Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 73
  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
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,893
    Like this, ALOT!
    Ride On!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    47
    mmmm, singletrack bikepacking!!!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    Glad to see your enthusiasm! 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.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,054
    Outstanding news. Please keep us updated if possible so that we can be helpful with adding comments!!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gman086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,259
    Would love to ride it... legally!

    Cheers,

    G
    "There's two shuttles, one to the top and one to the hospital" I LOVE this place!!!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    185
    Me like

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    489
    I'm in! But that trail goes through some very tree hugging happy hikers that want the whole thing to themselves, and they wont let go easily. It's going to be an interesting fight.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ttrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    390
    This would be incredible indeed. I am very anxious to hear the outcome!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,086
    There is a Panther lying in wait for "me" to enjoy. Might be nice to see the daylight version, it's been a while.
    Master of Laundry...Lord of Cleaning!

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    253
    I'm all for increased mountain bike access and all, but really, let's think about this. Have you all ever hiked on a mountain bike use trail? It sucks. Bikes passing you all the time. Ruining your zoning out time. It's quite annoying and makes the experience so much worse. Part of the reason I don't ride on the McKenzie River trail as often as I'd like.

    The PCT is a meditative experience. I have a whole bunch of respect for those who complete portions of it. I know some sections might not be wildly used, but really, I only see allowing bike access to these parts will not settle well with hikers and will turn them off. I know they have a whole plenthora of trails exclusive to them. But which trail do they exclusively get that will allow them to hike in solitude from Canada to Mexico?

    This being said, I am all for having an alternative.

  12. #12
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,185
    Wow, this is not high on my list of MTB desires (I didn't think it was a battle we could possibly win), but would be pretty cool, due to the bikepacking potential that chaingangster mentioned.

    But boy oh boy, would it be an ugly fight. Just because we managed to get access to CDT in inland mountain states (where MTBing is, in my experience, more accepted) doesn't mean we'll get access to the PCT in the Pacific Northwest (where the hiking clubs OWN the woods).

    The PCT is sacred to a lot of people. Many hikers, from Harvey Manning on down, have decided that the plodding 1-2mph pace of a backpacker is the only acceptable pace to enjoy the woods, and anything faster is disrespectful, dangerous, damaging and prevents you from fully enjoying nature. Their objection to mountain bikers is really just a user conflict, but is all too often wrapped in self-righteous eco-indignation.

    Imagine the fury from the thru-hiker when they start seeing fully loaded bikepackers passing by at 3x their speed. Or day-tripping riders going by even faster than that, covering in one epic ride the terrain that takes a backpacker several days. People are going to FREAK THE F*** OUT. I'm trying to decide if I think this is a battle worth taking on.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    67
    I am all for more access, and while I agree it will likely be an ugly and hard fight, I think the reality that this will lead to MTBs ruining the solitude of hikers isn't very likely. While I don't have any maps in front of me, I doubt there are that many sections outside Wilderness that are popular for hiking and would be regularly ridden. Let's face it, while MTBing is more popular, it seems to me that most of that popularity is in MTB specific trails (see Sandy Ridge). Exploring and long out and back epics on rough trail appears to be isolatad to a niche population. There are plenty of existing trails, open to MTBs that are dissapearing because no one maintains them because no one uses them. Upper Souxson, Huffman Peak, Boulder Creek area, Paradise Hills and Paradise Ridge are among a few off the top of my head. There will definitely be some use on easily accessed sections such as North of the Bridge of the Gods, but that section is known as one of the more miserable sections to hike. Like many areas of the PCT outside wilderness, it goes through old clear cuts, power line ROWs, has no views etc.. I think the reality of conflicts would be small. Unfortunately the perception will be HUGE, hence this will get ugly......if it is ultimately true. Sorry I am skeptical, but optimistic and wholly supportive. May even join the PCT alliance just so I can send a supportive comment as a member.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,086
    Please remember that hikers take no issue ruining "our" experience on a regular basis. Actually, many delight in it. I agree about all the trails that are already legal that have been left for dead too. Siouxson-Huffman are perfect examples. As much as I adore that descent off Little Huckleberry I wonder why Huffman has been ignored. Is there a better descent? Let's take back whatever we can!!! It seems as if there is less to ride every year. Plus, I WANT THE WILDERNESS!
    Master of Laundry...Lord of Cleaning!

