Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 129
  1. #51
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    NEW POSSIBILITIES FOR THE PACIFIC CREST TRAIL

    From an IMBA blog

    If you live in the Pacific Northwest and love mountain biking, you have probably thought about how great it would be to ride your bike on the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT), which runs from California to British Columbia and is currently closed to bikes. Each time I hike a portion of the 2,600-mile National Scenic Trail, I find myself wishing that I could also access the stunning scenery, backcountry setting and phenomenal singetrack on my mountain bike. I also think about what a great resource mountain bikers could be in the efforts to maintain the PCT and other long-distance, remote trails.

    The U.S. Forest Service recently indicated that it might consider a process to review the current ban on bicycle access to the PCT. Some bicycle advocates have actively challenged the legal basis for the current bike ban, but IMBA has not joined these efforts. We are instead focusing on communicating with both the Forest Service and other key stakeholders in the recreation community to assess current trail-use issues and identify potential opportunities.

    IMBA believes that mountain bike access to long-distance backcountry trails is extremely valuable, though that does not necessitate opening the entire PCT to bikes (we will not pursue bike access in designated Wilderness areas, and some sections might not be conducive to riding). As the discussions evolve, IMBA will provide updates about which trail segments of the PCT are best-suited for bicycle access, and we will advocate for access to those sections.
    Click on the above link for more info.
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  2. #52
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    NEW POSSIBILITIES FOR THE PACIFIC CREST TRAIL

    From an IMBA blog



    Click on the above link for more info.
    That's nice, CHUM. It's good to know that IMBA is on the side of mountain bikers.
    I KNEW there was a reason why I gave them money!

  3. #53
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Raton View Post
    That's nice, CHUM. It's good to know that IMBA is on the side of mountain bikers.
    I KNEW there was a reason why I gave them money!
    You should stay away from the PCT...nothing but trouble up there, young man.

    Stick to what you know better over at the newest retarts and morans trail system.

  4. #54
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,931
    Quote Originally Posted by RTSO2112 View Post
    You should stay away from the PCT...nothing but trouble up there, young man.

    Stick to what you know better over at the newest retarts and morans trail system.
    Care to elaborate?
    Alcohol may lead nowhere, but it sure is the scenic route!

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by RTSO2112 View Post
    Stick to what you know better over at the newest retarts and morans trail system.
    If you will translate this sentence into English, I might be able to understand it.

  6. #56
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    If you will translate this sentence into English, I might be able to understand it.
    Very exclusive.

    Only for those hardy enough and can handle the "pain"...probably too much climbing for most of you.

    Besides, if everybody new about it, it would be over run and ruined.

    The head Rat knows.

  7. #57
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by RTSO2112 View Post
    Very exclusive.

    Only for those hardy enough and can handle the "pain"...probably too much climbing for most of you.

    Besides, if everybody new about it, it would be over run and ruined.

    The head Rat knows.
    Don't mind him. He got hit on the head with a shovel in the Service, and things don't come out of his mouth (or keyboard) quite right ever since.

    What he REALLY means is that he's all for the possibility that the PCT could be opened up in San Diego county, especially up through the Laguna Mountain section. There are at least 7 or 8 potential loops that the PCT could be used for to link up with the trails just on the other side of S1 ( Sunrise Highway).
    None of it up there will appeal to the shuttle crowd. That's actually a good thing, as it's the fullface, body armored shuttlers that have basically scared and threatened all other trail users off the multiuse trail known as Noble canyon up there. This leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of hikers and equestrians, who remember a time, before mountain bikes existed, that they could freely and safely trek that trail. They can't do that anymore,
    at least not without some kind of weapon in hand. Or a war-horse. And that, of course, would be wrong. So, the rest of the triangle in the multiuse community has simply ceded their access to the Noble Canyon trail, telling themselves instead, "at least we still have the PCT".

    THIS is where a lot of the opposition is going to come from, from these members of the 'Triangle' who feel, rightly or not, that they have been bullied off of certain trails by cursing, armored-up fullface riding shuttlers. We need to figure out a way to minimize this, to depict these riders as a tiny percentage of the overall mountain bike community, an aberration, in fact, on public land. On multiuse trails. Trails that we responsible riders love and respect just as much as any "Sierrah Klubber".........in fact, we venture off-trail far less frequently than hikers and equestrians tend to, so we can point that out, we got that going for us.

    I still see a few hikers on Noble, but for the most part they act pretty skittish, even with a guy who smiles at them and has a nice bell on his bike...

    So, minimize the demonization caused by a small fraction of riders who are shuttlers, maximize the benefits of including us responsible riders in the PCT community, and I still think we have a decent shot at getting the FS to Do the Right Thing.

    But then again, everybody who knows me says I'm a hopeless optimist.

  8. #58
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    684
    Over the last 20 odd years, I have both hiked and biked the NCT.

    In hiking the NCT, I am always aware of the potential for bikers hauling arse down. And, because I also ride (it), I was much better prepared for these encounters. So, multi-use with other users has NEVER been a problem for me.
    I think it's the single-user (those that only hike or are horseback riders) that has had, like Comrade Raton said above, problems/conflicts with other users.

    As I have only hiked the PCT, mostly in the Laguna Mountains area, I have seen a few bike treads on the trails....probably left over from riders prior to the banning in 1988 (I am sure......). While hiking there, I have rarely encountered other hikers or horses.

