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.
Originally Posted by random walk
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.
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.
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!
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.
Originally Posted by Island20v
Apathy will get you exactly what you deserve
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.
fresh fish in stock......
Please remember that this access for MTB's would be for the non-Wilderness sections only.
Originally Posted by Island20v
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...
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
Originally Posted by Ray Raton
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.
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.
Anyone else find this verbiage disappointing?
Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.
fresh fish in stock......
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.
Originally Posted by Klurejr
Read the Official decision from USFS that this statement is based on:
[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.
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).
Tbat's no doubt due to your unsavory diet, Chief. Ticks might have shit-for-brains, but I hear they got pretty discriminating taste buds!
Originally Posted by RTSO2112
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!
Originally Posted by CHUM
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.
Originally Posted by RTSO2112
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.
Any updates on the re-naming?
Sure would be easier if we all got along.
Long live the Peaceful Coexist Trail
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.
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.
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.
fresh fish in stock......
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....
Gosh. Maybe i'll live long enough to ride that local section of the Perfect Cycling Trail legally! Then again, maybe not....
Originally Posted by CHUM
fresh fish in stock......
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.)
The above in Red is very true - all suggestions are appreciated, considered and discussed in the overall strategy.
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.)
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...
Thanks for keeping us updated, chum. Cheers to ya...
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.
Originally Posted by CHUM
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)."
fresh fish in stock......
Latest update - We finaly received the letter from the USFS....and it was as we expected
THE LETTER HAS ARRIVED
bottom line...this is a stalemate.
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
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:
For more up to date discussion you can visit the Facebook page on this subject:
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.
fresh fish in stock......
response letter from the PCTRI quoted below from the "Sharing the PCT" Facebook page
Mr. Randy Moore
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.
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
Helloooo San Diego! Input for your neck of the woods is requested: Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail: Survey #4 - Campo, CA