Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

47K views 203 replies 76 participants last post by  Empty_Beer 
#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
#108 ·
One of the best ways to get bicycles included is to let hikers know you're coming towards them. You really don't hear a mountain bike approaching till it's very close and often startles whoever you are approaching, the very thing they don't like. They feel like they're being stalked.
Say hello, use a bike bell. Whatever it takes to get the surprise out of the encounter. I ring my bell and inform walkers that I have dogs with me, off leash. The only surprise is they are informed.
Also offer water when I see people not carrying any.
 
#109 ·
I don't have the patience to read this thread in it's entirety, but having submitted a "Mountain Biker Survey" a few days ago, and afterwards I found this whole other thread was bumped-up, I'm not sure if this point has already been included in the argument "for" MTB's to be allowed on PCT... I am an individual "off-road" cyclist. I am lumped in to a much larger group of "Mountain Bikers", and of course as any other group that is seen from the outside, we are subject to generalizations. i.e. the Mountain Dew Downhiller Extreme dudes that we are perceived as by "naturalist" hikers. This is as always an unfortunate reality. I am a 48 year old asthmatic, I started riding again 3-4 years ago. I enjoy the challenge of a back country singletrack, but, I'm slow as hell! I stop to rest often, I walk my bike often, I occasionally get passed by hikers, (and don't feel the need to catch up and "put them in their place!") I'm of course faster on the declines, but I still ride within my capabilities, and try to be considerate of other trail users AND the resident critters. To "CHUM" and the other advocates that are working to get the PCT access for us, please let me know if there is anything else that we as individuals can do to help.
 
#112 ·
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.
 
#116 ·
After accidentally "discovering" the PCT in my search for new MTB trails, in my "new" neighborhood in the High Desert of So. Cal. (all I will say is a very short portion of the trail is great for mountain biking) I was disapointed(sp?) that it is off-limits to us, disapointed that it is so well marked as off-limits to MTB's, and VERY disapointed that it is hardly ever used by ANYONE in this area (please post if you disagree, because only once have I actually seen any other hikers on the trail, and they were as glad to see me as I was to see them!) I actually have submitted a survey to "CHUM" and the "Share the PCT" group. AS I used Google Earth to investigate the different pieces of PCT in my area, I found it to be very diverse (a portion of the trail goes from the south end of Hesperia, Ca. to a "hot springs" and is frequented by "naturalists") the trail goes (in only a few miles) from desert, to "Chapparal"(where there are cactii and small trees and brushies that would require equestrians to wear chaps) to our typical So. Cal. mountain "sage and manzanita" environment zones. I have started to break up my riding schedule to include hikes so I can survey different areas of the trail for future bike rides.
 
#117 · (Edited)
Thanks jimwg :thumbsup:

Your knowledge, along with many others, has proven invaluable in outlining and defining sections of the PCT that are PERFECT for riding.

We have amassed a considerable amount of data from all 3 states from short sections to tie in longer loops, to some pretty epic stretches...

Keep the suggestions coming everyone - all really GREAT stuff! :thumbsup:
 
#120 ·
Think that restricting mountain bikers from certain trails is more due to a concern of speed and surprise rather than trail erosion. We as mountain bikers know that horses do much more trail damage than a mountain bike, yet claims are made that mountain bikers harm trails by erosion. In my opinion hiker's aversion to mountain biking is due mostly to the surprise of a rider sneaking up on them and scaring them around a corner or blind spot. I think we can help our cause by being polite to hikers by taking a few seconds to pull over for them and show them courtesy. Wearing a bear bell is also a big help. Just my 2 copper Lincolns.
 
#123 ·
I agree with that, except for the part about bear bells. I've heard that some hikers find other hikers' use of them annoying, so maybe they wouldn't appreciate them on handlebars or CamelBaks either. The main thing is that we should be scrupulously honest with ourselves about our impact, always assessing it to see how it affects others, and then, to the extent there is a real problem (as opposed to a perceived or invented problem) in a particular area, fix it.
One alternative to the constantly ringing bear bell (which I also find incredibly annoying) is an activated bell. I ride with one on my bars and I ring it any time I'm approaching a blind turn.

