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
#104 ·
Hi, SS Hack — I think a small percentage of mountain bikers can act in a rudely gonzo way in smaller parks close to cities or destination resorts. I've never found any of those people in anything resembling a Wilderness, though. I mean areas that, like Wilderness, have trail systems that go for tens of miles into remote country. It's just cross-country enthusiasts out there, and they seem to be polite and physically fit outdoor enthusiasts who are just as engaged in their surroundings as Ansel Adams and John Muir must have been.

On your larger point, Wilderness is an odd construct, unique to the United States in its current form. On the one hand, it's one of the greatest conservation achievements ever: the idea of keeping places roadless and free of infrastructure. It's worked well in that regard. But on the other hand, it ran into a problem in the 1970s and 1980s, when the Forest Service started reversing its 1966 regulation that allowed human-powered mechanical devices, instead adopting an interpretation of the 1964 Wilderness Act that was so severe that key conservation lawmakers like Sen. Frank Church and Rep. Morris K. Udall warned the agency, in 1975 and 1977, that they were going way overboard.

Church and Udall saw nothing wrong with keeping primitive cabins and similar things in Wilderness, but the Forest Service started taking on a Taliban-like approach, banning everything from footbridges to hitching posts and even much signage, letting trails fall into abandonment, and, incidentally, reinterpreting the Wilderness Act to forbid anything with a wheel—even wheelbarrows for maintenance, bicycles, and baby strollers.

There is a theory that although this severe interpretation of the Wilderness Act got started under President Carter, it was the Reagan Administration that really liked it, because it had the potential of alienating so many people from Wilderness that little more of it would be created. It's also believed that that's the same reason conservationists like Church and Udall were alarmed. They saw a future of little or no more Wilderness, and regarded that as a threat.

If that was the plan, it has succeeded brilliantly, and it duped the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, etc., with a deftness worthy of James Bond. When you write that bicycling "is utterly incompatible with the idea of wilderness," please realize that in 1966 the Forest Service said human-powered mechanical transport was fine. It was only starting in 1977 that the agency started announcing what you're saying. (Even then it dithered, going back and forth on bicycles in Wilderness until 1984, when it finally said no. As a result, people were mountain biking in Wilderness legally in 1983.) Why it decided to do this remains a mystery, because it seemed to have acted on only one or two requests from members of the public. A mystery, that is, unless the conspiracy theory is correct.

The outcome, whether intended or not, has been disastrous for Wilderness conservation. The conservation movement relies on an ever dwindling cohort of white people in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, many of them reactionary HOHAs, for its Wilderness stance, and that's a sure loser over time for the same demographic reason that the Republican Party can't elect a president. Meanwhile, extractive industries have been happy to watch the Wilderness backers shrink into their reactionary corner, saying no to bicycles, no to snow kites, no, no, no, like George Wallace standing at the schoolhouse door. It's been exceedingly difficult to create new Wilderness areas for many years now, although Obama did get one bill through early in his term.
 
#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.
 
#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.
 
#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:
 
#46 ·
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:
You, sir, are a moron. You are so wrong on so many levels here I don't know where to begin. This has nothing to do with what "side" anyone is on. Both sides are a bunch of ******bags, and neither is looking out for the best interests of the vast majority of Americans, on any issue. Do you think ANY of the people making decisions regarding the PCT have ever even been on the trail?
And FYI, being "liberal", in the sense of being an open minded, free thinking, generous person, does not equal Democrat. Just as being "conservative" should not equate to a Republican party that advocates people being allowed to do whatever the hell they want, so long as they don't have differing religious moral values.
 
#83 ·
Regarding both bikepacking and day rides: one thing that would be very helpful would be for people to post the opportunities in their area that would open up if access were legalized. What good rides would become available that weren't before? What out-and-back rides could become loops? And, if you feel like being candid, what problems could arise from mountain bike use on those trail miles, and how could any such problems be solved?
 
#98 ·
Nice article just published:
Advocates hope for reversal of Pacific Crest Trail bike ban

Bike advocates say the 1988 ban was done too abruptly, without public comment or opportunity to appeal. The Oregon-based group, Disciples of Dirt, who fully supports the mission of Sharing the PCT, wrote on their website that the ban was "just fear and misunderstanding, mixed with a lot of well funded ignorance."

In 2010, a group of citizen activists decided to probe further into the 1988 decision. They wrote a letter to the USFS on November 12, 2010 asking them to "put in place a process to examine the continuing usefulness of the 1988 closure order."

click here to read more

Sharing the Pacific Crest TrailHome » Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail
 
#139 ·
Well, the USFS got scared and declined to take up the issue, probably faced by a deluge of comments from the HOHAs. Here is the answer:

This letter is in response to your October 22, 2012, email. I appreciate your interest in finding solutions that minimize conflict and the offer to work collaboratively on resolving and improving trail stewardship. My staff and I have a keen interest in improving mountain bicycle recreation experiences and increasing opportunities in appropriate places where shared use with bicycles already exists or is not prohibited. Both here and nationally, the Forest Service has partnered through a Memorandum of Understanding with the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) and other organizations to collaborate on the development and maintenance of shared use trails that meet agency goals for resource protection while providing and improving high quality mountain biking experiences.

