Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

26K views 224 replies 49 participants last post by  TahoeBC 
#1 ·
For the last two to three years a small group of us has been working to get mountain bike access to non-Wilderness sections of the Pacific Crest Trail. (About 60% of the PCT lies outside Wilderness.)

We have convinced the Forest Service that its 1988 closure order requires reconsideration.

As a result, the Forest Service is going to begin a rulemaking procedure, probably in March of 2013, to consider making the non-Wilderness parts of the PCT multiuse. This will involve public notice and comment.

When something similar happened with the Continental Divide Trail about four years ago, the Forest Service received about 8000 comments. The PCT reconsideration can be expected to generate even more controversy.

If the Forest Service decides to keep bikes off the Pacific Crest Trail, we can expect that closure to stay in place for the rest of our lives and maybe those of our children. If the Forest Service decides to open it, it will be revolutionary.

Stay tuned. We'll be looking for your help in coming months.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
For the last two to three years a small group of us has been working to get mountain bike access to non-Wilderness sections of the Pacific Crest Trail. (About 60% of the PCT lies outside Wilderness.)
Thank you for your efforts!!!!:thumbsup:

Stay tuned. We'll be looking for your help in coming months.
Please keep us posted on anything new. This is very exciting news!!.
 
#3 ·
Since 1988 the mountain biking community has grown not just in sheer numbers, which is considerable, but broadened in the age group it represents. As such, the potential for a mass of commentary is huge. However, getting those participants to act is hardly a slam dunk.

Do what you can to develop awareness of this issue and maintain it. Make participation as easy as possible. I guarantee at least 1 letter.:thumbsup:
 
#6 ·
Thanks, Berkeley Mike. Yes, getting people enthusiastic on mtbr is one thing; getting them to submit a comment to the Forest Service is another. It'll take some organizing work.

Here's what you can do now if you're interested. If you belong to any mountain bike organization other than your own (obviously you belong to one already!), let it know that you support this initiative and ask it to support it as well. Much political maneuvering tends to occur when something of this magnitude appears, and some mtb groups might be hesitant about supporting PCT access (because of a relationship with a particular Forest Service office or employee, for example). There's nothing to worry about. If this goes through, it'll mean that the Forest Service wanted to do it. But change can make people nervous.
 
#8 ·
Thanks for spreading the word. I took a quick look and it appears that there is no actual federal regulation prohibiting bikes on the PCT, but rather two orders by USDA Foresters and BLM managers (exercising authority under federal regs) to close the PCT to bikes in the 1980s. They are available here. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5311127.pdf

I'm not an expert in forest management rules, but assume this simply means that the appropriate USDA official can issue a new order modifying/rescinding the old ones. We would need BLM action too in order to open portions of the PCT not in national forests. I don't see any notice or request for comments that this might be coming. How did you find out about this? Does anyone know whether they will follow a normal rulemaking-type process with a proposal followed by 30 days for public comment?

Question: Should we lobby someone now? Please post links if you are aware of the officials to whom comments should be addressed.

I am a member of the PCTA and enjoy hiking along many of the high Sierra stretches. Note that most of those would areas not be affected by this potential change because they are in Wilderness Areas that are off-limits to anything mechanical. And I think that is as it should be. Much of the PCT in the Sierras is above 10,000 feet and on truly sensitive land. Up there the world feels both billions of years old and brand new at the same time, and it is extremely easy to damage the land, even for a hiker. Horses rip it up but they don't commonly go so far above treeline. (And there isn't enough air up there for most bikers, anyhow.)

But if we are going to succeed in obtaining mountain bike access to parts of the PCT, it seems to me that some outreach to the PCTA and other constituencies will be necessary. The through-hikers and their friends are likely to be hostile to the idea at first, and we can blunt or avoid much opposition by showing them that (a) access is inevitable; (b) it can be limited to keep certain areas bike-free (compromise, anyone?); and (c) bikers are a mostly responsible group, just as hikers are.
 