I also agree with imtnbke that we need to be honest with ourselves about what we do to the trails . . . both environmentally and socially. It's the best and only way we are going to increase our access broadly, beyond just the PCT.
 
#121 ·
I agree with that, except for the part about bear bells. I've heard that some hikers find other hikers' use of them annoying, so maybe they wouldn't appreciate them on handlebars or CamelBaks either. The main thing is that we should be scrupulously honest with ourselves about our impact, always assessing it to see how it affects others, and then, to the extent there is a real problem (as opposed to a perceived or invented problem) in a particular area, fix it.
 
#124 ·
So the rules of the trail....



I'm coolio with the concept and adhere to them. Question: How do you "yield" to a hiker going the same direction? When you catch up to them and they let you pass, do you then immediately yield to them, then pass them again, then yield... and so on and so forth?

:p
 
#129 ·
I'm glad earbuds aggravate my tinnitus. I love music, but I don't ride with 'em, and get spared being looked down upon. :D

Bells are super useful for getting people to let you pass (see vid above, of Japanese guy getting it to work indoors). Most of them make a pleasant sound too, opposed to the other "noise makers" and yelling/shouting/hollerin'.
 
#130 ·
When they're within earshot, announce you're approaching. Practically speaking, if you're going faster, whether downhill or uphill, they have to make way for you, the physical laws of space, time, and velocity being what they are. But you have to give them time to do this comfortably, even if it means dismounting for a minute. That's even more true with skittish horses, and in that case, you may have to walk around them as they stand by the side of the trail. That's all that "yield" means in this situation; nothing more is required, nor can it be.
 
#131 ·
There's many ways to interpret it, but the bottom line is that it's a trail meant to be shared.

The way I interpret it is that there's no hierarchy of who belongs out there more, despite what the equestrians and hikers say. I see the yield to horses and hikers thing is mainly for safety, to get bikers to slow down; if it were the other way around, with them yielding to us, I imagine at least a few riders would try to continue on at high speeds, expecting others to yield or move out the way. The trail dictates what kind of etiquette you should use. You should make your presence known, in a friendly manner, and pass where it's safe to. You don't need to stop, you don't need dismount, you don't need to chat the others up... you should simply be considerate of others in a mannerly fashion. If it's undesirable to ride/step off to the side of trail, due to danger or slop, don't try to squeeze by anyways.
 
#135 ·
From what I've read, the die-hard hiking, anti-bike folks have no fear of bears, mt. lions, rattlesnakes or other natural element... but if they see a bicycle, their life is in danger. So pathetic.

And to follow up my earlier question, I have a bell on my bar, but I feel like a d!ck ringing it when approaching people from behind. I tend to cough or nicely say "hellooo" when I'm within hearing distance. I mostly ring my bell when I'm about to go around a blind turn... or I just let out a "yoo-hoo" if I don't want to take my thumb off my grip on technical terrain. I ride very little fire road these days, so saying "on your left" to a person on foot is a rarity for me now.

28 years of singletrack trail use. Zero collisions.
 
#136 ·
Who needs a bell OR ear buds?

I like to sing while riding. Loudly and most likely off pitch. I can sometimes entice the people riding with me to back me up. Beat box, harmonies, mouth guitar.... w/e.

It does get me odd looks from fellow trail users (and people riding with me for the first time. bellowing out a song while they gasp for breath is priceless) but they know im comin round the corner and its better than hollerin at them to get the ef out of my way.

Would LOVE pct to be open to bikes. Im not about to ride the whole thing, but hitting a bit of the San Diego section would be lovely.
 
#141 ·
Well the USFS issued it's reply - standard BS.

Summary version:
USFS Summary by CHUM said:
You have enough trails to ride and we don't care if we are violating our own policy...

so there - neener, neener...
Please read FULL version and steps on how to change their mind. The USFS clearly does not comprehend how 'aware' we are as user group to the issue at hand.

USFS said:
This letter is in response to your October 22, 2012, email. I appreciate your interest in finding solutions that minimize conflict and the offer to work collaboratively on resolving and improving trail stewardship. My staff and I have a keen interest in improving mountain bicycle recreation experiences and increasing opportunities in appropriate places where shared use with bicycles already exists or is not prohibited. Both here and nationally, the Forest Service has partnered through a Memorandum of Understanding with the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) and other organizations to collaborate on the development and maintenance of shared use trails that meet agency goals for resource protection while providing and improving high quality mountain biking experiences.

Nation-wide the Forest Service provides the largest trail system in the nation with over 157,000 miles within the system. Outside of designated wilderness there are 125,962 miles of trail, of which 123,739 miles are open to mountain bicycling (98%) and 12,389 miles of trail managed specifically for mountain bicycling. We agree that there is much to be gained by selecting focal areas to work with communities and non-profits to improve mountain bicycling opportunities.

National Scenic and Historic Trails are to be managed for the activities and uses for which they were established by Congress as set forth by law. The primary uses for the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) were determined by the Comprehensive Management Plan and are also found in 36 C.F.R. § 212.21 as "primarily a footpath and horseback riding trail." The Comprehensive Plan is explicit in its "Criteria for Location, Design, Signing and User Facilities" that the trail should "provide opportunities for hikers, horseman, and other non-mechanized travelers." The bicycle closure for the PCT (1988) was developed with the unanimous support of the PCT Advisory Council after the Comprehensive Management Planning effort was completed. As you are likely aware, the Advisory Council, required by the National Trails System Act (NTSA) (Sec.5(d)), contained members from each state at the recommendation of the Governors, representatives from each federal or independent agency that the trail passes through, and members appointed to represent private organizations, including corporate and individual landowners and land users.

Legislative direction for considering additional uses beyond the primary uses of foot and horse travel is found in NTSA Sec. 7(c): "Other uses along the trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, may be permitted by the Secretary charged with the administration of the trails." The requirement to determine an identified carrying capacity of the trail and a plan for its implementation (Section 5(e)) would also need to be met. At this time, the Forest Service will not be pursuing a Comprehensive Management Plan Amendment and the rulemaking that would be required solely to consider adding "other uses" to the PCT. We will not be pursing "termination" of the bicycle closure order either for similar concerns. Our focus for management of the PCT continues to be ecological restoration and the backlog of maintenance resulting from wildfires, the Sierra Wind Event of 2011, and the flood events of 2006 and 2009 in Washington State.

There are many places where shared use with bicycles already exists or is not prohibited, and we support working together to improve mountain bicycle access and opportunities to connect local communities to National Forest System lands. Our region is currently working with the IMBA to identify where these opportunities exist and we welcome your assistance to identify sites and work to leverage resources for planning and implementation. . . .

Sincerely,

/s/ [employee] (for)
RANDY MOORE
Regional Forester
Facebook page - Sharing The PCT
Sharing The PCT said:
The Forest Service has rejected our request to rescind or reconsider the Pacific Crest Trail bicycle ban. Its letter to us, which we received two days ago, i.e., on Feb. 5, 2013, is posted below in the comments section.

It is time for you to take action and here are instructions for exactly how to do it.

We believe the Forest Service's decision is shortsighted, biased, and legally questionable. We are not going to stand by while the Forest Service ignores its own rules. The 1988 bicycle ban emerged from behind closed doors. Decisions made in 2013 cannot be made in similar secrecy.

The Forest Service's decision is bad policy-bad for cyclists, bad for the trails community, and bad for the long-term preservation and success of a trail that needs all the public support it can get.

While we work on the legalities, we ask you immediately to insist that the 1988 bicycle ban be rescinded. Here's how to do it in two simple steps:

1) Contact your member of Congress. Tell them who you are and what you want. Make it reflect your personal views. A sample letter is shown below. Your member of Congress is HERE: Find Your Representative · House.gov.

2) Contact Tom Tidwell, the Chief of the Forest Service, in Washington, D.C. Tell him who you are and what you want. Make it also reflect your personal views. His contact info is here: USDA Forest Service - Caring for the land and serving people. (direct e-mail address ttidwell@fs.fed.us).

Beyond e-mailing your member of Congress and Mr. Tidwell, please spread the word among your friends and fellow trail users. Sign up on our contact list at Sharing the Pacific Crest TrailHome » Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail. And please let us know what you hear back from your elected officials and anyone else. Our e-mail address is pct.initiative@gmail.com.

Your voice is important and will be heard by those you write to. Each one of you who writes directly impacts the small group of people charged with making broad, far-reaching decisions about how the PCT can be used. Ask for a direct response to your inquiry and don't hesitate to follow up until you get one.

Re your letter to your Congressmember, here's a SAMPLE.

Since your member of Congress likely won't know much about the PCT, it's probably best to start your request with an introductory paragraph along these lines:

« Dear [name of Congressmember]:

I am a cyclist who would like to bicycle at least some part of the Pacific Crest Trail, which runs for 2,663 miles from Canada to Mexico along the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada. In 1988 the Forest Service closed the PCT to bicycles with no public input. The closure order was simply typed on a piece of paper and signed by three Forest Service employees. I would like that closure order to be rescinded.

Today, the closure procedure is widely understood to be defective because the original decision was made behind closed doors. Also, the closure order is of a type that's supposed to be temporary, as in the case of a safety problem with a campsite or a dock that needs repair. Such orders are not designed to put in place an enormously consequential blanket policy and keep it in place for a quarter of a century.

Mountain bikers did not have a voice in this matter back in 1988, but we are keenly aware of it today. Since 2010, a citizens' group called the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative (PCTRI) has been working on getting the closure rescinded or at least reassessed so that responsible cyclists like me can enjoy at least some portions of the PCT by bicycle.

But on February 5, 2013, the Forest Service announced that the behind-closed-doors approach remains in effect. It is refusing to hear from the public and plans to keep the entire trail closed to bicycles. I believe the rule to be capricious and baseless.

I am writing to ask you to ask the Forest Service to rescind the 1988 order. It was summarily imposed, so it can and should be summarily canceled. Unlike in 1988, the Forest Service knows very well how to manage shared-use trails, and the PCT should be no exception. The PCT belongs to all of us and I want my voice to be heard.

Sincerely,
[Your name] »

In addition to the foregoing and any points you think of yourself, you could mention these items to your member of Congress, the Chief of the Forest Service, and the PCTA (but keep it short!):

1. According to the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative, most of the PCT is lightly used most of the year and parts of it grow over from lack of use by anyone.

2. The Pacific Crest Trail Association admits that it cannot keep up with maintaining the entire trail. It is always seeking federal funding to do the work. Mountain bikers could quickly become an invaluable volunteer resource for maintaining the trail.

3. The PCT runs through counties that are struggling economically. The few hikers and horseback riders who use the trail don't seem to be putting much of a dent in those economic problems. Mountain bikers would bring in new revenue to the thousands of local businesses, motels and restaurants along the trail's route.

4. Mountain biking is quiet, environmentally friendly, and healthy. If everyone in the country who could ride a bike would do so, we'd have a much lower national health bill.

5. This isn't about allowing motor vehicles on the PCT. Bicycling is human-powered, just like walking, jogging, and skiing.

6. Please check out the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative's website for more information: Sharing the Pacific Crest TrailHome » Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail.

Thank you for your support! The campaign is far from over. We remain optimistic for long-term success.

PCTRI
Letter Writing WILL make a difference - this is not a giant group of officials shutting off trail access....this is 1 or 2 people behind closed doors not doing their job because they want the easy way out. We have to make them get off their butts and do something....
 
#145 ·
Yes, we politely held back from bombarding the Forest Service with e-mail because the staff lulled us into thinking that the agency was probably going to review the closure, and that would be the time to write in. Meanwhile, the PCT traditionalists had no such reservations and clogged the agency's mailbox with rants. And that seems to have scared the Forest Service off. Which leaves everything in the status quo, including varying opinions about the validity of the closure order, which was typed up in 1988 with no opportunity for public input.
 
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