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
#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
 
#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.
 
#40 ·
You must be joking or not really care the trails your ride? Seriously, stop poaching trails? What planet do you live on my friend? It's only poaching if a ranger sees you, otherwise it's riding a trail.

You can do that and not ride the PCT or other 'closed' trails but that is your decision. Just like how some choose to drive the speed limit. It's their decision. And if I and or others want to ride trails such as the PCT, which I do, I will.

There is no advantage to not riding a trail that says it's not open to bikes except that you miss out on a great ride. Now that is your right to not ride a trail but don't force it on others...what's next, pulling over the guy in the car next to us for talking on the phone?

Getting trails to open up does not happen over night, next month or in one year. It takes years, and I for one will support all efforts 100% but no way will I wait for that to happen b/c if I did, I just might be too old to even ride my bike on that trail when it finally does open.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 262741
#41 ·
Why not use the tactic so many of those I scorn on a daily basis use. Occupy.
Organize and occupy the trail to make a point. Not really my style but it would actually force the issue if done correctly with proper media in attendance.
Do it a bunch of times and the lame authorities enforcing unreasonable trail cosures will look like fools. What are they gonna do arrest a bunch of bikers riding down a trail? Ooooooh what an outlaw!! Is that a reasonable use of taxpayer dollars? Don't they have pot dealers to bust or something? The optics are powerful to consider.
I guess the problem is the community as a whole is far to scattered. Unless you joined with other users also locked out.........
 
#42 ·
Just Saying

I have been fighting for trial access and the loss of trails for years.. locally the BLM and FORA. But I have to disagree on allowing bikes on the PCT
This trail is already getting over crowded and many sections have quotas on them for a good reason.
We have plenty of trails in the country to ride and many other ones to fight for. Leave this one alone... grab a backpack and enjoy what John Muir and many others fought very hard for.
Hike the PCT slowly and peacefully and you might re-think your stand on allowing bikes on the PCT.

Pack it in Pack it out ...yes your TP

RP
 
#44 ·
I have been fighting for trial access and the loss of trails for years.. locally the BLM and FORA. But I have to disagree on allowing bikes on the PCT
This trail is already getting over crowded and many sections have quotas on them for a good reason.
We have plenty of trails in the country to ride and many other ones to fight for. Leave this one alone... grab a backpack and enjoy what John Muir and many others fought very hard for.
Hike the PCT slowly and peacefully and you might re-think your stand on allowing bikes on the PCT.

Pack it in Pack it out ...yes your TP

RP
Same argument all the anti bikers use all the time: you got plenty of trails to ride, so leave the PCT/Wilderness/"whatever trail they want to excludes us from" alone. Stats just don't support this. Cyclists have access to maybe 20%-30% of the trails that hikers do. And the PCT has used the best route in many spots. Do you know that the PCTA would not even let a new multi use trail cross the PCT? That's right! How amazing is that? When we have exclusive access to 2600 mile of bike only trail, then maybe we can consider leaving the PCT alone, but until then we should argue for sharing.
 
#43 ·
If the trail were opened, then it would then be maintained. Ironically, the current user group(s) are those who say they care, are adament against bikers, are the first to walk around the fallen tree and establish a re-route. Generally speaking the mountain biking community are trail stewards and care about the trails, the land/envioronment and stewardship.
 
#45 ·
A good model on a small scale is the Tahoe Rim Trail. Sections of the trail are open to bikes, section of wilderness are not. This could be applied to the PCT. As for overcrowded areas that are not wilderness, keep thise closed as well. With that said, I-80 north has sections that will only see thru hikers, period. Such little use that the trail is being lost and not even close to maintained. These are areas that could be opened to riding. In the past the TRT had odd/even days, it could also be before July and after Labor Day.

There is always the misinformed or confrontational hiker where legal trails cross the PCT. It is about education and information. As for bikers, this is a situation where trail etiquette and education goes a long ways. I see this lacking as a rider to other riders. Since the PCT is generally a XC trail, one would think the majority of the cyclists would be a bit more on the up and up and stewards of the trail and the sport.
 