#9 ·
I am a member of the PCTA and enjoy hiking along many of the high Sierra stretches. Note that most of those would areas not be affected by this potential change because they are in Wilderness Areas that are off-limits to anything mechanical. And I think that is as it should be.
The ban on wheels in Wilderness is completely idiotic. Apparently, carbon fiber poles, pedal powered kayaks are somehow non mechanical and perfectly legal in Wilderness. The bicycle ban in Wilderness has little to do with whether the wheel is incompatible with Wilderness (hint: it's not, especially in areas where we used to ride for years and suddenly became inaccessible because of Wilderness status) and everything to do with politics. With 50 million of acres of designated Wilderness in the lower 48 and plenty more under consideration, accepting the status quo is definitely short sighted. We'll see how you feel about the Wilderness ban next time your favorite trail gets closed.

Much of the PCT in the Sierras is above 10,000 feet and on truly sensitive land. Up there the world feels both billions of years old and brand new at the same time, and it is extremely easy to damage the land, even for a hiker. Horses rip it up but they don't commonly go so far above treeline. (And there isn't enough air up there for most bikers, anyhow.)

But if we are going to succeed in obtaining mountain bike access to parts of the PCT, it seems to me that some outreach to the PCTA and other constituencies will be necessary. The through-hikers and their friends are likely to be hostile to the idea at first, and we can blunt or avoid much opposition by showing them that (a) access is inevitable; (b) it can be limited to keep certain areas bike-free (compromise, anyone?); and (c) bikers are a mostly responsible group, just as hikers are.
Good luck reaching out to the PCTA lunatics (especially the people in charge). But since you're a member, you should definitely try and see what happens. My educated guess is that there is zero interest in sharing.
 
#10 ·
I wonder how Mike V feels about this??? :)

The Forest Service is not uniform in enforcing the ban. Bikes openly use the PCT in many Norcal stretches (Perfect Cycling Trail?) and are ignored by local Forest Service LEOs. still, it would be nice to open the trail.
 
#13 ·
Thank you for your post! I have also heard some grumblings about non wilderness sections of the PCT becoming truly the official Perfect Cycling Trail. Not that it stops us from riding it now but it would be nice to make it official!
 
#20 ·
Spin Oblivion - What we should do is create a website for our group, which we call the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative. We could then show the Wilderness and non-Wilderness portions of the PCT on it, along with sections that aren't owned by the federal government and in some cases aren't even on public land. (Yes, these are little-known aspects of the PCT. It's on land ranging from the Warm Springs Indian tribe in Oregon to California State Parks at Castle Crags, at Castella, a few miles south of Dunsmuir.)

Does anyone have the expertise to create a website for this effort, and would there be any way to obtain free or reduced-cost hosting?

Jfloren - As for the PCTA, I am informed that the senior staff are aware of our effort and remain opposed to bikes on the trail. We are working to do what we can to change the organization's views and policy position. Anything you can do would be great. I think it would be more helpful to contact one or two PCTA board members (who appear on the Pacific Crest Trail Association - Home website) and try to educate them. The staff is likely to say, "The board sets policy, and we can't alter it; the current policy is to oppose bikes." The board members are the people to change that policy. Some may be willing.
 
#21 ·
Spin Oblivion - What we should do is create a website for our group, which we call the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative. We could then show the Wilderness and non-Wilderness portions of the PCT on it, along with sections that aren't owned by the federal government and in some cases aren't even on public land. (Yes, these are little-known aspects of the PCT. It's on land ranging from the Warm Springs Indian tribe in Oregon to California State Parks at Castle Crags, at Castella, a few miles south of Dunsmuir.)

Does anyone have the expertise to create a website for this effort, and would there be any way to obtain free or reduced-cost hosting?
Facebook page would be an easy start to get the word out.
 
#23 ·
Imtnbike thanks for your efforts. Many of he elitist need to change with the times, but our own fellow riders can also make it tough when they are rude, cut trails etc. but in the same token the resistance to open up trails means many ride where ever due to feelings of we'll never get approval anyway.......

If a trail is open to the public then all forms of us"public" should be able to use it. Exclusionary planning is something the progressives fought to eliminate. Why exclude anyone from the trail we all should have access or no one one should period.
 
#26 ·
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.
 
#172 ·
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.
 
#28 ·
Czar-35 years of seeing the door shut by the same people and the year to year continuous effort to shut down non Wilderness areas for recreational uses by the same people with no intention of ever collaborating might have done it. I choose to do it through other means now. It is so much larger an issue than getting MTB's on PCT. But I encourage you to go through the process. You will see.
 
#29 ·
Just a couple of links to add:

The actual order in .html format:
Six Rivers National Forest - Alerts & Notices

Ouch: "A violation of this prohibition is punishable by a fine of not more that $5,000.00 for an individual or $10,000 for an organization, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. "

The PCT-L doesn't seem to have heard about this reconsideration so far, but there are a few vigilantes openly posting about their malfeasance.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=...cp.r_qf.&fp=4554797d963ef604&biw=1380&bih=738

BTW, IMBA got almost 4x the contributions of PCTA last year. There is a chance to make this happen.
 
#32 ·
So what went down in 1988 that resulted in the "Order" to ban bicycles on the PCT? Was there any sort of public comment, hearing, etc., or did some people freak out about these new things called "mountain bikes" and quickly write up the "Order" without due process?

Based on this article I found from '88, it seems like recreation via bicycle fits in with their vision of the future... especially since their children's children are riding mountain bikes now :D
 

Attachments

#52 ·
Hi, Empty Beer - First, thanks for posting this article. This kind of material is valuable and could end up in our eventual comments to the Forest Service (or yours if you are inclined to submit one!)

The 1988 closure order was the kind of thing that's usually issued when a campground facility is out of order or a wasp's nest makes it hazardous to use it. It is not meant for wholesale long-term policy decisions. No public notice or comment accompanied its issuance and, if I recall correctly, it was supposed to revisited every 90 days, but it hasn't been revisited since 1988. This is why the Forest Service has to undertake this rulemaking process now, which will include the notice and comment opportunity it did not offer before. It agrees that the closure order is defective.
 
#33 · (Edited)
I'll write letters when the time comes, but I'm pretty much sure there is no way it will open up, just reading some of the PCT forum posts and the amount of vitrol spewed out towards cyclists, the HOHAs I'm sure will shut this down pretty quickly.

You do find a post with a bit of fresh air occasionally, but it's rare... see example below I pulled from the forum:

I've read with interest the various suggestions that we crack down on
cyclists on
the PCT with 1) more federal money and government agents patrolling the
trail or 2) private, armed, bounty hunters gunning for mountain biker
scalps and reward money or 3) cameras cameras cameras. None of those
ideas is going to happen,
none would work...and nor should they because they would be an
indication of a society (and the PCT along with it) moving in precisely
the wrong direction. We seem to be overlooking a fourth option, and
this one would actually bring additional resources to the trail (rather than
drain them) and potentially
solve once and for all the problem of irresponsible, illegal bicycle
use of the PCT. Wait for it...here it comes...pure heresy: share the
trail.

To rebut Edward Anderson's initial assertion, NO, we do NOT all agree that bikes are a
serious safety hazard and that they cause more erosion than other uses.
That's because some of us live in a world where - by some
special magic - we successfully and peacefully share many hundreds of
miles
of public trails with our fellow outdoor enthusiasts who choose to
enjoy the backcountry by bicycle. And, stranger still, we see many
hundreds of miles of trail that appear to be sustainable, ecologically
sound and perfectly manageable despite heavy bicycle use.

How have we
achieved the impossible? The answer has many elements, but every one of
them sounds more attractive to me than 1) massing federal agents at
trailheads, 2) paying private wackos (oh yes, they will be wackos) to
chase down bicyclists, 3) wiring the trail to a high-tech video surveillance system and, all the while,
continuing to spread fear and division in the trails and conservation
community. Instead, good trail design and maintenance (made easier by
the involvement of cyclists) and ongoing education and socialization of
all trail users (made easier by
the involvement of cyclists) seems to work rather well. In fact, those
are
the same tools we've always used successfully to reign in and reduce
the numbers of
uneducated and irresponsible hikers and equestrians that have created
management challenges since the beginning of time. It hasn't been easy, but it beats the pants off of every "us vs. them" suggestion that I've seen.

Safety and
environmental impacts are always legitimate concerns when it comes to
trail management, and since it's clear enough from many of the posts
here that exclusion, division and vitriol aren't working so well, how
about focusing on the tools and techniques that are actually effective
at creating positive outcomes? Let's
finally take those safety and impact issues seriously and work -
together - towards a better future for the community and for the PCT. Or maybe we can pass the collection plate and buy some military drones equipped with powerful anti-cyclist lasers!

I anticipate that the only replies I'll see to this post are from
people who are completely convinced that there isn't one inch of the
2,650 mile PCT that could possibly be shared with bicycles. But for
those readers on the list who know, believe or even just hope that working with
bicyclists could be productive - just as it has been elsewhere - I hope you'll chime in with whatever constructive thoughts or concerns you may have.

-FPH

[pct-l] Bikes on PCT- alternative enforcement idea
 
#34 ·
I agree with everything you stated in this post. But you are missing one important thing.

The Liberal Democrats who have dominated Cali politics and all of the government beaurocracy have taken over the day to day mgmt of the USFS and BLM. To such an extent that the only remedy for change is supporting fiscal and public policy conservatives.

In my 35 years I have never seen a conservative candidate (Republican mostly) flat out dismiss our and other recreationists concerns. If they do not endorse our concerns they at least get out of the way.
In every case I have observed Democrats and Liberal Independants always side with radical enviro interests who's objective is lock out any recreation that does not meet their definition of acceptable use. There is NO give and take on this. If they get a judges ruling to use current law or precedence they will sue using ridiculous ESA claims to shut it down.

Many MTBers I have met self identify as a liberal tree hugger. If you really are concerned for your access to riding in the future, you seriously need to become educated on this as you are on the wrong side. :madman:
 
#36 ·
Many MTBers I have met self identify as a liberal tree hugger. If you really are concerned for your access to riding in the future, you seriously need to become educated on this as you are on the wrong side. :madman:
My guess is that calling many cyclists uneducated and on the wrong side of politics may not bring them to your side. :)

That being said, I do agree with your overall premise that die hard liberals have taken over many governmental jobs in California and that's definitely working against our access.
 
#35 ·
We need to tell the PCTA, the Sierra Club, et al that we will not stand for their HATE!. They need to show TOLERANCE to all groups no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation or wilderness travel preference.

We celebrate diversity in the city, why do they refuse to celebrate diversity on the trail? Their bigoted hate will not stand.

That said, OMG(!) if the PCT opened to bikes that would be epic!
 
#37 ·
Question 1: How are we going to get anywhere on this, unless people stop poaching the trail?

We need to police ourselves here. Friends don't let friends poach.

Also, if you are on a legal single track and you see a hiker or horse, get off...let 'em pass and say "hello"
Historically, a few bad bike interactions with hikers and horses have got back to legislators and land managers and then that's how this all ends (again)

I'm trying not to be a hypocrite here, but I do admit strava makes me do dumb things. There is bigger goal/future to think about here, then a KOM.
 
#38 ·
meh.

in Downieville recently a group of us decided to not poach the PCT on our way to a trail - it was Saturday and busy with hikers so we thought we'd be considerate and climb a stupid fireroad.

Every single damn hiker we ran into openly accused us of poaching the PCT to get to where we were going.

every.
single.
one.

Also, I have the mindset that actively using any public trail system in a responsible and considerate fashion is fine and dandy....it goes towards opening doors and proves that true multi-use can coexist.

it's working in my neck of the woods (State Parks)

my .02

* be warned, tix can be hefty....so do at yor own risk ;)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top