    Allowing mtn bikes on it would initially increase traffic somewhat...but, as soon as they find out that it is NOT the same as the NCT, you will quickly see those numbers significantly decrease to those riders that have a better understanding/respect for other users on the trail. (just being honest here). It would probably be even less than what I see on the multi-use trails in the Cuyamacas, I believe. I have never seen any conflicts there or heard of any that was significant enough to cause alarm....and I (in my early years) used to bomb down some of the fireroads in Cuyumaca!

    I just hope it (PCT) opens up to bikes before I have to buy my first walker, wheelchair, toupee, or dentures!

  9. #59
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    Well the USFS issued it's reply - standard BS.

    Summary version:
    Quote Originally Posted by USFS Summary by CHUM
    You have enough trails to ride and we don't care if we are violating our own policy...

    so there - neener, neener...
    Please read FULL version and steps on how to change their mind. The USFS clearly does not comprehend how 'aware' we are as user group to the issue at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by USFS
    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
    Facebook page - Sharing The PCT
    Quote Originally Posted by Sharing The PCT
    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 · House.gov.

    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 - Caring for the land and serving people. (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 TrailHome » 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 TrailHome » Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail.

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

    PCTRI
    Letter Writing WILL make a difference - this is not a giant group of officials shutting off trail access....this is 1 or 2 people behind closed doors not doing their job because they want the easy way out. We have to make them get off their butts and do something....
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  10. #60
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,198

    Let the Pacific Crest Trail Association know your thoughts

    X-post...

    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 live across the country and support equal access for mt. bikers on public 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.

  11. #61
    Dirty by Nature
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,588
    ^^ Done. Thanks for posting this.
    Friends don't let friends ride e-"bikes" on dirt.

  12. #62
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    ^^Also done. And also, thanks for the post.

  13. #63
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    from the Sharing the PCT Facebook page.
    __________________________________________________ ___________________
    Last Thursday, PCTRI sent a letter to the Forest Service's regional forester in charge of the PCT, replying to the agency's initial rejection of our request to cancel or reconsider the no-bikes policy. The reply is long and has a lot of legal stuff in it, but perhaps a few people will be interested to read it. Those who are may want to copy it into a Word or pdf document; it'll be easier to read.

    Here's the text:

    We received your letter of February 6, 2013, declining to rescind or reconsider the 1988 order closing bicycle access to the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT).

    We hereby request that you reconsider the decision. In addition, we would like to meet with you and your staff to discuss this controversy.

    We offer the following reasons for our request, which are in
    answer to items communicated in the letter.

    I. Federal statutes and regulations

    The letter notes the existence of 36 C.F.R. § 212.21, in which the Forest Service declared that the PCT is “primarily a footpath and horseback riding trail.” The regulation was, however, promulgated in 1978, when the only alternative to foot and horse travel was by motorcycle or other motor vehicle. In the context of its time, it is essentially a declaration that the PCT is off-limits to motorized travel.

    In addition, the regulation arguably was superseded by act of Congress, because in 1983 Congress amended the National Trails System Act, which governs the PCT, to declare that “bicycling,” including specifically “trail biking”—i.e., mountain biking—is a suitable “[p]otential” trail use on national trails. (16 U.S.C. § 1246(j).) In addition, as the letter observes, “[o]ther uses along the trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, may be permitted . . . .” (16 U.S.C. § 1246(c).) This is what allows bicycle use on the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) despite a Forest Service declaration that the CDNST is primarily dedicated to foot and horse travel (see the next paragraph).

    Furthermore, primary (36 C.F.R. § 212.21) does not mean exclusive. The 2009 CDNST Comprehensive Plan declares that “[b]ackpacking, nature walking, day hiking, [and] horseback riding, . . . are compatible with the nature and purposes of the CDNST.” Mountain biking is not mentioned. Yet the same plan also declares that “[b]icycle use may be allowed on the CDNST (16 U.S.C. § 1246(c)) if the use is consistent is consistent with the applicable . . . management plan and will not substantially interfere with the nature and the purposes of the CDNST.” As is well known, lots of mountain biking takes place on the CDNST and there are few if any problems.

    Finally, we note the letter’s reference to 16 U.S.C. § 1244(e), which provides in relevant part that “within two complete fiscal years of November 10, 1978, for the Pacific Crest and Appalachian Trails, the responsible Secretary shall . . . submit . . . a comprehensive plan for the . . . use of the trail, including but not limited to, the following items: [¶] “(1) specific objectives and practices to be observed in the management of the trail, including . . . an identified carrying capacity of the trail and a plan for its implementation.”

    Since the Forest Service believes the PCT Comprehensive Plan must be revised to allow for bicycle use, then, in fairness, it should also have revised it in 1988, when three employees signed the document closing the PCT to bicycles. We are not aware that any such effort was made, and we observe that the 1988 closure order does not appear in the appendices to the plan. In addition, the statute does not call for a plan revision each time there is a change in trail management practices. Finally, within the PCT Comprehensive Plan, language exists that allows for bicycle use. It is found on page 1 of the original version and consists of President Johnson’s embryonic 1965 statement that led to his signing the National Trails System Act of 1968: “The forgotten outdoorsmen of today are those who like to walk, hike, ride, horseback, or bicycle. For them, we must have trails . . . .”

    In sum, we doubt that the enormous undertaking of a PCT Comprehensive Plan revision is required in order to repeal or reconsider the informally created 1988 PCT bicycle closure.
    Although we have asked for rulemaking in the alternative to rescinding the closure order, we also disagree with the letter’s statement that rulemaking, along with a Comprehensive Plan amendment, is required. No rulemaking accompanied the order and none is required to rescind it. It is simply a typed declaration of what should have been a short-term, temporary policy as the Forest Service worked out mountain biking management on the PCT in 1988, as it has since done successfully on the tens of thousands of miles of other trail to which the letter refers.