#50 ·
A good model on a small scale is the Tahoe Rim Trail. Sections of the trail are open to bikes, section of wilderness are not..... With that said, I-80 north has sections that will only see thru hikers, period. Such little use that the trail is being lost and not even close to maintained. These are areas that could be opened to riding....
This is an important point that you and others are making. The area you are referring to is the notorious "Section O", in the PCT guidebook. It is overgrown and dying from lack of use and maintenance, and there are many places where additional trail use and the increased pool of volunteers that come along with it would be hugely beneficial.

It is the blanket closure that needs to be lifted, and it does not mean that every foot of the trail would be open to bikes.

Long live the PCT!

-D
 

Attachments

#47 · (Edited)
Disclaimer #1 I work for a non-profit managing about 20K acres of land, and am our land manager
Disclaimer #2 I'm a little cranky from having just had to fix a bunch of atv damage on one of our non-motorized singletracks (motorized trail less than 100 yards away); went from tight to blown in 1 day. arrrgghhh!

re:poaching
IMO poach if you want, don't if you don't. But the whole "I'm poaching as a civil disobedient" thing... I wonder if that's what the dog walkers that bag their dog poo and don't pack it out leaving it for the 'trail janitor' (me), or the equestrian post-holing up a trail that is very clearly marked as no equestrians, or guy on the atv was doing when he blew up my nice new berms!!!

Edit: I know for a fact that there are atv'ers (and motos, but they at least keep the trails tight still) that at least discuss roosting up berms to keep trails from becoming proprietary to mountain bikers on the trail network east of Truckee. That is not really poaching because they are all user-created though.

rant over
 
#51 ·
Found this blog: Going Long | Ryan's Cycling Blog

Loved this piece:
From a litigation standpoint, however, some knuckle-headed hikers adhere so completely to hiker-biker-horse-circle-of-life-on-the-trail signs that I could scream. The sign gives a stubborn hiker license to plod along in front of a biker at a walking pace instead of taking a quick step off the trail to let the biker pass. The vast majority of hikers travel sensibly, but a few follow the sign like a religion. I say, get rid of the signs and replace it with a disclaimer that says: "If you get hurt while acting like an a$$hole, it's on you!"
 
#54 ·
That's fine, Richard. Let a hundred flowers bloom, as the saying goes. Not every mountain biker will support this effort, and not every PCT through-hiker will oppose it.

One thought occurred to me, however. I can't remember when the PCT came into being, but I know it was by 1981, because I backpacked 125 miles of it in Oregon that year. The closure order came into being in 1988. I haven't heard of any complaints from the time that bicycles were allowed on the trail, which must have been the case for a decade or longer.
 
#56 ·
Fill the void, what section(s) are those? All information is useful for when the time comes to present an argument to the government.

Diesel~ (previous page) mentioned that PCT section O in California is disappearing for lack of use. That's in and/or near Shasta County. Is that the same area you're mentioning?
 
#57 ·
I noticed that the Pacific Crest Trail Association's official stance is very anti-MTB. They claim that bikes are more damaging to trails than horses and talk about the damage done by illegal bike use. I checked their website recently and was unable to find the article. Unfortunately, the official nature of their organization gives some credibility to their claims.
 
#60 ·
No, not the PCT. I think it's the fabled 401 trail near Crested Butte, Colo. But others have pointed this out too. Originally I thought about it and decided it wasn't worth worrying about—it's just a cyclist on a trail. But I wonder if I should change it to include a caption. FB doesn't allow a caption AFAIK, but I could edit the photo with a program like Microsoft Paint (yes, I know it's primitive, but it works) to point that out. Any suggestions welcome.
 
#64 ·
Done, thanks, using your image. It's not great, but it'll do for now. I have discovered that every single photo editing program I have (all rather basic except for Microsoft Picture Manager) either won't allow me to add text in white (I can only do it in black) or won't allow me to add text at all! Ridiculous. Were it otherwise, I have a ton of photos from my own mountain biking in Colorado that I could use. But again, I think this will do for now.
 
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