fresh fish in stock......
Originally Posted by X-FXR
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.
Originally Posted by CHUM
Originally Posted by k1creeker
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.
Originally Posted by chasejj
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.
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 11:23 AM.
fresh fish in stock......
Hard to argue facts....
Originally Posted by Jfloren
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....
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.
Originally Posted by jbt56
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TahoeBC again.
Originally Posted by TahoeBC
Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun
fresh fish in stock......
Latest update - We finaly received the letter from the USFS....and it was as we expected
THE LETTER HAS ARRIVED
bottom line...this is a stalemate.
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
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:
For more up to date discussion you can visit the Facebook page on this subject:
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.
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.
Originally Posted by ABud
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.
fresh fish in stock......
Not a good idea to intentionally seek out a possible misdemeanor....I would guess a Federal Judge would frown on that.
Originally Posted by ABud
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.....
fresh fish in stock......
response letter from the PCTRI quoted below from the "Sharing the PCT" Facebook page
Mr. Randy Moore
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.
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).
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?
Done. Thanks for the heads up!