with the Forest Service whether bicycles can be allowed on federal trails that cross the PCT! The PCT could become like an iron curtain that cuts off mountain biking across areas from San Diego County to Big Bear Lake to Tahoe to the area around Mount Shasta. Read the proposal to see for yourself how bad it is.

    If everyone here will send in his/her comments on Plan #3375 (which should be renamed Plan 9 From Outer Space, for those who know what that is), others will be taking action with legal arguments to the Forest Service. If those fail and this plan is implemented, then it'll probably become necessary to sue the Forest Service and challenge the legality of the plan. That would take a lot of money. Does anyone know of any wealthy mountain bikers with lots of discretionary income?

  7. #207
    I like mtn biking, too
    Reputation: shredchic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,019
    Wow, well this is interesting: No bikes. But fracking is peachy-keen! WTF?!

    7. For leasable minerals such as oil, gas and geothermal energy, PCT permits and activities within the trail corridor are available for leasing but must contain a “no surface occupancy” stipulation within the foreground and immediate foreground visual zones, based on the Forest Service Scenery Management System.
    Half the planet is deep into bloody tribal mayhem. We’re just riding bikes (and drinking beer) here.
    ~Fairfaxian

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    459
    They also allow grazing along parts of the corridor
    Here's to sweat in your eye.

  9. #209
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,020

    Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

    Quote Originally Posted by mudncrud View Post
    They also allow grazing along parts of the corridor
    I am amazed on how deeply illogical, two faced and hateful are so many of those purported "nature lovers".

  10. #210
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,617
    This will also screw runners, I noticed at least 3 races this summer that utilized the non-wilderness sections of the PCT around Echo summit, no more races on the PCT, as if it is not hard enough already trying to piece together routes with all the designated wilderness around.
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    269
    Regardless of the usfs stance and elitist special interest groups that want to keep the trail closed, the real fact is that many miles of the trail are being lost due to lack of use, care and maintenance. The bulk of the trail is in these areas. Part of the irony, when the pcta and usfs have our local trail stewardship do maintenance on the trail.

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148

    Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

    Seems like bikes should be allowed on the non wilderness parts of the trail right now and banned in the wilderness areas. Keeping the current standard seems better than outlawing them outright.

  13. #213
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,799
    Total land grab. Clearly the USFS has drank the PCTA koolaid.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148

    Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Total land grab. Clearly the USFS has drank the PCTA koolaid.
    They must have drank decades ago. They already issue permits and have a history as do packers. Mountain biking didn't exist when people were already through hiking the trail. It's simple: first come, first served. Mountain bikers need to offer something besides whinny letters if they want play.

  15. #215
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,020

    Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    They must have drank decades ago. They already issue permits and have a history as do packers. Mountain biking didn't exist when people were already through hiking the trail. It's simple: first come, first served. Mountain bikers need to offer something besides whinny letters if they want play.
    Do they offer anything but whiny letters (and old boys connections)?

  16. #216
    swag swag like Caillou
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    158
    horses are allowed, but not bikers? I can't remember the last time I ate some of the foliage, then left a crap on the trail.

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148

    Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

    Both packers and hikers have been working on the trail for years. They've done more than letters.

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    459
    If bicyclist had access they would help. They are very active in other communities.
    Here's to sweat in your eye.

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148

    Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

    Quote Originally Posted by mudncrud View Post
    If bicyclist had access they would help. They are very active in other communities.
    Yes and the trail would really benefit.

  20. #220
    swag swag like Caillou
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    158
    I wish I could help. Unfortunately I have neither time nor money to donate.

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fat.tires's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    559
    That document is a load of BS and the private organization who has been working on this document is out of touch with reality.

    It only takes a few minutes to comment. Get on it -
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...t?Project=3375

  22. #222
    swag swag like Caillou
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by fat.tires View Post
    That document is a load of BS and the private organization who has been working on this document is out of touch with reality.

    It only takes a few minutes to comment. Get on it -
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...t?Project=3375
    what should I write? I don't want to hurt mtbs' case.

    I probably shouldn't write what I wrote earlier on this thread-
    Quote Originally Posted by mrawesome234100 View Post
    I can't remember the last time I ate some of the foliage, then left a crap on the trail.

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    PCTRI (the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative, which is heading the effort to restore bicycle access to the PCT) sent in a formal response yesterday to this dreadful proposal.

    We also copied the PCTA, a number of Forest Service personnel, and others, with an introduction in which we expressed disappointment that we learned of the plan only on the Internet and that the Forest Service is giving the public one month to learn of it and respond to it.

    It's a 10-page-long pdf, far too long to post here as text. If you'd like to read a copy right away, e-mail PCTRI at pct.//initia//tive at gmail. /dot com (remove the dashes and format properly) and we'll send you the pdf. It has some legal jargon in it, but one shouldn't have to be a lawyer to read and understand it. We promise not to sell your name to some scammer overseas.

    If you don't mind waiting a couple of days and would rather not send e-mail, it should be up on our website as a Google Doc soon enough: Sharing the Pacific Crest TrailHome - Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail
    Last edited by imtnbke; 09-26-2014 at 11:28 AM.

  24. #224
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,327
    Thanks EB and TBC and imtbike for your thoughts. I submitted a detailed comment letter. I led with the issue about the PCTA partnership (noting that I am a PCTA member); no private organization that is not accountable to the public should be allowed veto power over access decisions on public land; I urged deletion of the references to PCTA; and separately, I also objected to the reference to the bicycle ban as contrary to law and common sense given safety, environmental, and trail maintenance manpower concerns.

    Everyone -- COMMENTS ARE DUE MONDAY. Send them in. They will be late after that and likely not considered.

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks, J-Flo! A PCTA member who writes in against this proposal should have a lot of influence. I hope the PCTA itself sees what you wrote. I'm sure it'll be reviewing the public comments. Meanwhile, on the PCTA-supportive listserv known as PCT-L, people are telling one another this proposal is the best idea since sliced bread. (PCTA disclaims any affiliation with PCT-L, but the posters' viewpoints often coincide with the organization's stances.)

    [pct-l] New PCT Rules in Southern California Forest Lands

  26. #226
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,799
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    Thanks, J-Flo! A PCTA member who writes in against this proposal should have a lot of influence. I hope the PCTA itself sees what you wrote. I'm sure it'll be reviewing the public comments. Meanwhile, on the PCTA-supportive listserv known as PCT-L, people are telling one another this proposal is the best idea since sliced bread. (PCTA disclaims any affiliation with PCT-L, but the posters' viewpoints often coincide with the organization's stances.)

    [pct-l] New PCT Rules in Southern California Forest Lands
    The PCT-L seems to also attract a lot of dimwits though.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,617
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

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