    II. Public input following the described PCT Advisory Council decision

    The letter mentions that the closure was unanimously supported by the then-existing PCT Advisory Council. We are not aware that any mountain bikers were on that body. More to the point, we know of no evidence that mountain bikers or the public at large were informed about this drastic change in policy.

    The lack of public notice and of an opportunity for public comment are central to our position that the policy must be reconsidered to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as 36 C.F.R. § 261.70, the Forest Service regulation that provides:

    "(a) Pursuant to 7 CFR 2.60, the Chief, and each Regional Forester, to whom the Chief has delegated authority, may issue regulations prohibiting acts or omissions within all or any part of the area over which he has jurisdiction, for one or more of the following purposes:
    [¶] . . . [¶]
    (3) Protection of property, roads, or trails.
    [¶] . . . [¶]
    (7) Public safety.
    [¶] . . . [¶]
    (9) Establishing reasonable rules of public conduct.
    [¶] . . . [¶]
    (c) In issuing any regulations under paragraph (a) of this section, the issuing officer shall follow 5 U.S.C. 553.
    (d) In a situation when the issuing officer determines that a notice of proposed rule making and public participation thereon is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, he shall issue, with the concurrence of the Chief, an interim regulation containing an expiration date.
    (e) No interim regulation issued under paragraph (d) of this section will be effective for more than 90 days unless readopted as a permanent rule after a notice of proposed rule making under 5 U.S.C. 553 (b) and (c)."

    In other words, the 1988 bicycle closure became invalid 90 days after its promulgation, because there was no rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Its effect may have been revived by the Forest Service’s decision of February 6, 2013. But in our view that decision will become ineffective on May 7, 2013, for want of the followup procedures required by 36 C.F.R. § 261.70. We understand that there may be an APA exception for so-called interpretative rules, but in our view a blanket ban on bicycles on the PCT cannot be merely interpretative given its far-reaching substantive nature and the requirement that the policy be harmonized with 16 U.S.C. § 1246(j)’s allowance for mountain biking.

    III. Questions of fairness and policy considerations

    The letter informs us that there are many miles of national forest trail managed specifically for mountain biking. Overall, however, Forest Service policy toward mountain biking is unfair and unjustifiably exclusionary. In California, Oregon, and Washington, the great majority of the most beautiful and remote Forest Service trails are off-limits to cyclists because they lie in Wilderness areas. The non-Wilderness PCT would be one of the few exceptions were it not for the separate closure order that forbids bicycle use on it too.

    The letter mentions the PCT’s problems with “ecological restoration and the backlog of maintenance.” (P. 2.) The Pacific Crest Trail Association (PCTA) has acknowledged that it cannot sustain the entirety of the trail. Presumably this is a PCTA appeal for yet more taxpayer funding. At the same time, the PCTA wants to preserve the restrictionist status quo. Mountain bikers have an established history of doing restoration and maintenance work on trails. It seems incongruous to us that the PCTA and the Forest Service would look askance at a source of volunteer labor, to be provided by a nonmotorized and environmentally benign user group, only to turn to the federal government for more money to fund the PCT for the relatively few people who currently use it. In this latter regard, our research has disclosed that much of the PCT sits virtually unused year-round except for a few weeks during which a smattering of through-hikers may walk a section.

    One continuing problem with the current policy is the manner in which it divides the trail community. On the Internet, PCT purists have been threatening to assault any mountain bikers they find on the PCT. The threats have been coming from hikers who, thanks to the 1988 closure order, regard the PCT as their taxpayer-funded private preserve and retreat. This is a management problem for the Forest Service that a fair policy will alleviate.

    IV. Unbalanced input from interest groups preceding this decision

    Finally, we wish to observe that after the Forest Service communicated to us that a review of the closure order might occur in March of 2013, we asked our supporters not to bother your staff or the PCTA before any review occurred. The PCT traditionalists were not so considerate, however, and bombarded both your office and the PCTA with hostile, pleading, and frantic e-mails. In addition, despite our request, your office has never been willing to meet with us, at the same time that we have the impression it was consulting with the PCTA regarding our request. This strikes us as unfair. Our offer to meet with you and your staff remains open.

    Again, we ask you to rescind or reconsider the 1988 order.
    __________________________________________________ ___________________

    so awesome...so very, very awesome....
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    10

    Re: Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

    I'm in. Letter to my congressman going out this afternoon.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

  15. #65
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816

  16. #66
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,931
    Yup, it's good news indeed!
    Alcohol may lead nowhere, but it sure is the scenic route!

  17. #67
    Two Wheeled Terror
    Reputation: Kryptoroxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    416
    I am not going to quote the rebuttal but it was very well stated. I will admit I am ignorant of the pct but recently I was biking in big bear. Much better than the desert and 100% of the trails out here in jtnp are off limits as well.

    I would have been very interested in supporting this as I feel that some of the most catered riders are dh. The ski slopes make trails for them to ride really cool pieces of engineering down a hill at crazy speeds. I will admit it is fun but where I get the most enjoyment from is riding single track through the woods and over the hills till I get to grandma's. The views and fresh air are wonderful and if there were some miracle where the whole trail was opened I might have to take a 2 month vacation and enjoy nature from top to bottom.
    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

  18. #68
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    IMBA threw their hat in



    yay!
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  19. #69
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    IMBA threw their hat in



    yay!
    Too bad part of our beloved PCT burned to a crisp last week, Chariot Fire in Laguna Mountains/Anza Borrego State Park...I wonder how long it will be closed. It was part of the first section of the PCT I was going to ride once it was opened up to bikes....connecting it with Pioneer Mail Trail, etc.

