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.
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.........
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
reoaching
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.
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!"
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.
The bigger issue is the maintenance and upkeep of the trail, especially in remote areas. I come across sections that do not have any use at all and are being lost. Who will do the upkeep? Cyclists.
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?
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.
We've created a Facebook page for this effort. I invite everyone to "like" it.
Currently we have six mtbr.com pages going, and we'll continue to post information on them. The Facebook page, however, will make it possible to post information in one place that people will receive quickly.
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.
I grabbed shot from FB page, but it's probably not the original resolution that you submitted.
If you want to send it to me in higher res, I can add the caption of your choice.
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.
Some interesting tid-bits on the origin of the PCT and the original plan...
President Lyndon Johnson's original quote from a speech in 1965, that ultimately gave "birth" to the PCT, as part of the National Trails System Act of 1968:
"TRAILS: The forgotten outdoorsmen of today are those who like to walk, hike, ride horseback or bicycle. For them we must have trails as well as highways. Nor should motor vehicles be permitted to tyrannize the more leisurely human traffic.
Old and young alike can participate. Our doctors recommend and encourage such activity for fitness and fun.
I am requesting, therefore, that the Secretary of the Interior work with his colleagues in the federal government and with state and local leaders and recommend to me a cooperative program to encourage a national system of trails, building up the more than hundred thousand miles of trails in our National Forests and Parks.
As with so much of our quest for beauty and quality, each community has opportunities for action. We can and should have an abundance of trails for walking, cycling and horseback riding, in and close to our cities. In the back country we need to copy the great Appalachian Trail in all parts of America, and to make full use of rights of way and other public paths." -LBJ - 2/8/1965
While mt. biking as we know it didn't exist when all this work was being done, I have to believe the overall vision of the PCT (and President LBJ) supports enjoying the trail on a human powered bicycle.
Overview: "-Provides for a diversity of appropriate outdoor recreation opportunities limited principally by the carrying capacity of the area and the Congressional restriction on motorized use. - 5/16/80"
-- "diversity"... not "limited". And "motorized"... not "mechanized".
Page 2:"Each National Scenic Trail should stand out, in its own right, as a recreation resource of superlative quality and physical challenge."
Page 2: "The Pacific Crest Trail traditionally has served horseback and foot traveler. This use pattern, accepted by most visitors to the trail, should be continued."
-- this was 1982. Many, many visitors to the trail today do not accept these as the only 2 means of recreation, fitness and fun.
Page 3: "The routes of national scenic trails should be so located as to provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass."
-- "maximum"... not "limited"
Page 12 (regarding Management of the trail, circa late '70's-early '80's): "Complaints were received from users regarding conflicts between equestrian and foot traffic."
-- before hikers had mountain bikers to whine about, they whined about equestrians
Page 18 (regarding the more remote/primitive portions of the PCT): "The user will enjoy maximum opportunity for solitude and testing of outdoor skills. Feelings of regulation will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Feelings of physical achievement will be an important part of the experience offered."
-- sounds like an ideal bike ride to me!
Hopefully the outcome in the end will be left to the individual land mangers which are many to decide if sections should be opened up or not. I do not think the PCTA has any authority what so ever to decide if the trail is closed or opened to bikes, although there opinion may weigh heavily with the feds.
Of course Wilderness areas will be off limit, but there are many sections of trail that just opening short section to bike use opens up amazing links for larger rides (These happen to be the most poached sections because of this).
Saying that the trail was not built to sustain bike traffic is ridiculous, if it was built to sustain horse traffic it fine for bikes. A buddy of mine who builds lots of trails was explaining how much longer it takes to build trails to support horse traffic, not only the trail bed, but clearing a large swath both horizontally & vertically allow a horse with panniers to pass.
Getting bikers involvement with the trail will only improve the trail as MUCH more maintenance will occur on sections being overgrown and with tree removal. Not to mention the monetary effect of people joining the PCTA.
Some how 1000 of miles of trails are shared between Hikers / Horses / Bikers, for the most part without indecent, and guess what the trails seem to hold up ok.
Ideally some sections will open up. Possibly with an odd/even day thing, or something seasonal, like Sept 1st till the first snowfall when the though hikers are done.
There's one example of a 1/4 miles section of PCT blocks the connection of 100's of miles of trails, do we really need to create another parallel trial in the forest, just because this 1/4 mile section that runs next to a major freeway cannot be shared? pretty unbelievable.
I see that the thread is moving away a bit from the narrower question of comments about the PCT (and what we all can do to facilitate gaining access to it when the public comment process starts), and toward a general debate about people's stubborn views on the left and the right, broadly speaking.
I'd like to say, to reassure any skeptic who thinks we're in for a big surprise when we find out how stubborn and unyielding our opponents are, that we know what we are doing. We have, collectively, many years of mountain bike access advocacy experience. We are aware that people and groups often do filter this issue through ideological lenses that inform their views on a wide range of issues.
So there's a kernel of truth to the stereotypes about people and groups who are firmly embedded with the "left" or the "right," to oversimplify, and who approach this narrow issue of increased mountain bike access to trails from that perspective. There are people who sincerely feel the U.S. is far too restrained in extracting its resources—they would prefer we be more like Australia or Canada—and support increased mtb access because they wish to bring us into their fold or use us to disadvantage their conservation-minded opponents. And there are other people for whom any mode of transport in the wild, even the most environmentally benign human-powered travel, that wasn't available to John Muir is sinful, and who adhere to their purist vision with a kind of religiosity that mirrors the intensity of religious fundamentalism in the Bible Belt. Or, on a more practical level, there are hikers and equestrians who are selfish and who believe the roadless public lands belong only to them; and there are commercial dude ranch interests who want to keep bicycles off trails so they can continue to sell as many luxury packstock and horse "expeditions" as possible, without complaints from nervous clients about bicycles.
Our task, as we work to get the PCT made available to cyclists, is to worm our way through these ideological and financial-interest currents and try to get to the finish line with something to show for it. We welcome everyone's help, as I've said before.
Imtnbike, I think we met in my office a few weeks ago...
So hopefully this is an addition to the discussion rather than just prattling on, but most of what I hear about the Bikes on the PCT discussion from "the other side" has nothing to do with bikes on the PCT. There is concern that with the limited management tools in the public land manager's toolbox, opening the door to allow bikes on the PCT (or wilderness for that matter) could only be done by removing the door from it's hinges basically, removing the ability for land managers to make decisions regarding land management. I.E. once the horses head is in the barn, the whole horse is coming in.
I don't know to what extent this is the case, but addressing it up front might be helpful in mitigating these concerns, if they are real and are mitigate-able.
Hi, John — Yes, we did, along with a third person who's posting on this thread. Thanks for giving us your time and perspective.
We're sensitive to the need to do what you propose. The concerns you mention should be unfounded, because if the Forest Service allows mountain biking and a problem crops up on any particular stretch of the PCT, the Forest Service can issue another closure order for that area and then, as it's supposed to do, review it again in a year. By which time, of course, I hope we'd have worked out any problem; there'd be a huge incentive for the local mountain bikers to do so. I bet no problem would arise that cannot be resolved.
Frankly, I would be worried if anything in our initiative caused the Forest Service to lose authority to manage the PCT as fully as it does now. We haven't asked for anything of the kind. In fact, I hear that in the past the Forest Service has deferred rather extensively to the Pacific Crest Trail Association and allowed it to govern the PCT de facto. We'd prefer that a public agency assume full authority over the trail rather than delegating de facto authority to any interest group, be it us, the PCTA, or any other entity.
Response to inquiries about mountain bikes and the PCT
10/11/12
To our members and supporters:
...
We are receiving many inquiries from you about information being posted online about mountain bikes and the PCT. We want to assure you that we are well aware of this growing campaign to open the PCT to bicycles. We are monitoring the decision-making process and we are working on a strategy to thoughtfully address this issue.
The US Forest Service has been contacted by a group of citizens requesting a review of the bicycle prohibition but has not made a decision regarding a review process. Public notification and an environmental analysis would have to take place before any change in the bicycle prohibition would be considered.
The Pacific Crest Trail Association opposes bicycle use on the trail. We will be reaching out to all of you when we know more about the process and what influence we, as hikers and equestrians, can have. We will keep you informed of our progress and your potential role in this important matter for the PCT.
Thank you for your support of the PCTA and for all you do for the trail.
If you do contact please be civil/nice. Many of these people have it deeply ingrained that MTB'rs are bad, and riding is bad....based on nothing more than anecdotes and 'feelings'.
If it is possible to change their views it would benefit all involved.
If you do contact please be civil/nice. Many of these people have it deeply ingrained that MTB'rs are bad, and riding is bad....based on nothing more than anecdotes and 'feelings'.
If it is possible to change their views it would benefit all involved.
OK....one more time.. then it's time for me to move on from this ! Not worth the BATTLE.. :madman: OH and my "feelings" got hurt.
Richard
AKA MTB'r,Roadie,Off Roader,Car Driver,Thru Hiker,MX,Golfer,Dog Owner, etc ,etc,
Really ! I just don't have time to do any except take care of the dog poop.
p.s. Also I'm joining the PCTA this w.e. You never know ?
Cheers
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
15.4M posts
515.2K members
Since 1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!