Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

29K views 128 replies 30 participants last post by  random walk 
#1 ·
For the last two to three years a small group of us has been working to get mountain bike access to non-Wilderness sections of the Pacific Crest Trail. (About 60% of the PCT lies outside Wilderness.)

We have convinced the Forest Service that its 1988 closure order requires reconsideration.

As a result, the Forest Service is going to begin a rulemaking procedure, probably in March of 2013, to consider making the non-Wilderness parts of the PCT multiuse. This will involve public notice and comment.

When something similar happened with the Continental Divide Trail about four years ago, the Forest Service received about 8000 comments. The PCT reconsideration can be expected to generate even more controversy.

If the Forest Service decides to keep bikes off the Pacific Crest Trail, we can expect that closure to stay in place for the rest of our lives and maybe those of our children. If the Forest Service decides to open it, it will be revolutionary.

Stay tuned. We'll be looking for your help in coming months.
 
See less See more
#69 ·
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!
 
#97 ·
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
 
#120 ·
What I find hilarious is that all the hikers who are against Bikes on the PCT have no idea exactly what kind of riders they would be sharing with. The PCT is not know for having Gnarly downhills with drop off, jumps and other features that Big Hit and All Mountain type riders are going to want to hit.

I can only really see the weight wienies and other Serious Cross Country guys be interested in doing bike-packing trips, to me these kinds of riders are the ones who do not destroy trails, have a serious love for the environment, etc, etc.

On top of that, the PCT is not going to become some sort of MTB Commuter lane, it is still only going to be traversed by the more hardcore nature lovers who plan for years to make a trek of this sort on a bike.

Having more nature lovers on the trails will only make them safer for everyone, especially for hikers. Imagine a hiker gets ill or hurt way up in a wilderness section and a MTB comes along. The MTB rider could more quickly get to a place to notify help than another hiker could......

The entire argument is so ridiculous.
 
#121 ·
It appears you haven't been on the PCT that much!

I have been on lots of it from Idyllwild on down...and there are some especially good sections of it that bikers would love to hit (mainly XCers*). Up in east SD county mountains, you know where I am talking about...the ST (err, I mean, PCT) there is beautious XC stuff!!! Up in Idyllwild, though, the ST (I mean PCT) there is (err, I mean, would be) great for both XC and DHers. So, if opened up, both types would go there, trust me.
 
#126 ·
Exactly. And a bicycle on that trail would have a much much lower chance of going off-trail than a hiker or an equestrian. It's how we roll....we stay on the track. Hikers and horse peeps just wander off the trail whenever they feel like it, to see some flowers, or check out the view.

Actually, mtb riders are less impactful on the trail tread than horses, and less likely to impact the ground and habitat on either side of the trail than hikers.

In short, mtb riders on the PCT are the best possible user group for that trail, if you just look at the facts. And think about who will save the flowers and the horny-toads.
That would be us.
 
#3 ·
I will, definitely. If you belong to any local mtb group, it would be helpful if you could alert the group leaders. At some point the Forest Service will be collecting comments from the public, and it'll be important for groups to tell their members so they can all weigh in. Thanks!
 
#6 ·
Yes, San Diego would suddenly have many enticing additional riding options. I grew up there and know mountain biking is more limited in San Diego County than is fair.

As for Wilderness (replying to sirsam84), we have another group that has lobbied the Forest Service at very high levels and established a dialogue. Unfortunately, however, on Wilderness the agencies (FS, BLM, NPS) are unwilling to budge, even though it is doubtful that the Wilderness Act of 1964 (the main Wilderness law) justifies their no-bikes rules. The bicycle bans in Wilderness were created by the agencies out of thin air from about 1977 to 1984 and rest on slim legal justification. But it would be expensive to go to court to challenge those rules and people don't seem interested, which I can understand given the cost.
 
#7 ·
Yes, San Diego would suddenly have many enticing additional riding options. I grew up there and know mountain biking is more limited in San Diego County than is fair.

As for Wilderness (replying to sirsam84), we have another group that has lobbied the Forest Service at very high levels and established a dialogue. Unfortunately, however, on Wilderness the agencies (FS, BLM, NPS) are unwilling to budge, even though it is doubtful that the Wilderness Act of 1964 (the main Wilderness law) justifies their no-bikes rules. The bicycle bans in Wilderness were created by the agencies out of thin air from about 1977 to 1984 and rest on slim legal justification. But it would be expensive to go to court to challenge those rules and people don't seem interested, which I can understand given the cost.
Well, in just the last couple of years, mtb'ing has gotten a LOT more limited here. So, the PCT possibility seems almost too good to be true.

As to the wilderness thing, the bike rule was an entirely arbitrary deal with TONS of underlying politics and agendas attached. Those kind of people don't like to budge, not even an inch.

But at least we are better off than Texas, where there is NO National Forest or BLM land to even argue access over. It's all private 'proppity.
 
#13 ·
Sign me up. PCT would be a huge welcome to the existing trails up here in Big Bear. We already ride it, and the rangers dont seem to mind, since it is us who reports most problems as well as removes fallen trees and debris from the trails, we are also good riders up here who respect the trail and dont skid or cut corners, we also respect other trail users, but it would be great to have it legal.
 
#14 ·
Thanks, Jeff, ambassadorhawg, dirtvert, and everyone who's expressed interest or is offering to help. It might be a while before we ask for anything. Following suggestions on various mtbr threads (I've posted this news on 5 Pacific or Nevada regional forums plus the Passion forum), I realize we should create a Facebook page; it'll be easier than creating a website under our own domain name. I'll be working on that and report back.

It's also helpful to hear what the situation is in various areas, like Jeff's reference to Big Bear. Our information is limited and you all collectively know much more about the PCT's local use status and trail condition than we could ever find out on our own.
 
#17 ·
It's also helpful to hear what the situation is in various areas, like Jeff's reference to Big Bear. Our information is limited and you all collectively know much more about the PCT's local use status and trail condition than we could ever find out on our own.
During weekdays I'd say the PCT around Mt Laguna in San Diego is pretty sparsely traveled and riders do use it responsibly. I wouldn't ride it on a weekend/holiday as there would be some hikers then that wouldn't be expecting a bike - but the sight lines are pretty good and I think the trail would be fine for mixed use in the future. Every rider I have spoken with that has used the PCT up on Mt Laguna has said they never ran into objections from any other users. Every hiker and trail runner I've spoken with has had no issue with responsible bicyclists on that section of the trail as it is pretty mellow and everyone seems to be on their good behavior. That said, I think total trips on that section of trail are pretty low on weekdays so potential for conflict/controversy is low.
 
#19 ·
I talked to the most reliable source up here in Big Bear, won't name any names, but if anyone would know, it would be him, and he said the PCT rumor is just that, a rumor, he said when he heard about it, he made some calls and it was confirmed to be not true.
That sucks, I was hoping that the PCT would be legal, and can't seem to figure out why it wouldn't/ couldn't become multi-use, since bikes are way less impactful then horses, hopefully, my source is wrong, but we'll wait and see.
 
#20 ·
His information must be bad, although I have to stop short of saying it is bad because what you're reporting is kind of vague. It is, however, not a rumor, I can assure everyone. The Forest Service will be considering as early as 2013 whether to make parts of the PCT multiuse (not parts in Wilderness, though). We have no information that the Forest Service has already decided that the answer will be "no." The agency is obligated to engage in a process fair to all sides and every indication is that it will be doing that. What is far from certain, of course, is whether it will decide to allow cyclists on the trail.
 
#21 ·
Well, at the risk of preaching yet agin to the choir, we all know that cyclists, especially the XC/trail types, impact trail surfaces far less than hooves, and likely even heavy sharp-edged vibram soles. We also venture "off-trail" far less frequently than hikers and horse riders, too.

What i've heard in the past, is that land-managers have used the PCT as a "card" in the ever ongoing game of trail access politics.

As in, "well, at least you guys (insert user group who has irrational hate for bikes) have the PCT"....

I for one think the time has long since come to pull that card out of the stack. But then again, what else is new?
 
#22 · (Edited)
Thanks, Ray Raton and everyone else who's posting.

The bicycle ban on the PCT that began in 1988 was implemented by a temporary closure order. Such orders are usually issued when a campground facility is out of order or, for example, a wasp's nest or a loose bridge plank makes it hazardous to use an area. Closure orders of this type are not intended to implement long-term policy decisions.

No public notice or comment accompanied the issuance of this closure order and, if I recall correctly, it was supposed to revisited every 90 days, but it hasn't been revisited since 1988. This is why the Forest Service has to undertake this rulemaking process now, which will include the notice and comment opportunity it did not offer before.
 
#23 ·
We've created a Facebook page for this effort. I invite everyone to "like" it.

Currently we have six mtbr.com pages going, and we'll continue to post information on them. The Facebook page, however, will make it possible to post information in one place that people will receive quickly.

Here's the link: https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct

P.S.: I have the impression that we've gotten more interest from San Diego County than any other place along the PCT route. I wouldn't have expected that.
 
#24 ·
We've created a Facebook page for this effort. I invite everyone to "like" it.

Currently we have six mtbr.com pages going, and we'll continue to post information on them. The Facebook page, however, will make it possible to post information in one place that people will receive quickly.

Here's the link: https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct

P.S.: I have the impression that we've gotten more interest from San Diego County than any other place along the PCT route. I wouldn't have expected that.
If you knew the status of bicycle access to many of the favored local trails here, you'd understand..:madman:
 
#26 ·
I haven't ridden in either locations for several years, but from what I hear, they are still more or less accessible. They have had some ups and downs, though. The big bummer here locally has been the loss of trails in the Del Mar Mesa area and trails that were on land in the possession of Miramar Air Base. Under Navy control, they largely overlooked the trails on the perimeter of their land. (it's a huge chunk of open space). Now, under the control of the USMC, they are enforcing every inch of their land. Lots of great trails had "sprung" up there, and they were greatly appreciated.

More trail access has been created/granted in the Lagunas, and in Cuyamaca State Park as well, but for coastal dwellers, that is a ways to drive to ride. DMM and Miramar are right in many of our back yards, some, quite literally.

In general, compared to other municipalities in CA and elsewhere, San Diego, IMO, is quite regressive when it comes to mountain biking. A real shame, because, as they say, "we got the weather".
 
#28 ·
It is incorrect, but I think it's a good sign. It suggests the FS is compartmentalizing whatever it's doing. We ourselves are not privy to the FS's exact week-by-week steps on our initiative, and that's as it should be. Whoever's working on this within the FS has to be fair to all parties, which means not telling us things, hopefully not telling the inevitable opponents things, and not telling other FS staff more than they need to know. The public is entitled to a fair process—our opponents as well as we. I take this as evidence that a fair process is underway.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top