    Edit: Long live Inkpad!

  20. #70
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by RTSO2112 View Post
    Too bad part of our beloved PCT burned to a crisp last week, Chariot Fire in Laguna Mountains/Anza Borrego State Park...I wonder how long it will be closed. It was part of the first section of the PCT I was going to ride once it was opened up to bikes....connecting it with Pioneer Mail Trail, etc.

    Edit: Long live Inkpad!
    Don't be so dramatic, Chief. That same pice of PCT burned back in either 03, or the 07 fire. I rode on it, er, hiked it, just a few months after the burn. Sure did improve the sightlines.

  21. #71
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Raton View Post
    Don't be so dramatic, Chief. That same pice of PCT burned back in either 03, or the 07 fire. I rode on it, er, hiked it, just a few months after the burn. Sure did improve the sightlines.
    I walked a lot of the area of the PCT (Apr 2004) up there while preparing for my all-out ascent (no O2) on White Mountain later that year, so I remember the burned areas after 2003 very well. And, I was only be dramatic...for the effect!!! I remember somebody putting xmas tree lights on a freshly burned out tree west of Kwaaymii Rd.

  22. #72
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by RTSO2112 View Post
    I walked a lot of the area of the PCT (Apr 2004) up there while preparing for my all-out ascent (no O2) on White Mountain later that year, so I remember the burned areas after 2003 very well. And, I was only be dramatic...for the effect!!! I remember somebody putting xmas tree lights on a freshly burned out tree west of Kwaaymii Rd.
    Well, with any luck, we may be able to pedal that section legally before too much longer. I don't have to tell you how much that would open up in terms of possibilities up there. It would be fantastic, and there would be zero down-side to it, unless you count the butt-hurt Sierra Klubbers.

  23. #73
    banned
    Reputation: random walk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Raton View Post
    Well, with any luck, we may be able to pedal that section legally before too much longer. I don't have to tell you how much that would open up in terms of possibilities up there. It would be fantastic, and there would be zero down-side to it, unless you count the butt-hurt Sierra Klubbers.
    At a minimum -- at a minimum -- no more pavement rides between Lucky 5 and Pioneer Mail.

    For any burned mountain trails in San Diego, just count your lucky stars we don't get the post-fire blooms of Poodle Dog bush like they got in the Angeles NF. ****'s as nasty as poison oak, or worse; it overgrows trails and persists for years.

  24. #74
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by random walk View Post
    At a minimum -- at a minimum -- no more pavement rides between Lucky 5 and Pioneer Mail.

    For any burned mountain trails in San Diego, just count your lucky stars we don't get the post-fire blooms of Poodle Dog bush like they got in the Angeles NF. ****'s as nasty as poison oak, or worse; it overgrows trails and persists for years.
    I've only heard of poodle bush, never encountered it. Hopefully, I never will. Ticks are bad enough.

  25. #75
    banned
    Reputation: random walk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Raton View Post
    I've only heard of poodle bush, never encountered it. Hopefully, I never will. Ticks are bad enough.
    We had to hike like contortionists this past Spring on parts of the PCT between Cajon Pass & Agua Dulce. At a few points we were simultaneously stooping under blackened deadfalls lying over the trail and squeezing between PDB overgrowing the trail. Major suckage. There was evidence of trail crews trying to clear the deadfalls, but they hadn't caught up with everything that went down over the winter. And apparently there's nothing they can do about PDB. I would consider that part of the PCT as unrideable even if it was legal. According to a lady we talked to at a FS fire station, it may be 5 or more years before the plant goes dormant again.

    There's also PDB on the PCT between San Gorgonio and the San Bernardinos, but nowhere near as bad as in the Angeles.

    On the ticks: the worst I've ever seen was after riding Pine Mountain and Indian Creek trails, a couple Summers ago. We were still pulling ticks off and tossing them out the car windows 10 miles down the I-8.

  26. #76
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by random walk View Post
    We had to hike like contortionists this past Spring on parts of the PCT between Cajon Pass & Agua Dulce. At a few points we were simultaneously stooping under blackened deadfalls lying over the trail and squeezing between PDB overgrowing the trail. Major suckage. There was evidence of trail crews trying to clear the deadfalls, but they hadn't caught up with everything that went down over the winter. And apparently there's nothing they can do about PDB. I would consider that part of the PCT as unrideable even if it was legal. According to a lady we talked to at a FS fire station, it may be 5 or more years before the plant goes dormant again.

    There's also PDB on the PCT between San Gorgonio and the San Bernardinos, but nowhere near as bad as in the Angeles.

    On the ticks: the worst I've ever seen was after riding Pine Mountain and Indian Creek trails, a couple Summers ago. We were still pulling ticks off and tossing them out the car windows 10 miles down the I-8.
    That's all very interesting. I think the worst tick-age I ever got in SD county was from riding the shoreline flume-trail...a faint, barely used trail on the east shore of El Capitan reservoir, below ATT. This was way back in 1990, and I don't even know if that trail still exists. I wouldn't be surprised if it was gone now, but back then, I was attracting 3-4 ticks for every mile or so that we rode on it. The GF at the time was far from amused, but I was downright shocked. (She was a Midwest girl, and had grown up with ticks ). I'd grown up in the SD backcountry, mostly down around lake Otay way, and although my dad and I hiked for many miles around that lake, on both sides of the dam (you could walk across it back then) we never got a single tick on us or on our dog.

    That was a good 50 years ago, but it goes to show how a relatively short time, in geological terms, can introduce a heckuva lot of biological diversity. In this case, not really a good thing! And this poodle bush, it sounds like something that has spread in the last half-century, too.

  27. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    714
    As a PCT hiker, I don't think allowing bikes on it is a great idea. There are wide open sections of the PCT that can easily be shared for bikers but there are also narrow and very sketchy sections that bike can speed up the erosion process. I know as a future thru hiker I hope to have a safe and memorable 5-6 month trip without worrying about bikes coming around the corners.

  28. #78
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    684
    I've trail ran, hiked, and biked ALL of Cuyamaca and Laguna Rec area trails and most of all points in between in SD and Orange County over the last 20 years...not one stinkin tick, except for hiking at 1 time at both William Heiss and Hellhole Canyon. Probably get 2-3 now this w/e!

  29. #79
    BM and PQ Trail Rep
    Reputation: bankerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Island20v View Post
    As a PCT hiker, I don't think allowing bikes on it is a great idea. There are wide open sections of the PCT that can easily be shared for bikers but there are also narrow and very sketchy sections that bike can speed up the erosion process. I know as a future thru hiker I hope to have a safe and memorable 5-6 month trip without worrying about bikes coming around the corners.
    Read much, other than flyers or other propaganda the Save the PCT group sends out? It has been proven time and time again that the "erosion is greater by bike than foot" argument was fabricated from the begining. As far as the worry of a bike coming around a corner, it must be difficult to live your life afraid, knowing that at any moment you could be run down by another trail user. Do you even ride a bike? Are you that bad or discourteous that you regularly run down hikers on the trail? You are entitled to you opinions, just try to sound like you have a thought that is your own rather than using somebody else's worn, tired, and false arguments.
    Apathy will get you exactly what you deserve

  30. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    714
    The argument of erosion is one little minor concern as I know numerous hikers and horses ride this trail regularly. If this argument is strictly for the SoCal portions of the PCT I think it's fine but when you get up into the northern sections of this trail it get really steep and very sketchy. These are areas that a hiker or rider will not want to encounter one another. Don't talk to me about living your life afraid as I have had numerous deployments to some not so fun places. The PCT is a place to become one with nature and excape the daily stresses. As a future thru hiker, I'd rather not have to deal with added presence of bikes.

  31. #81
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Island20v View Post
    The argument of erosion is one little minor concern as I know numerous hikers and horses ride this trail regularly. If this argument is strictly for the SoCal portions of the PCT I think it's fine but when you get up into the northern sections of this trail it get really steep and very sketchy. These are areas that a hiker or rider will not want to encounter one another. Don't talk to me about living your life afraid as I have had numerous deployments to some not so fun places. The PCT is a place to become one with nature and excape the daily stresses. As a future thru hiker, I'd rather not have to deal with added presence of bikes.
    Please remember that this access for MTB's would be for the non-Wilderness sections only.

    To add - seeing a bike every couple days or so when you are in the back country shouldn't be too much of a concern...

    my .02
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  32. #82
    Beer Please! SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,185
    Sorry I am so behind in joining this recent discussion. I just read that blurg you linked and noticed something really weaird about one of the statements

    The USFS recognizes that the CDNST’s primary use is for hiking and horseback riding, and yet mountain biking should be allowed where it will not interfere with those primary uses.
    The only reason that trails primary use is hiking and horseback riding is BECAUSE bikes were not allowed. I would venture to say the user group for MTB has grown a bit over the years since the ban and once that trail and the PCT are opened up to MTB the "Primary" user group could change, and hikers and horseback riders could easily be in the minority, especially on the more localized sections of trail they are looking to open up.

    Anyone else find this verbiage disappointing?
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

  33. #83
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    ...Anyone else find this verbiage disappointing?
    Not really. Equestrians are the super minority, and that's not going to change anytime soon. Hikers are the super majority, and that's not going to change anytime soon.

    Read the Official decision from USFS that this statement is based on:
    http://www.sharingthepct.org/wp-cont...2013-05-31.pdf

    [header: Biking [Is] Not Substantial Interference with Nature and Purposes of the Act]...

    We have thoroughly analyzed the laws, regulations and policy in order to determine that including mountain bikes on this segment is not a substantial interference with the nature and purposes of the Act. [“The Act” means the Trails System Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq.]
    Our review of law, policy and direction together with the considerations specific to this segment indicates that bikes are an appropriate use of the CDNST. . . .
    We believe “Maximum outdoor recreation potential for conservation and enjoyment . . .” (16 U.S.C. 1242) is best met through the inclusion of bikes in these multiple-use management areas
    FSM 2353.03 directs us to provide a variety of opportunities, modes of travel and to emphasize long-term cost effectiveness. . . . Most of our non-motorized volunteer groups in the area are either mountain bike clubs or multiple-use advocates; therefore, the trail should be designed to accommodate those non-motorized uses to increase the chances for sustainable construction and long-term maintenance for which the forests have neither the staffing or funding to accomplish on their own.
    FSM 2353.42 directs the “nature and purposes of CDNST are to provide for high-quality scenic primitive hiking and horseback riding opportunities and to conserve natural, historic and cultural resources along the corridor.” . . . No significant differences in effects have been described for any of the action alternatives that would indicate that a substantial interference with the nature and purposes of The Act has occurred through the inclusion of bikes.

