# Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

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.


----------



## Kyle509 (Jul 19, 2006)

Well, consider me subscribed.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Thanks, Kyle509. A lot of places would have exciting, even epic, new riding options. We appreciate your early support.

Here's what you can do now if you're interested. If you belong to any mountain bike organization, let it know that you support this initiative and ask it to support it as well. Much political maneuvering tends to occur when something of this magnitude appears, and some mtb groups might be hesitant about supporting PCT access (because of a relationship with a particular Forest Service office or employee, for example). There's nothing to worry about. If this goes through, it'll mean that the Forest Service wanted to do it. But change can make people nervous.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Revolutionary indeed


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

Holy crap. I've never even heard of the PCT until now, and I tell you what . . . it looks pretty amazing. I'm interested in how this unfolds and certainly support its movement.


----------



## finch6013 (Jul 9, 2011)

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.


----------



## Maddog (Jul 4, 2004)

What an exciting development! A bunch of that non-wilderness trail ain't so scenic either, at least the parts around here! There would be a lot more volunteers for trail work if the FS opened the PCT to bikes too!


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

Horses can use the PCT, it
isn't just for hikers.


----------



## gridtalker (Dec 7, 2006)

imtnbke said:


> 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.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WOW very nice


----------



## abegold (Jan 30, 2004)

I've looked at the PCT site a few times over several years. If you search mountain biking on the site you'll find extremely negative anit-bicycle LIES on the site posted by a trail somebody. This will be a battle that will take MANY of us to counter the BS but WE CAN WIN with our VOTES and COMMENTS, DO IT!!!
This trail is thousands of miles long, lots to see.


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

This is very exciting news. If this happens then I would say this would be one of the more significant access breakthroughs in years. