Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 129
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

    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.

  2. #2
    Junior flyer
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,537
    Perfect Cycling Trail?

    That would be awesome! Keep us in the loop.
    Friends don't let friends ride e-"bikes". Just say eff no.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    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!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    602
    Awesome! Now if we can only get them to reconsider the ridiculous wilderness rule...

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    This is some badly needed GOOD news for trail riders in the San Diego area!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    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. #7
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Gor'n Ridin'!
    Reputation: Hawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24,064
    Add me to the list. Not a member of any clubs/orgs but eager to supply a signature for this great cause.

  9. #9
    destination unknown
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,519
    Interesting development. Thanks for the update.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    93
    This would help me to fulfill 60% of a "bucket list" item without requiring me to walk. Let's do it.

  11. #11
    BMF
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    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.
    I guess one possibility would be for a well-organized and legally funded mountain bike advocacy group to send some riders into wilderness to get tickets, then fight them in court. The real question is if anyone has thought out a clear legal strategy to take on the no bikes component of the wilderness designation. Since mountain bikes didn't really exist in 1964 I would think it would be up to the courts to interpret the legislation.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    The legal analysis regarding Wilderness and bicycles has been done. See this law review article:

    Legal Analysis of the Wilderness Act | International Mountain Bicycling Association

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,934
    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. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    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.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    96
    Very cool news. Looking forward to more information.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: deano machineo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    171
    subscribed
    Ride it like you stole it.

  17. #17
    BMF
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Beer Please! SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,127
    Quote Originally Posted by ambassadorhawg View Post
    Add me to the list. Not a member of any clubs/orgs but eager to supply a signature for this great cause.
    I second this!


    This is fantastic news!
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,934
    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. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    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. #21
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    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.
    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. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    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.
    Last edited by imtnbke; 10-06-2012 at 05:15 PM. Reason: Typo

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    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. #24
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    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..

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    Did Elfin Forest disappear? Is the Anderson Truck Trail still accessible? I think I heard about problems with both.

  26. #26
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    Did Elfin Forest disappear? Is the Anderson Truck Trail still accessible? I think I heard about problems with both.
    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".

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,934
    My source in BB is the head ranger for this district, he is also pro-bike.
    I hope is info is incorrect.
    Last edited by Hurricane Jeff; 10-08-2012 at 08:25 PM.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    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.

  29. #29
    MTP
    MTP is offline
    Nothing to see here
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    892
    "Temporary" bans are like "temporary" taxes...

    Great news, you got my attention. I'll follow this with great interest. Thanks!
    If not biking, then what?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post

    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.
    San Diego, for a place with year round riding weather, has a trail system that leaves a lot to be desired (I'd use the term "trails" loosely) I live next to one of the largest Canyon Preserves (PQ). The "trails" designated for bikers are largely flat, fire road that you could drive a bulldozer through. With the loss of the trails surround Martha's Grove and Del Mar Mesa, the only decent riding requires a 45 min drive to the Laguna Mountains. Let's hope this happens before I get too old to ride the PCT.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,359
    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. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    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. #33
    Beer Please! SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,127
    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.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

  34. #34
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    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.
    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.

    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...

  35. #35
    Beer Please! SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Raton View Post
    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!
    That is bad example. most trails existed before MTBing became popular, I mean MTBing is an extremely new use of outdoor spaces compared to walking and riding horses which has been done with or without established and maintained trails since the dawn of mankind.

    However when something grows in popularity and outnumbers the "original" user base change will happen.

    As the car started to outnumber the horse and buggy, the horse and buggy people needed to step aside. I don't mean that hikers need to stop hiking/walking, they just need to recognize the need to share.

    I have only ridden Noble once, and I did not encounter any hikers/walkers, but if I was choosing a place to go hiking it certainly would not be on a well known MTB shuttle run.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

  36. #36
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    That is bad example. most trails existed before MTBing became popular, I mean MTBing is an extremely new use of outdoor spaces compared to walking and riding horses which has been done with or without established and maintained trails since the dawn of mankind.

    However when something grows in popularity and outnumbers the "original" user base change will happen.

    As the car started to outnumber the horse and buggy, the horse and buggy people needed to step aside. I don't mean that hikers need to stop hiking/walking, they just need to recognize the need to share.

    I have only ridden Noble once, and I did not encounter any hikers/walkers, but if I was choosing a place to go hiking it certainly would not be on a well known MTB shuttle run.
    I think you misunderstood my post. I was pointing OUT that the above-mentioned mtb riders were so ignorant concerning Noble that they actually thought is was built and INTENDED to be an mtb-only trail. They had no idea of its' origins or history, and abused hikers on account of their own ignorance.

    And if you want to hike, there is no reason at all why you should NOT choose Noble. It is, after all, a legally signed multiuse trail. And it's a beautiful hike, just like its' beautiful ride. If you, as a hiker, are scared way from it by cyclists or their behavior towards you, then the bike-haters DO have a point.

    At one point, Noble was a prime hiking/equestrian trail destination. I thought it still was. I've ridden it scores of times since the late 80's, and I frequently encountered entire troops of hikers on it. If these users stay away from it now, that can and will be construed as a prime reason to continue excluding bikes from the PCT. Please don't load bullets in the gun that they are going to shoot at us.

    FYI, in the late 80's Noble was actually climbable, all the way to the top, and that on a full-rigid bike of that era. It's changed a whole lot since then...

  37. #37
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,416
    ^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!

  38. #38
    Grom
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3
    Exciting to be sure, equal access for all trail users would be an ecxellent step into the new millenium from the civil rights/prohibition area thought dominating amoung our fossilized "representatives".