Nation-wide the Forest Service provides the largest trail system in the nation with over 157,000 miles within the system. Outside of designated wilderness there are 125,962 miles of trail, of which 123,739 miles are open to mountain bicycling (98%) and 12,389 miles of trail managed specifically for mountain bicycling. We agree that there is much to be gained by selecting focal areas to work with communities and non-profits to improve mountain bicycling opportunities.

National Scenic and Historic Trails are to be managed for the activities and uses for which they were established by Congress as set forth by law. The primary uses for the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) were determined by the Comprehensive Management Plan and are also found in 36 C.F.R. § 212.21 as "primarily a footpath and horseback riding trail." The Comprehensive Plan is explicit in its "Criteria for Location, Design, Signing and User Facilities" that the trail should "provide opportunities for hikers, horseman, and other non-mechanized travelers." The bicycle closure for the PCT (1988) was developed with the unanimous support of the PCT Advisory Council after the Comprehensive Management Planning effort was completed. As you are likely aware, the Advisory Council, required by the National Trails System Act (NTSA) (Sec.5(d)), contained members from each state at the recommendation of the Governors, representatives from each federal or independent agency that the trail passes through, and members appointed to represent private organizations, including corporate and individual landowners and land users.

Legislative direction for considering additional uses beyond the primary uses of foot and horse travel is found in NTSA Sec. 7(c): "Other uses along the trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, may be permitted by the Secretary charged with the administration of the trails." The requirement to determine an identified carrying capacity of the trail and a plan for its implementation (Section 5(e)) would also need to be met. At this time, the Forest Service will not be pursuing a Comprehensive Management Plan Amendment and the rulemaking that would be required solely to consider adding "other uses" to the PCT. We will not be pursing "termination" of the bicycle closure order either for similar concerns. Our focus for management of the PCT continues to be ecological restoration and the backlog of maintenance resulting from wildfires, the Sierra Wind Event of 2011, and the flood events of 2006 and 2009 in Washington State.

There are many places where shared use with bicycles already exists or is not prohibited, and we support working together to improve mountain bicycle access and opportunities to connect local communities to National Forest System lands. Our region is currently working with the IMBA to identify where these opportunities exist and we welcome your assistance to identify sites and work to leverage resources for planning and implementation. . . .

Sincerely,

/s/ [employee] (for)
RANDY MOORE
Regional Forester
 
#141 · (Edited)
Well, the USFS got scared and declined to take up the issue, probably faced by a deluge of comments from the HOHAs.
Yeah... I'll bet that since this thing launched, both the PCTAssociation and the PCT Manager for the USFS were bombarded by calls and emails from the HOHA's, and didn't hear a peep from the mt. biking community (which is fine, since we were awaiting a response). So the USFS's decision is skewed towards the status quo. Now it's our time to act... but we'll go above the PCTA and the regional USFS people.

As it says on the "Sharing the PCT" Facebook page, please write the head honcho of the USFS, as well as your local congressman/woman. Info is below:

"Dear PCT Enthusiast:

The Forest Service has rejected our request to rescind or reconsider the Pacific Crest Trail bicycle ban. Its letter to us, which we received two days ago, i.e., on Feb. 5, 2013, is posted below in the comments section.

It is time for you to take action and here are instructions for exactly how to do it.

We believe the Forest Service's decision is shortsighted, biased, and legally questionable. We are not going to stand by while the Forest Service ignores its own rules. The 1988 bicycle ban emerged from behind closed doors. Decisions made in 2013 cannot be made in similar secrecy.

The Forest Service's decision is bad policy-bad for cyclists, bad for the trails community, and bad for the long-term preservation and success of a trail that needs all the public support it can get.

While we work on the legalities, we ask you immediately to insist that the 1988 bicycle ban be rescinded. Here's how to do it in two simple steps:

1) Contact your member of Congress. Tell them who you are and what you want. Make it reflect your personal views. A sample letter is shown below. Your member of Congress is HERE: Find Your Representative.

2) Contact Tom Tidwell, the Chief of the Forest Service, in Washington, D.C. Tell him who you are and what you want. Make it also reflect your personal views. His contact info is here: USDA Forest Service (direct e-mail address ttidwell@fs.fed.us).

Beyond e-mailing your member of Congress and Mr. Tidwell, please spread the word among your friends and fellow trail users. Sign up on our contact list at Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail. And please let us know what you hear back from your elected officials and anyone else. Our e-mail address is pct.initiative@gmail.com.

Your voice is important and will be heard by those you write to. Each one of you who writes directly impacts the small group of people charged with making broad, far-reaching decisions about how the PCT can be used. Ask for a direct response to your inquiry and don't hesitate to follow up until you get one.

Re your letter to your Congressmember, here's a SAMPLE.

(Since your member of Congress likely won't know much about the PCT, it's probably best to start your request with an introductory paragraph along these lines:)

« Dear [name of Congressmember]:

I am a cyclist who would like to bicycle at least some part of the Pacific Crest Trail, which runs for 2,663 miles from Canada to Mexico along the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada. In 1988 the Forest Service closed the PCT to bicycles with no public input. The closure order was simply typed on a piece of paper and signed by three Forest Service employees. I would like that closure order to be rescinded.

Today, the closure procedure is widely understood to be defective because the original decision was made behind closed doors. Also, the closure order is of a type that's supposed to be temporary, as in the case of a safety problem with a campsite or a dock that needs repair. Such orders are not designed to put in place an enormously consequential blanket policy and keep it in place for a quarter of a century.

Mountain bikers did not have a voice in this matter back in 1988, but we are keenly aware of it today. Since 2010, a citizens' group called the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative (PCTRI) has been working on getting the closure rescinded or at least reassessed so that responsible cyclists like me can enjoy at least some portions of the PCT by bicycle.

But on February 5, 2013, the Forest Service announced that the behind-closed-doors approach remains in effect. It is refusing to hear from the public and plans to keep the entire trail closed to bicycles. I believe the rule to be capricious and baseless.

I am writing to ask you to ask the Forest Service to rescind the 1988 order. It was summarily imposed, so it can and should be summarily canceled. Unlike in 1988, the Forest Service knows very well how to manage shared-use trails, and the PCT should be no exception. The PCT belongs to all of us and I want my voice to be heard.

Sincerely,
[Your name] »

In addition to the foregoing and any points you think of yourself, you could mention these items to your member of Congress, the Chief of the Forest Service, and the PCTA (but keep it short!):

1. According to the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative, most of the PCT is lightly used most of the year and parts of it grow over from lack of use by anyone.

2. The Pacific Crest Trail Association admits that it cannot keep up with maintaining the entire trail. It is always seeking federal funding to do the work. Mountain bikers could quickly become an invaluable volunteer resource for maintaining the trail.

3. The PCT runs through counties that are struggling economically. The few hikers and horseback riders who use the trail don't seem to be putting much of a dent in those economic problems. Mountain bikers would bring in new revenue to the thousands of local businesses, motels and restaurants along the trail's route.

4. Mountain biking is quiet, environmentally friendly, and healthy. If everyone in the country who could ride a bike would do so, we'd have a much lower national health bill.

5. This isn't about allowing motor vehicles on the PCT. Bicycling is human-powered, just like walking, jogging, and skiing.

6. Please check out the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative's website for more information: Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail.

Thank you for your support! The campaign is far from over. We remain optimistic for long-term success."

Why would you take the time to do this? Because if you/we help make a change in policy, you'll be able to legally ride from Donner Summit to Sierra City on a perfect trail. You'll be able to legally ride loops that incorporate parts of the PCT on the west side of Lake Tahoe (Cold Stream Cyn, Tinkers Knob, Granite Chief/Squaw, Alpine, Xmas Valley, TRT, Sayles, etc.)... and much, much more incredible, remote singletrack.

Please take action.
 
#146 ·
Let the Pacific Crest Trail Association know your thoughts

Another opportunity to have your voice heard... unlike what went down in 1988:

The Pacific Crest Trail Association, which serves to "preserve, protect and promote" the PCT, just put out an on-line survey asking folks for input on their 2013 Strategic Plan. This is an excellent opportunity for mountain bikers to voice their opinions about how the MTB community can help the PCTA achieve their goals, which are:

1) The PCT corridor is permanently protected.
2) The entire PCT is designed, constructed and maintained through partnerships.
3) The PCT is well-known nationally and internationally.
4) The PCT Association has the financial resources needed to accomplish its mission.
5) The PCT Association has the human resources needed to accomplish its mission.
6) The PCT Association has the systems and infrastructure needed to accomplish its mission.

The PCTA is currently opposed to bikes. As you can imagine, the positive effect the MTB community can have on these goals of trail construction & maintenance, funding (via memberships, donations and grants), and global marketing should be hard for them to ignore. Not to mention our ability to get youth involved with the trail, creating life-long stewards of this National treasure.

Whether you have a personal interest in accessing the PCT, or simply support equal access for mt. bikers on public, tax-payer owned trails, your brief input would be appreciated. There are only 3 questions.

Survey: PCTA 2013 Strategic Plan Input

For question #2, if you don't have any insight into a particular section in need, feel free to write: "All non-Wilderness portions should be available to bicycles."

BTW, when you read "preserve & protect" the PCT, it has very little to do with bicycles (if any) and mostly everything to do with maintaining the trail while fending off development and logging encroachments that affect the character of the trail.

Thank you for your support.

 
#177 ·
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.
 
#179 ·
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....
 
#178 · (Edited)
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 Bullshit 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.
 
#181 ·
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 Bullshit 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. :)
 
#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:
 
#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!
 
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