  15. #15
    Making fat cool since '71
    Reputation: ImaKlyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    Much of the PCT in Oregon doesn't interest me...but interests my friends and riding buddies. Long-range potential Impact (positive or negative) of this on access and collaborations is off the charts.

    It will be one hell of a debate either way. I'm on the board of Disciples Of Dirt. I'll try to keep this on my radar...but please feel free to reach out, put me on a mailing list, etc (ireman_1"at"yahoo) to nudge me.

    Brock...
    Are the wheels roundish? Ride it.

    Disciples Of Dirt, come ride with us.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    168
    I ride frequently (but poorly)and definitely wish we had more access to trails. Forest park anyone?

    But I also enjoy long distance hiking/backpacking (aspiring thru-hiker 2014) and I'd prefer to keep the PCT bike free.

    I don't think I'm self righteous and I am not eco-indignant. I also disagree with a lot of reasons given for restricting bike access.

    But I'd vote to leave the PCT alone.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    Hi, Big Dweeb,

    I live in California but have backpacked about 1/3 of the PCT in Oregon, from Mackenzie Pass to Timberline Lodge. I would have been happy to encounter mountain bikers along the way. But people can reasonably disagree about that.

    I think you'll find, if you through-hike the PCT in 2014 (I hope you succeed!), that large stretches in Northern California are falling into semiabandonment from lack of use. That's what I hear from other hikers. Mountain bikers could keep the trail open through more use and provide badly needed volunteer maintenance help.

    I know someone who I think has hiked the whole PCT. He told me that the real problems that cause unpleasant experiences are logging, grazing, damage caused by horses and packstock, and stretches along public roads. He thinks the occasional mountain bike would be inconsequential compared to the impacts of those other things.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    Hi, Big Dweeb,

    I live in California but have backpacked about 1/3 of the PCT in Oregon, from Mackenzie Pass to Timberline Lodge. I would have been happy to encounter mountain bikers along the way. But people can reasonably disagree about that.

    I think you'll find, if you through-hike the PCT in 2014 (I hope you succeed!), that large stretches in Northern California are falling into semiabandonment from lack of use. That's what I hear from other hikers. Mountain bikers could keep the trail open through more use and provide badly needed volunteer maintenance help.

    I know someone who I think has hiked the whole PCT. He told me that the real problems that cause unpleasant experiences are logging, grazing, damage caused by horses and packstock, and stretches along public roads. He thinks the occasional mountain bike would be inconsequential compared to the impacts of those other things.
    Agree with this as it seems that mtb'ers and affiliated clubs do more for the trails that are in desperate need of restoration than other user groups, horse clubs in particular, and bikes obviously cause less of an impact to trail degradation than the horses. My ultimate take and should be the sediment of all bikers, is that if horses are allowed access on any particular trail, than bikes should be included at the very least as well. I also agree that most people (hikers) are typically happy to run into others users on multi-use trails, especially in desolate areas.
    Ride On!

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    168
    imtbike - Good point about the neglected trails in nor cal.

    However, consider the Oregon section you hiked. The trail leading up to Mt Jefferson, down into Jeff park and up the ridge was really fantastic. I don't think I'd like running into bikes there. Or on the section past Timberline around Mt Hood.

    But I can see your point for sections like Ollalie lake to Mt Hood (for example).

    Have you hiked the JMT/PCT in the Sierra? IMO Mtn bikes have no place on those trails.

    Another way to look at this: I think motorcycles should not be allowed on some of our MTB trails. Those motorcycles look like a helluva lot of fun. But it makes sense to me to segregate some trails.

    Just my thoughts...

  20. #20
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,730
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDweeb View Post

    But I can see your point for sections like Ollalie lake to Mt Hood (for example).

    Have you hiked the JMT/PCT in the Sierra? IMO Mtn bikes have no place on those trails.


    Just my thoughts...
    Based on what criteria? Just curious.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,086
    The Boundary Trail, and too many others to name, would be gone without motorcycles. Motorcycles do not $!^* on the trail , or post hole them into oblivion either. Do yourself a favor and practice some mtb based civil disobedience and ride your MTB from Crest "HORSE CAMP" to Panther Creek. Then you can decide if it is worth it. I would trade 25 SANDY RIDGE'S for that area alone. BTW, the only through hiker that I know(complete) is my best companion on the PCT. THE BEST TIMES ARE WHEN HE SEE'S SOMEONE THAT HE KNOWS FROM THROUGH HIKING. They are always encouraging and thoroughly jealous of the wheels. Can't the self righteous spend there free time in church instead. If horsies are allowed we should be as well.
    Master of Laundry...Lord of Cleaning!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    168
    Zorg - good question and I'm struggling to put it into words.

    I suppose some might say all trails should be open to every kind of user.

    I'm suggesting that some trails (not all trails) should be reserved for certain activities. The question is why...

    For me it does not come down to physical impact on the trails (postholes, erosion, whatever) - though many make that argument. Rather, I'm thinking about the impact to my experience.

    As I mentioned before - dirt motorcycles look like a kick ass time and I'm glad those folks have places to ride. I'm not worried about how they impact a trail.

    But there are times during a mountain bike ride when I enjoy the mixture of excersise, adrenaline, relative solitude, and nature. And having motorcycles tear-assing all over would diminish or change that experience.

    By the same token, there are hiking experiences that I relish for the solitude and nature. And having lots of mountain bike traffic would change that too. I also don't think we should have gondolas providing access to every mountain peak.

    I also suspect that some folks feel the same way but use physical trail impact or safety arguments that don't really add up...

    So to adress the PCT sections I mentioned above. The area around Mt Jefferson and the JMT have that solitude/nature component. The hike from Olallie to Mt Hood is a slog through a green tunnel. In fact I did a 32 mile day from Olallie to Timothy Lake and all I kept thinking was how much faster I could go on my bike... So yeah, I'm a hypocrite too.

    I don't think I'm doing a very good job explaining my reasoning... Am I the only one who thinks like this?

    Poppa#1 - Dude wtf? You make a good point about the horsies being allowed so why shouldn't we. I suppose if all trails are not open to every type of user then there's going to be some messy debates.

  23. #23
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,730
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDweeb View Post
    Zorg - good question and I'm struggling to put it into words.

    I suppose some might say all trails should be open to every kind of user.

    I'm suggesting that some trails (not all trails) should be reserved for certain activities. The question is why...

    For me it does not come down to physical impact on the trails (postholes, erosion, whatever) - though many make that argument. Rather, I'm thinking about the impact to my experience.

    As I mentioned before - dirt motorcycles look like a kick ass time and I'm glad those folks have places to ride. I'm not worried about how they impact a trail.

    But there are times during a mountain bike ride when I enjoy the mixture of excersise, adrenaline, relative solitude, and nature. And having motorcycles tear-assing all over would diminish or change that experience.

    By the same token, there are hiking experiences that I relish for the solitude and nature. And having lots of mountain bike traffic would change that too. I also don't think we should have gondolas providing access to every mountain peak.

    I also suspect that some folks feel the same way but use physical trail impact or safety arguments that don't really add up...

    So to adress the PCT sections I mentioned above. The area around Mt Jefferson and the JMT have that solitude/nature component. The hike from Olallie to Mt Hood is a slog through a green tunnel. In fact I did a 32 mile day from Olallie to Timothy Lake and all I kept thinking was how much faster I could go on my bike... So yeah, I'm a hypocrite too.

    I don't think I'm doing a very good job explaining my reasoning... Am I the only one who thinks like this?