    After reviewing the effects analysis presented in the EA, we have found no substantial interference from the inclusion of bikes with the nature and purposes of The Act.
    Volunteer base consistent with The Act (16 U.S.C. 1250) is primarily mountain biking clubs in this area. Due to limited agency funding and staffing, the GMUG [Gunnison] and RGNF [Rio Grande] [national forests] would rely heavily on these groups for the sustainable construction and long-term maintenance of this trail...
    Many hikers have expressed a desire for trail design that avoids pointless ups and downs, moderate grades, grade control (switchbacks), and proper drainage (all features similar to Trail Class 3 with the designed use of Hiker); these nearly identical design features would also be accomplished though our recommendation of Trail Class 2 or 3 with use designed for Bicycle which has the added capacity for volunteer construction and maintenance that is not likely to be generated by hiking groups alone....

    and it goes on and on and on about how MTB'rs are not only welcome, but needed. It really is a HUGE decision that directly applies to the PCT (as it was open to bikes whose closure is 'legally gray' at best...IMO)

    Also, this article reports on how the USFS is in desperate need of volunteers to maintain trails:
    Report: 3 of 4 U.S. Forest Service trails fail to meet standards

    And lastly, Rangers are really not enthused that if the PCT runs thru their area they must allocate 20% of their budget to maintain a trail that is (for the most part) utilized 6 weeks out of the year by a few hundred hikers.
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  34. #84
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Thanks again, Chum, this time for condensing all those big words down into nice talking-point blurbs that slow reedrs like me can understand.
    And yeah....virtually ALL of those points, while originally intended to reference CO, apply PERFECTLY to our chunk of the PCT that runs through SD county. Especially the part that runs through the Lagunas.
    I'm just thinking of the fun and exchanged pleasantries that I will enjoy on that day in the ideal near-future, as I ride my full-suspensionbicycle right by the veranda of the Sierra Club lodge, which Jesus in His wisdom spared in this last fire we had here. (Well personally I think Cal Fire had a lot to do with it).

  35. #85
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by RTSO2112 View Post
    I've trail ran, hiked, and biked ALL of Cuyamaca and Laguna Rec area trails and most of all points in between in SD and Orange County over the last 20 years...not one stinkin tick, except for hiking at 1 time at both William Heiss and Hellhole Canyon. Probably get 2-3 now this w/e!
    Tbat's no doubt due to your unsavory diet, Chief. Ticks might have ****-for-brains, but I hear they got pretty discriminating taste buds!

  36. #86
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    Please remember that this access for MTB's would be for the non-Wilderness sections only.

    To add - seeing a bike every couple days or so when you are in the back country shouldn't be too much of a concern...

    my .02
    As I like to look at things from many different angles before making an informed decision, like everybody else on the planet does (cough, cough)...adding a few bikers to the mix on trails adds additional safety as they are in effect contributing to the "patrolling" of the trails along with hikers, etc...all looking out for each other and potentially aiding some one else on the trail...or noticing concerns/conditions on the trail to alert Rangers, authorities, etc. Sounds like a win-win!

    I should know as I have been either hiking or biking (solo) on SD or OC trails and haven't seen a soul for 2-3 or 4 hours at a stretch or even the whole time out on the trail (up to 6-8 hours).

  37. #87
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by RTSO2112 View Post
    As I like to look at things from many different angles before making an informed decision, like everybody else on the planet does (cough, cough)...adding a few bikers to the mix on trails adds additional safety as they are in effect contributing to the "patrolling" of the trails along with hikers, etc...all looking out for each other and potentially aiding some one else on the trail...or noticing concerns/conditions on the trail to alert Rangers, authorities, etc. Sounds like a win-win!

    I should know as I have been either hiking or biking (solo) on SD or OC trails and haven't seen a soul for 2-3 or 4 hours at a stretch or even the whole time out on the trail (up to 6-8 hours).
    Same here, Chief, but I ain't complaining. I'd add to that the pretty solid fact that bicyclists tend to stick to the trail surface far more than either hikers or equestrians, who wander off-trail to check out an interesting rock, bush, etc. Pretty soon a new mini-spur trail is created. That's impact, for sure, and cyclists don't contribute to that.

    The only place I found even lonelier was the AZ trail up in the high country south of Flagstaff and north of Mormon lake. I rode entire days on that trail and only saw elk. Awesome.

  38. #88
    CEB
    CEB is offline
    The beauty surrounds
    Reputation: CEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,232
    Any updates on the re-naming?

    Sure would be easier if we all got along.

    Long live the Peaceful Coexist Trail

  39. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,938
    We ride PCT quite regularly up here in Big Bear, most hikers have been fine with us riding, only encountered a few Nazi's though.
    We have a habit that pretty much all of the riders who ride PCT up here practice, we pick up down trees and brush early in the year, we offer water/ food to the hikers and equestrians and support good riding habits.

  40. #90
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    684
    Today, I was reconning PCT (in hiking mode) from Morris Ranch Rd TH to Burnt Rancheria Campground. This is a really nice area to hike, lots of shade and scenery.
    The short (1/4 mile) spur to the Observatory is nice, too. It was the first time I had been up there and it was closed for the holiday week end, but no one was around to stop us from wandering around and checking out the place and the 4 dome telescopes.

    If/when the PCT opens up to mtbing, this is the first stretch I want to do. Adding it to Red Tail Roost, BLT, other open trails in the area would be cool. Btw, there is no trail signage or kiosk/map at the Morris Ranch Rd TH. So, I went to the Agua Dulce TH to check out its kiosk/map before we started hiking. It did not indicate the trail continuance (called Star Party Trail) from the Observatory area all the way to the first PCT connection where it turns into the PCT north and PCT south via Fred Canyon and intersects with Thing Valley Rd. I some mtb tracks on this section...probably KOP's...then they abruptly stop when it turns into the PCT intersection with Thing Valley Rd.

    Does anybody know if Thing Valley Road is mtb friendly (as in legal) or is it private?
    *There are no gates to stop you nor are there any signs in this intersecting area that it is legal or not or private. I did see a couple of water jugs under an oak tree for the PCT thru hikers.

  41. #91
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Not my tracks, Chief....well, maybe a little. Thing Valley Rd. is legal for bikes all the way, and also I think for vehicles too. There's 'social' s.t. from Morris Ranch Rd. over to Thing Valley that does not infringe on PCT at all.

    The entire stretch of the PCT from the Anza Borrego Sunrise trailhead south to Kitchen Creek Rd. would be highly compatible for bicycle traffic. Most compatible for xc/trail-type bikes, as there is always some climbing that needs to be done, it ain't all just a big dh-shuttle run kind of deal. All of the possible loops that would connect trails on one side of S1 with the other side.......some really varied epic xc rides would be born.

    They're just waiting for some common-sense policy review by the FS.

  42. #92
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    Quick update - IMBA expands on gaining access to appropriate sections on National Scenic Trails
    Long Live Long Rides! | International Mountain Bicycling Association


    LONG LIVE LONG RIDES!
    ...The Pacific Crest Trail currently offers no bicycle access. IMBA has already begun advocating for a change in this policy. Not for sections of the PCT that are protected as Wilderness, but in places where mountain biking would be compatible with other uses.

    The revamped “Long live long rides” campaign does not focus solely on National Scenic Trails. We are interested in developing possibilities for multi-hour and multi-day rides wherever we find them. North Dakota’s Maah Daah Hey trail (an IMBA Epic) is a good example of a multi-day ride....

    It was interesting to watch the reaction when a hiking group recently stated, “Some trails aren’t meant to be shared,” and launched an online petition claiming that mountain biking is not an appropriate activity for National Scenic Trails. They were reacting to an IMBA fundraising appeal that pointed to the work I’ve described above. Many of the resulting comments — perhaps even the majority of them — were supportive of increased access for mountain bikers, though plenty of people spoke up for the notion that mountain bikers should not be granted any new access.

    IMBA is committed to the idea that trails can be shared. Mountain bikers do not need access to every inch of every long-distance trail, but there are good opportunities to expand IMBA's shared-use agreements with land managers, and with other stakeholder groups. We are also eager to help, and have much to offer, with volunteer stewardship efforts on these trails. I am utterly convinced that trail experiences are enriched when a diversity of outdoor enthusiasts work together to enjoy and protect common resources....
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  43. #93
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    Quick update - IMBA expands on gaining access to appropriate sections on National Scenic Trails
    Long Live Long Rides! | International Mountain Bicycling Association


    LONG LIVE LONG RIDES!
    Gosh. Maybe i'll live long enough to ride that local section of the Perfect Cycling Trail legally! Then again, maybe not....

  44. #94
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    Update from the Sharing the PCT FB page:

    We're way behind in updating our loyal audience, for which we apologize.

    The lack of a recent update prompted Maxwell Baker to ask yesterday if PCTRI is dead.

    Not at all. But we're at a stalemate.

    We had a meeting with the Forest Service on April 17 that was attended by top FS brass and IMBA's Tom Ward. We're still waiting for the formal response to that meeting, which will come in the form of a letter. But although obviously we haven't seen it, we understand that it's going to be another "no."

    So, as said, it's a stalemate. We have discredited the moral basis for the no-bikes closure order. We've raised serious questions about the legality of the closure. It appears to be no longer much respected among mountain bikers. But the FS shows no inclination to budge. PCTA remains hostile. We have no idea whether the FS will continue to enforce the closure order in non-Wilderness areas. Maybe it will, if only to prod a mountain biker to go to court and try to get the closure order overturned so that the FS can get this monkey off its back. There's no way to tell. (This comment, by the way, should not be construed as an invitation to ride the PCT against the FS's policy or as a statement that fighting a ticket in court would be likely to succeed. The courts are unpredictable and the consequences of a citation could be unpleasant, so don't chance it.)

    Stay tuned.
    What we plan to do is wait for the Forest Service's letter, give you a fuller update on what's been going on, and ask for your advice on what we should do next. This page now has about 1200 or 1300 followers. Your collective wisdom is greater than that of our group, by dint of sheer numbers. (That's why we have the jury system in the U.S.: 12 people chosen at random tend to make better decisions than a judge with 25 years' experience.)
    The above in Red is very true - all suggestions are appreciated, considered and discussed in the overall strategy.

    Bottom line is the PCT (sections) will be opened to Mountain Bikes....its inevitable IMO.

    What we are dealing with is the vestigial thrashings of a vocal minority acting as obstructionists...most hikers (outdoor lovers like ourselves) are happy to share trails in the back country. We all know once you get a few miles from the trailhead it's virtually abandoned...

    my .02
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  45. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,412
    Thanks for keeping us updated, chum. Cheers to ya...

  46. #96
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    We all know once you get a few miles from the trailhead it's virtually abandoned...

    my .02
    I hiked the PCT areas up in the Lagunas a lot this summer...during the "monsoon rains" even...barely a soul/sole up there 1/2 mile past the closest campgrounds.

    I was saying to myself as I was hiking it, "they need to open this trail up soon before it's too late (for me)."

  47. #97
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    Latest update - We finaly received the letter from the USFS....and it was as we expected

    THE LETTER HAS ARRIVED

    As expected, we have received a letter from the USFS, which can be effectively summed up in two letters: “NO”

    Although not what we were hoping for, none of us here at the PCTRI are even remotely surprised by this, as it has been the anticipated response since our initial meeting with them. Let us be clear, that we are not by any means considering this a defeat. Quite the contrary actually, as our movement is gaining momentum. We are currently in the process of planning our subsequent actions and will be updating our site as we march forward.

    We’re still in the process of digesting the information contained within the letter, but one thing is clear: the PCTRI and the USFS continue to disagree on several fundamental points, and it may take a much higher authority to formally sort out our differences. Whether or not we want to pursue such avenues remains to be seen.

    At this point, we’re still in the planning phases and are continuing to add supporters of our cause with each passing day. We hope that you all continue to spread the word about the PCTRI and as always, we welcome your thoughts, suggestions and ideas. A copy of the letter has been posted to our history page, and can be found there or by clicking here: USFS November 2013 Reply
    bottom line...this is a stalemate.

    USFS has no interest in changing, nor do they have any real interest in enforcement (my opinion only).

    from the Sharing the PCT FB page Moderator:
    The issue may be decided, for a fraction of the cost, if a Forest Service employee encounters a mountain biker on the PCT and cites her or him, and she or he decides to bring the citation to court and challenge the legality of the closure. This page has hypothesized before that the FS might even be looking to cite a mountain biker so as to get to court and have a court put an end to this morass, one way or the other. Judging by its recent letter to PCTRI, the FS appears not to be happy about those Unabomber-style threats on PCT-L (the PCTA-affiliated discussion group) to sabotage the PCT and/or assault mountain bikers.

    As this page has stated before, however, don't make yourself a guinea pig for a citation. With modern computerization of criminal record systems, even a misdemeanor conviction can present problems, such as not being eligible for a job you want or being unable to visit the United Kingdom or Canada. The closure could be legally valid—the FS says it is, anyway—so people should not defy it.
    For more up to date discussion you can visit the Facebook page on this subject:
    https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  48. #98
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    Update:

    response letter from the PCTRI quoted below from the "Sharing the PCT" Facebook page

    Mr. Randy Moore
    Regional Forester
    U.S. Forest Service
    1323 Club Drive
    Vallejo, California 94592-1110

    Re: Nonmotorized multiuse on the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT)—reply to your letter of Nov. 25.

    Dear Mr. Moore:

    Thank you for your letter of November 25.

    We were disappointed, but not surprised, to read that you are not rescinding Regional Order 88-4 at this time. Still we are asking that USFS engage in a public process to consider an order or regulation that is consistent with current best practices and compliant with the Administrative Procedure Act. The 1988 closure order was created and signed by three Forest Service employees only after the Forest Service Chief declined to issue a regulation. We continue to believe that the Administrative Procedure Act calls for a public process to consider the regulation of trail use on the PCT.

    The 1978 Code of Federal Regulations declaration, which provides that the PCT is primarily intended for foot and horse use, is not an impediment to reassessing the current use regime. We have no problem stipulating that the PCT is primarily intended for those historically established uses. As is the case with the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, mountain biking can coexist alongside those primary uses. Mountain biking exists alongside horse and hiker use almost everywhere else, including on those tens of thousands of Forest Service trail and road miles to which your November 25 letter adverts.

    Additionally, and beyond the questions of Administrative Procedure Act requirements and the application of the 1978 CFR provision, the Forest Service rightfully prides itself on its own participatory rulemaking processes. In the case of the PCT bicycle closure, there was not, nor has there ever been, a process that would meet Forest Service standards of practice. A cautionary, temporary rule has become established, but because of the lack of an adequate promulgation process, its legitimacy is tenuous.

    We, like you, are saddened by the acrimony that has emerged over this issue. It continues unabated and no end to it seems in sight, judging by posts on the Internet. We pledge to you that for our part we will continue to conduct ourselves civilly and with a commitment to the community’s good as we continue our advocacy.

    We welcome the Forest Service’s generous offer to "organize a professionally facilitated discussion in the coming year, with the goal of finding common ground for resolving disagreements" and your invitation to us to help locate a qualified facilitator. We are trying to find a facilitator that we can recommend, and we look forward to participating in the eventual conference or workshop. We will help create meaningful and productive dialogue at any meeting that does take place.

    We feel very strongly that any such process should have clear goals, milestones and criteria toward planning and creating a national trails system that fairly and transparently reflects conservation and societal needs that have evolved since the current system and management practices were put in place.

    Per your invitation, we will be in contact with [the] Regional Trails Program Manager, and/or [the] Pacific Crest Trail Program Manager, on these matters.

    Sincerely yours,

    PCTRI
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  49. #99
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,198
    Alright SoCal riders... will those of you who are familiar with the lay of the land in Kern County please provide your input on the survey below? It is all anonymous, so you won't be incriminating yourself if you've accidentally found yourself on the PCT before. Please pass along to your bike buddies too. Thanks!

    Overview: Sharing the PCT - Section Survey

    Section Map: Sharing the PCT - Kern County, CA map

    Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/7BN6JMK

  50. #100
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,198
    Helloooo San Diego! Input for your neck of the woods is requested: Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail: Survey #4 - Campo, CA


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •