Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 103
  1. #51
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,223
    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.
    Visit these 2 places to help advance trail access:
    http://www.sharingthepct.org/
    http://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct

  2. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,165
    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!
    Re-Cycled Person who rides a mountain bicycle.

  3. #53
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    361
    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
    5,315
    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
    977
    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
    361
    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
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,165
    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.
    Re-Cycled Person who rides a mountain bicycle.

  8. #58
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    361
    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
    8,223
    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....
    Visit these 2 places to help advance trail access:
    http://www.sharingthepct.org/
    http://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct

  10. #60
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,833

    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
    Junior flyer
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,464
    ^^ Done. Thanks for posting this.
    Why?

    Because we like the taste of freedom; because we like the smell of danger. ~ E. Abbey

  12. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,165
    ^^Also done. And also, thanks for the post.
    Re-Cycled Person who rides a mountain bicycle.

  13. #63
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,223
    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....
    Visit these 2 places to help advance trail access:
    http://www.sharingthepct.org/
    http://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct

  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
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,165
    Re-Cycled Person who rides a mountain bicycle.

  16. #66
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,315
    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
    371
    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
    8,223
    IMBA threw their hat in



    yay!
    Visit these 2 places to help advance trail access:
    http://www.sharingthepct.org/
    http://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct

  19. #69
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    361
    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
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,165
    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.
    Re-Cycled Person who rides a mountain bicycle.

  21. #71
    most memberable
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    361
    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
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,165
    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.
    Re-Cycled Person who rides a mountain bicycle.

  23. #73
    I'm your density
    Reputation: random walk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,314
    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.
    "Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left."
    — Ty Webb

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,165
    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.
    Re-Cycled Person who rides a mountain bicycle.

  25. #75
    I'm your density
    Reputation: random walk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,314
    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.
    "Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left."
    — Ty Webb

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 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
  •