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!
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:
"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."
"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."
More chatter about this on the FB page: https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct
"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."
Thanks for the call to action, EB! Comments submitted.
Originally Posted by Empty_Beer
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.
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"
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.
Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT
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?
Originally Posted by SS Hack
"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 "
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.
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!