    Poppa#1 - Dude wtf? You make a good point about the horsies being allowed so why shouldn't we. I suppose if all trails are not open to every type of user then there's going to be some messy debates.
    BD, thanks for answering. To be fair, it was a loaded question. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is: "well, if I have to share this space with others, it'll make my experience less enjoyable". Frankly, it's a completely fair comment, but that I happen to wholeheartedly disagree with. It's a public land and is meant to be shared. It's not a private playground for hikers and equestrians. Furthermore, with 50 million acres of Wilderness in the lower 48, plus 1000s more treated like wilderness, there are plenty of space for you to experience solitude (BTW, I also happen to disagree with the Wilderness ban for the exact same reasons, but that's another story).

    With all that being said, I doubt that the impact would be that great anyway. Most of the PCT is out of the way and there won't be that many cyclists on it.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    67
    Big Dweeb,
    The proposal being considered by the FS would only apply to areas OUTSIDE the wilderness. So the area around Mt Hood, essentially from Timberline Lodge to just before Cascade Locks would be in Wilderness and off limits to bikes (whole other debate). I am also pretty sure the MT Jeff section is wilderness too. This porposal would open bikes to areas like the Timothy lake area you mentioned, and Panther Creek that Poppa advocates for. If I understand you right, this proposal will meet your request/desire. Wilderness areas will still be off-limits and there will still be "solitude". (If that is even possible on a through hike; everyone I know that has through hiked the PCT has ended up hiking with others, no matter how hard they tried to escape, whole other story). As I mentioned above, I have a hard time beleiving there will be more than a handful of trail sections that will get much riding, and the sections that will are pretty much all "green tunnels". Any distance hiker will see exponentially more hikers than MTBers. I really beleive your concerns are a bit unfounded. Even if the entire trail was opened to MTBs there would still be tons of areas that no one would ride. Just look at Mt St Helens, almost all of the S side is open to bikes, but outside of the Ape Canyon/Smith Creek loop you'd be hard pressed to find a bike. Why? They are not ideal trails for riding. But there are some sections of the PCT that would be a blast on a MTB. In the big picture it will be a small percentage, but even a small percentage of the PCT is HUGE for MTBers.

    I rode just about every mile of trail in the Mt Hood forest that is open to MTBing this year. Yet in an entire decade when I was a hiking fanatic, I didn't come close to hiking every trail in the forest. There is and always will be plenty of space for all, and tons of solitude for hikers. I appreciate your concerns, but if you really look at the lay of the land, and what this proposal would do, I don't think you have anything to worry about from bikes.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    168
    Zorg, I kinda figured it was a trap! So I tried to take my time and get my thoughts clear. don't think I did a good job. Your interpretation suggests that I want something all to myself - no other people. I'm suggesting that certain activities my not complement one another. It's about the activities - not the other people.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm only talking about perhaps reserving a few places for certain activities.

    I'm guessing that horseback riding and motorcycles do not mix well. If there's a conflict aren't both sides better off if some space is carved out for each.

    And pointing out how much wilderness area we have is a bit of a red herring since we don't spread out homogeneously throughout all of that area. Certain places will always be more appealling than others: close to cities, near epic natural stuff (grand canyon), etc. So I think we're going to clump up and have conflicts. Don't we already?

    I agree it's not a private playground for hikers and equestrians. And frankly I think those two groups have too much sway.

    But can you honestly say that motorcycles should be allowed on any trail in the Sierra Nevada (or your favorite wilderness area)? Because it seems to be a consequence of your argument.

    And I agree with your last sentence.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    168
    PDCCX - yeah the "wilderness area" part sunk in a little while ago - but after my first post. I think your comments are reasonable.

    I guess my point is that every trail should not be a free-for-all and some space should be carved out if there are conflicts.

  27. #27
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,730
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDweeb View Post
    Zorg, I kinda figured it was a trap! So I tried to take my time and get my thoughts clear. don't think I did a good job. Your interpretation suggests that I want something all to myself - no other people. I'm suggesting that certain activities my not complement one another. It's about the activities - not the other people.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm only talking about perhaps reserving a few places for certain activities.

    I'm guessing that horseback riding and motorcycles do not mix well. If there's a conflict aren't both sides better off if some space is carved out for each.

    And pointing out how much wilderness area we have is a bit of a red herring since we don't spread out homogeneously throughout all of that area. Certain places will always be more appealling than others: close to cities, near epic natural stuff (grand canyon), etc. So I think we're going to clump up and have conflicts. Don't we already?

    I agree it's not a private playground for hikers and equestrians. And frankly I think those two groups have too much sway.

    But can you honestly say that motorcycles should be allowed on any trail in the Sierra Nevada (or your favorite wilderness area)? Because it seems to be a consequence of your argument.

    And I agree with your last sentence.
    Guilty of entrapment! I don't buy the slippery slope argument. Nobody's talking about letting motor powered vehicles on the PCT. On the other hand, if we talk about creating some space for hikers and cyclists, that's fine, but I am not aware of cyclists only trails created by the FS. That's sort of the issue. Hikers have access to 100% of the trails, and we have access to maybe 10-20%.

    So, at the end of the day, it comes down to sharing a public good. Hikers and equestrians have had it to themselves for years, and are simply not interested in sharing it because they feel that it would diminish their experience. Frankly, hikers on the trail disrupt my flow as well, but I get over it and don't mind it. Where I would agree with you is on overcrowded trails, there is really no point in adding more users if a narrow trail is already teeming with hikers. My understanding though is that most of the PCT is not that crowded.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDweeb View Post

    So to adress the PCT sections I mentioned above. The area around Mt Jefferson and the JMT have that solitude/nature component. The hike from Olallie to Mt Hood is a slog through a green tunnel. In fact I did a 32 mile day from Olallie to Timothy Lake and all I kept thinking was how much faster I could go on my bike... So yeah, I'm a hypocrite too.
    I've thru hiked from Willamette Pass to Santiam Pass, there were a lot of times where I thought about how much faster it would go if I was on a bike. Of course that section is wide and easy for the most part It'd be a fantastic Bob trailer route. I've also hiked from Santiam to Olallie and really would not have wanted to drag a bike even without a trailer through much of that section even outside the Wilderness boundaries so I don't see it ever getting overrun if this goes through. Much of the PCT in Oregon wasn't even built specifically for the PCT, they used existing trails (skyline in particular) and renamed them.

  29. #29
    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

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jollybeggar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,354
    "Can't the self righteous spend there free time in church instead."

    There are far more self righteous people outside the church than in it. See Hollywood or any political convention.
    Happy Trails
    Jolly

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    14
    Whatum to Cascade Locks!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    14
    Via Benson Pateau!

  33. #33
    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? (For example, pdccx mentions Timothy Lake. I camped there one night during a long backpacking trip on the PCT.) 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?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    17
    The backpacker in me doesn't like the idea of this, but the mountain biker/bikepacker in me thinks it's great. I guess the 40% of the trail that's in wilderness is probably all of the really good parts, alpine meadows, etc.

  35. #35
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,869
    I vote for the funding and creation of a SECOND trail system, which would only be open to bikes. Call it he PCBT. Do it CCC /Works project style, and employ the homeless. Make the whole thing 6-10% median grade, sustainable and fun.
    Voila.
    Everyone wins.

  36. #36
    Www.rvmba.org
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    323
    PCT= Perfect Cycling Trail.

    I think allowing MTB on certain sections of the trail makes sense. Stay out of the wilderness and off high hiker traffic sections. There is some sweet sections down here in So. Oregon and N. Cali I would love to see open to bikes.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by sofarider1 View Post
    PCT= Perfect Cycling Trail.

    I think allowing MTB on certain sections of the trail makes sense. Stay out of the wilderness and off high hiker traffic sections. There is some sweet sections down here in So. Oregon and N. Cali I would love to see open to bikes.
    If you can tell us specifically where those are and, if possible, post maps, that would be great. We need to be able to tell the USFS what areas people would particularly like to ride if and when it considers opening the PCT to bicycles. As you mention, we're not seeking access to Wilderness areas. Thanks.

  38. #38
    Www.rvmba.org
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    323
    Sure. I'm on RVMBA's board btw. I'll work on getting something together.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by sofarider1 View Post
    Sure. I'm on RVMBA's board btw. I'll work on getting something together.
    That's great. Thanks in advance.

  40. #40
    007
    007 is offline
    b a n n e d
    Reputation: 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,930
    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!

  41. #41
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    Nice article just published:
    Advocates hope for reversal of Pacific Crest Trail bike ban

    Bike advocates say the 1988 ban was done too abruptly, without public comment or opportunity to appeal. The Oregon-based group, Disciples of Dirt, who fully supports the mission of Sharing the PCT, wrote on their website that the ban was "just fear and misunderstanding, mixed with a lot of well funded ignorance."

    In 2010, a group of citizen activists decided to probe further into the 1988 decision. They wrote a letter to the USFS on November 12, 2010 asking them to "put in place a process to examine the continuing usefulness of the 1988 closure order."

    click here to read more

    Sharing the Pacific Crest TrailHome » Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    113
    Sorry folks but I just can't support riding access on the PCT. I've been riding Mtn bikes for 25+ years and I do think that there are areas and certain trails that should be off limits to bikes, the PCT is one that I think should remain bike free. If you are in an area that has a section of the PCT that would link up some cool local rides and you can't tread there even though it's a non wilderness area then get together with your local riding clubs and build another trail fer-cryin-out-loud! My reason for this opinion is personal and experiential. Many years ago I did hike some significant sections of the PCT and have done other 300-400 mile back pack trips, the direct experience of those trips leaves no doubt in my mind that the PCT should be bike free.

    I would encourage anyone who wants to open the non wilderness sections (about 60% as stated above) of the PCT to Mtn biking should go and hike it first, shoot, just go and do one state, just pick one, California, Oregon or Washington, I'm thinking you may not support this after you have had such an experience.

    I am in no way highly conservative, nor am I a super liberal tree hugger, but opening the PCT to Mtn biking is not a thing I can support.

    My 0.02

  43. #43
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,869
    I am going to respectfully disagree.
    The PCT should be closed to hikers and horses.
    There, problem solved.

  44. #44
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    Quote Originally Posted by RTurner View Post
    Sorry folks but I just can't support riding access on the PCT. I've been riding Mtn bikes for 25+ years and I do think that there are areas and certain trails that should be off limits to bikes, the PCT is one that I think should remain bike free. If you are in an area that has a section of the PCT that would link up some cool local rides and you can't tread there even though it's a non wilderness area then get together with your local riding clubs and build another trail fer-cryin-out-loud! My reason for this opinion is personal and experiential. Many years ago I did hike some significant sections of the PCT and have done other 300-400 mile back pack trips, the direct experience of those trips leaves no doubt in my mind that the PCT should be bike free.

    I would encourage anyone who wants to open the non wilderness sections (about 60% as stated above) of the PCT to Mtn biking should go and hike it first, shoot, just go and do one state, just pick one, California, Oregon or Washington, I'm thinking you may not support this after you have had such an experience.

    I am in no way highly conservative, nor am I a super liberal tree hugger, but opening the PCT to Mtn biking is not a thing I can support.

    My 0.02
    dude - you are soooo banned.










    kidding



    at least you didn't throw in a buncha safety and erosion nonsense
    but I still want it opened to MTB's.
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  45. #45
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    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.
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    13
    For mountain bikers that is obviously a huge resource gain potentially. I have to admit that I also feel for the folks who are looking for the solitude and simplicity of hooking up the various wilderness areas via the PCT on foot. As much as I like biking I have also had my backpacking experiences "interupted" by 'bike busy' sections of trails. That said, I would be in support of opening things up.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    It's a good point, Daniel. There are many ways to work things out, though, in a way that reasonable people should be able to live with. One could have alternate-day use in popular areas. It turns out, also, that most of the PCT is essentially empty and unused for much of the year. The exceptions seem to be around Lake Tahoe and possibly near Portland and Seattle. (There's also the high-elevation Sierra Nevada and parts of the Cascades, which are popular all summer, but those are largely in Wilderness areas and not a subject of this initiative to restore the PCT to multiuse.)

  48. #48
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,614
    Well the USFS issued it's reply - standard BS.

    Summary version:
    Quote Originally Posted by USFS Summary by CHUM
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by USFS
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Sharing The PCT
    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....
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by RTurner View Post
    Sorry folks but I just can't support riding access on the PCT. I've been riding Mtn bikes for 25+ years and I do think that there are areas and certain trails that should be off limits to bikes, the PCT is one that I think should remain bike free. If you are in an area that has a section of the PCT that would link up some cool local rides and you can't tread there even though it's a non wilderness area then get together with your local riding clubs and build another trail fer-cryin-out-loud! My reason for this opinion is personal and experiential. Many years ago I did hike some significant sections of the PCT and have done other 300-400 mile back pack trips, the direct experience of those trips leaves no doubt in my mind that the PCT should be bike free.

    I would encourage anyone who wants to open the non wilderness sections (about 60% as stated above) of the PCT to Mtn biking should go and hike it first, shoot, just go and do one state, just pick one, California, Oregon or Washington, I'm thinking you may not support this after you have had such an experience.

    I am in no way highly conservative, nor am I a super liberal tree hugger, but opening the PCT to Mtn biking is not a thing I can support.

    My 0.02
    Hi RTurner

    I don't know that I disagree with your sentiment. The PCT is a unique trail system and for the people who are walking it having bikes there does have an impact. I would also say that I appreciate your attempt at solutions as in building a connector trail yourself if you want one or in walking the PCT or some section of it.

    The first one, and you may already know this, would be next to impossible to manifest on federal public land (actually building it would be, by far, the easy part) without A LOT of administrative red tape addressed (and even then...) Or, it would just be more "illegal" than riding the PCT itself. The second solution (gain perspective by hiking the trail) is out of the reach of most people who have limited free time that they must balance between their interests, and family and friends. In an ideal world we would all have that experience though.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by RTurner View Post
    Sorry folks but I just can't support riding access on the PCT. I've been riding Mtn bikes for 25+ years and I do think that there are areas and certain trails that should be off limits to bikes, the PCT is one that I think should remain bike free. If you are in an area that has a section of the PCT that would link up some cool local rides and you can't tread there even though it's a non wilderness area then get together with your local riding clubs and build another trail fer-cryin-out-loud! My reason for this opinion is personal and experiential. Many years ago I did hike some significant sections of the PCT and have done other 300-400 mile back pack trips, the direct experience of those trips leaves no doubt in my mind that the PCT should be bike free.

    I would encourage anyone who wants to open the non wilderness sections (about 60% as stated above) of the PCT to Mtn biking should go and hike it first, shoot, just go and do one state, just pick one, California, Oregon or Washington, I'm thinking you may not support this after you have had such an experience.

    I am in no way highly conservative, nor am I a super liberal tree hugger, but opening the PCT to Mtn biking is not a thing I can support.

    My 0.02
    I agree that some areas should be off-limits to bikes, it shouldn't just be a wholesale all-or-nothing deal - the parts of the PCT that are wilderness, sensitive habitats or popular hiking areas should remain closed to bikes. But there a lot of miles that could be opened to bikes without detracting at all from the hiking experience.

    I've done several multi-week backpacking trips, hiked most of the AT, the Colorado Trail etc. I've never felt that lacing up my boots gave me an exclusive right to recreate. The CT (which my wife and I hiked for our honeymoon a few years ago) allows bikes in non-wilderness areas. We saw a handful of bikes on our CT trip and they didn't detract from the experience at all.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •