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
#92 ·
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....
 
#94 ·
Update from the Sharing the PCT FB page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

my .02
 
#96 ·
We all know once you get a few miles from the trailhead it's virtually abandoned...

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

I was saying to myself as I was hiking it, "they need to open this trail up soon before it's too late (for me)."
 
#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
 
#98 ·
Update:

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Moore:

Thank you for your letter of November 25.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

PCTRI
 
#99 ·
#101 ·
The Pacific Crest Trail Association is hoping to get more power in the management of the PCT. The USFS is seeking comments during this scoping period (of a revision plan for the Inyo, Sierra and Sequoia National Forests -- the 1st 3 of 26 National Forests that the PCT passes through).

It would be important for you to submit comments opposing the "Management Area" wording (likely written by the PCTA), which continues to exclude bicycles... and could make the ban on bicycle more iron-clad if it were to be approved.

See info here for more details, including sample letters that have been submitted already: Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail - USFS Call for Public Comment

Need to do this before Sept. 29.

Here's the direct link to the comment page: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=3375

Note: This isn't a time to say why bikes should be allowed on the PCT... it's the time to oppose what the USFS is proposing so that we remain part of the discussion as the process plays out over the next couple years.

While the forests mentioned aren't necessarily in SoCal, this process will head your way one day. All for one, one for all!

Thank you!
 
#102 ·
By the way, it would allow the antibike PCTA to jointly decide with the Forest Service whether bicycles can be allowed on federal trails that cross the PCT! The PCT could become like an iron curtain that cuts off mountain biking across areas from San Diego County to Big Bear Lake to Tahoe. Read the proposal to see for yourself how bad it is.
 
#104 · (Edited)
PCTRI (the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative, which is heading the effort to restore bicycle access to the PCT) sent in a formal response yesterday to this dreadful proposal.

We also copied the PCTA, a number of Forest Service personnel, and others, with an introduction in which we expressed disappointment that we learned of the plan only on the Internet and that the Forest Service is giving the public one month to learn of it and respond to it.

It's a 10-page-long pdf, far too long to post here as text. If you'd like to read a copy right away, e-mail PCTRI at pct.//initia//tive at gmail. /dot com (remove the dashes and format properly) and we'll send you the pdf. It has some legal jargon in it, but one shouldn't have to be a lawyer to read and understand it. We promise not to sell your name to some scammer overseas.

If you don't mind waiting a couple of days and would rather not send e-mail, it should be up on our website as a Google Doc soon enough: Sharing the Pacific Crest TrailHome - Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail
 
#107 ·
Guess who I met on the Marian Bear Park trail last Sunday?

That's correct, Barney Mann, the CEO of the PCTA!

I was hiking west as he and his family were hiking east (on the south trail). As we approached each other on the narrow trail, he stopped aside before I did and stared straight at me as I was about to pass. He said...nice shirt. That's bc I had on a PCT hiking shirt. Then he said, nice hat. That's bc I had on my PCT hat. He then asked if I hiked the whole thing...I said no, only parts, mostly in CA. We exchanged a few more pleasantries and he then asked if I was a member of the PCTA. (yes, it was like a pledge drive on PBS) I said no....but, (as like in the movie Stripes) I was willing to try! I knew his time (like any hikers) was valuable, so I didn't want to get into a discussion of the possibility of allowing biking on the PCT....it did cross my mind though. I know, I know...a missed opportunity....maybe next time...
 
#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.
 
#122 ·
^ If each land manager the trails goes through were allowed to manage their section of trail as they see fit, I think things would be much different. They know their trails and they know how to manage multi-use (usually). It does not mean that every mile of the non-wilderness sections would/should be open to bikes, in my opinion. If there was an easily shuttled DH segment that required no real effort to get to, I could see that being a trail conflict disaster. But maybe that section is only open to bikes certain times of the year (e.g., late in the year, after the hikers are long gone). The key is if something like that ever happened, the mtb community would also participate in mitigating any excessive wear ripping down the trail causes. Allow us to use the trail and we'll start helping with its maintenance.

Fortunately in NorCal (Tahoe area), there aren't many places that the DH only crowd would flock to. Sierra Buttes to Sierra City is a possibility, but that trail is so chunky, un-steep and riddled with switchbacks, I can't see it being all that popular for shuttling and excessive speed... especially with the traditional Downieville routes right there.

Are there SoCal sections (Idlyllwild/Big Bear/etc.) that are easily accessible by shuttle, or does everything require a pretty sturdy ride or climb to get to?
 
#123 ·
The sections of the PCT that I am familiar with ( the section going up into an through Mt. Laguna and then down to Anza Borrego) are quite literally interspersed with lots of pedaling and climbing sections.

Totally un-suited for the shuttle crowd. This section of the PCT trail would make much larger loops possible by connecting different trail systems together.

I would most certainly frame it as a win/win scenario.
 
#124 ·
Cool. Similar situation in South Lake Tahoe... PCT cuts off some pretty burly loops and point-to-points. If opened, I'd guess the mtb use would go from 25 poachers a year to 50 riders/year. It won't be a highway, and I think it would total about 5 miles. North Lake Tahoe is even more unappealing due to massive climbing, but big, interesting loops could be achieved (non-Wilderness). The 35 miles north of Donner Summit to Sierra City sound very unused by hikers once the thu-hikers go through. Only adventure riders will tackle that one, even as a partial out-and-back. This knowledge and the accusations that we'll ruin the trail and the trail experience is what drives me nuts.
 
#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.
 
#128 ·
There is only one section of PCT in the Big Bear area that can be shuttled( Onyx Summit) but there are several climbs on down. A few years ago, a good portion of the trail got washed out. They built a new section with climbs and some really tight switchbacks, so tight, I can't see a horse getting through them. I have not ridden that part lately because of that new section.
We ( hardcore BB riders)ride the perfect cycling trail all the time, off season, but pretty much stay off of it from mid May-September.
 
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