  39. #39
    Beer Please! SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Raton View Post

    And if you want to hike, there is no reason at all why you should NOT choose Noble. It is, after all, a legally signed multiuse trail. And it's a beautiful hike, just like its' beautiful ride. If you, as a hiker, are scared way from it by cyclists or their behavior towards you, then the bike-haters DO have a point.
    I guess I have a different view point than some because I do enjoy both MTB and Hiking, and I do my best to respect bikes while hiking and respect hikers while riding. However there are some area's that are probably best setup to be one or the other.

    Noble Canyon for instance, in my limited experience, has more people riding down it on bikes than it does hiking on foot. I personally would not choose to go hiking up noble canyon just because I would prefer to be one lest obstacle for the riders. To me Noble feels more like a downhill shuttle run than it does a hiking trail.

    I also firmly believe that pedestrians should never have the right of way, it is much easier for a person who is walking to stop or move for others. But that is sorta off topic.

    The Iron Mtn trail on a weekend is a multi-use trail I would never attempt on my bike, the foot traffic is just too high. I would probably support a no bikes on the weekend rule for that trail. I have never seen a bike on the trail when I have hiked it on the weekends, but I have read on this site that many guys do ride that trail.

    I think the PCT in general has low enough foot traffic that it would be perfect as a multi-use trail.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

  40. #40
    miwuksurfer
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    I also firmly believe that pedestrians should never have the right of way
    This argument is definitely not going to help the mountain bikers' cause.

  41. #41
    BMF
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    593
    What you're talking about here is legislating behavior. For example you can ride this trail M-F, but hikers only S/Su. This other trail here is multi-use M-F, Bikes only S/Su.

    I think Ray and other's point here is that once you get to legislating trail use you've already lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    I guess I have a different view point than some because I do enjoy both MTB and Hiking, and I do my best to respect bikes while hiking and respect hikers while riding. However there are some area's that are probably best setup to be one or the other.

    Noble Canyon for instance, in my limited experience, has more people riding down it on bikes than it does hiking on foot. I personally would not choose to go hiking up noble canyon just because I would prefer to be one lest obstacle for the riders. To me Noble feels more like a downhill shuttle run than it does a hiking trail.

    I also firmly believe that pedestrians should never have the right of way, it is much easier for a person who is walking to stop or move for others. But that is sorta off topic.

    The Iron Mtn trail on a weekend is a multi-use trail I would never attempt on my bike, the foot traffic is just too high. I would probably support a no bikes on the weekend rule for that trail. I have never seen a bike on the trail when I have hiked it on the weekends, but I have read on this site that many guys do ride that trail.

    I think the PCT in general has low enough foot traffic that it would be perfect as a multi-use trail.

  42. #42
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    I guess I have a different view point than some because I do enjoy both MTB and Hiking, and I do my best to respect bikes while hiking and respect hikers while riding. However there are some area's that are probably best setup to be one or the other.

    Noble Canyon for instance, in my limited experience, has more people riding down it on bikes than it does hiking on foot. I personally would not choose to go hiking up noble canyon just because I would prefer to be one lest obstacle for the riders. To me Noble feels more like a downhill shuttle run than it does a hiking trail.

    I also firmly believe that pedestrians should never have the right of way, it is much easier for a person who is walking to stop or move for others. But that is sorta off topic.

    The Iron Mtn trail on a weekend is a multi-use trail I would never attempt on my bike, the foot traffic is just too high. I would probably support a no bikes on the weekend rule for that trail. I have never seen a bike on the trail when I have hiked it on the weekends, but I have read on this site that many guys do ride that trail.

    I think the PCT in general has low enough foot traffic that it would be perfect as a multi-use trail.
    I think the key phrase in your response here is "limited experience". And from the rest of your response it is pretty clear that you intend to be "willfully" inexperienced", so there's really nothing more that anybody can do to help you here.

    Except maybe damage control. Please, do NOT bring those views, and that "willful inexperience", to the table in any public forum regarding bicycle access to the PCT. I want to see this possibility HAPPEN, and input like the stuff you are posting here would be a game-killer.

    You'd be tossing bloody meat to a roomful of sharks with comments like those. The Sierra Club would make you an honorary lifetime member.

  43. #43
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,878
    UPDATE: The Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative website is now LIVE! Please visit, explore and show your support by leaving a comment!

    Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail
    Alcohol may lead nowhere, but it sure is the scenic route!

  44. #44
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,878
    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!
    Alcohol may lead nowhere, but it sure is the scenic route!

  45. #45
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by OO7 View Post
    UPDATE: The Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative website is now LIVE! Please visit, explore and show your support by leaving a comment!

    Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail
    Thank you for the link.Comment posted. And in the future, I will keep my points about irresponsible and damaging comments to PM, as you suggest. The LAST thing I want is to help "screw the pooch" on this deal.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    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. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    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. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    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.
    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.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    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.
    Great information, MTBforlife. Thanks. We'll put this on our FB page (www.facebook.com/SharingThePCT), where a hiker has recently asserted that the whole trail was immaculate when she hiked it, except for two short sections. That was probably true when she went through on her through-hike, but no one thought to question whether that might be seasonal. Your post here goes a long way to answering that point.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    Great information, MTBforlife. Thanks. We'll put this on our FB page (www.facebook.com/SharingThePCT), where a hiker has recently asserted that the whole trail was immaculate when she hiked it, except for two short sections. That was probably true when she went through on her through-hike, but no one thought to question whether that might be seasonal. Your post here goes a long way to answering that point.
    They do trail maintenance on these sections right before PCT season other than that the trail gets no love

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •