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
#31 ·
Elfin Forest is still there and actually not bad ( a great workout at least) once you get past the initial climb...and that initial climb has been ruined for mtn bikers IMO. It used to be essentially doubletrack and 100% rideable. Now, it's wide enough in places to drive a diesel truck and it's rough and full of the worst made "waterbars" on the planet. A strong rider picking the perfect line could still probably ride the whole thing...but not me any longer.
 
#32 ·
Regarding both bikepacking and day rides: one thing that would be very helpful would be for people to post the opportunities in their area that would open up if access were legalized. What good rides would become available that weren't before? What out-and-back rides could become loops? And, if you feel like being candid, what problems could arise from mountain bike use on those trail miles, and how could any such problems be solved?
 
#33 ·
Wow that one guy on the facebook page is really negative, as if a few rogue mountain bikers illegally riding the pct now represent the rest of the MTB community. I am sure there are plenty of hikers out there that do things to harm the environment, but I would never assume they represent the majority of hikers.
 
#34 ·
Well, in all honesty, I find some of our fellow mtber's to be so dumb around here that they actually yell stuff like "get off OUR trail!" at hikers on the Noble canyon trail! They actually did not know that the trail existed BEFORE their bikes!

So, in any user group, there are going to be the extremists. Sometimes, they are extreme in their stupidity. Sometimes, it's due to their ideology. Sometimes it's due to that good old 'entitlement mentality' we see amongst the wannabe gentry.

Point is, they are the exception, not the rule. If you looked hard enough you might even find a member of the Sierra Klub who you could have a serious conversation with. But I might be stretching a bit, there. :D

When you have more and more members of a trail user group (us) every year, and you close more and more of the trails they use to them, sooner or later, something's gonna have to give. The PCT through San Diego county is perfectly compatible with bikes, and everybody knows it. But there I go again, preaching to the choir.

Just let's not allow a few extremists in ANY group to get our goats, so to speak...:thumbsup:
 
#37 ·
^This.. and ^^that.. I agree with both of you for the most part. Hikers should not have to avoid trails but the same goes for bikers. Can't we all just get along??? Haha.. I catch some hikers off guard when I stop on my bike to say hi and ask how their hike/day is going. At the same time I try my hardest to move for bikers when I am hiking and give them a shout out to say hello. I know, hikers have the right away, but it's (usually) easiest for me to step aside for bikers. No rush.. no times to beat on some online tracker. After all, we are all out doing something a lot of others are missing out on.. enjoying the trails!
 
#44 ·
PLEASE DO NOT POST IN-FIGHTING IN THIS OR ANY OTHER THREAD ON THIS MATTER.

This entire site, and all posts related to the PCT are closely monitored by those in opposition to our movement, and I do not want to give them fodder. Argue all you want but lets do it via PM or somewhere else all together.

Thank you!
 
#46 ·
I am a member of CORBA. I know they have spent countless hours pealing through the many layers of politics on this one.

Out where I live we have no land access once-so-ever. I must drive out to the KRV to get some saddle time.

The PCT cuts right by the house. If they open the trail up that would be great.
 
#47 ·
MTBforlife and everyone else: Soon there'll be a thread on the SoCal forum page that will invite you to fill out an easy survey form telling the PCT Reassessment Initiative exactly the stretch of the PCT you're referring to. Please keep an eye on the main SoCal forum page. When you see the thread, we'll welcome your response. It should be sticky for a week or two after it first appears.
 
#48 ·
I live along the HWY 58 where two stages meet. I can ride south to Lancaster, or ride north up to Walker Pass (HWY 178) all the way to Kennedy Meadows, after that the trail heads into the South Sierra Wilderness.

The PCT up in my area only gets business about 2 months a year, the rest of the year it is dead and grown over.
 
#51 ·
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.
 
#58 ·
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!
 
#59 ·
Well the USFS issued it's reply - standard BS.

Summary version:
USFS Summary by CHUM said:
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.

USFS said:
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
Sharing The PCT said:
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....
 
#60 ·
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.
 
#63 ·
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 "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 "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....
 
#82 ·
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?
 
#67 ·
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
 
#77 ·
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.
 
#79 ·
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.
 
#78 ·
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!
 
#80 ·
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.
 
#84 ·
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). :thumbsup:
 
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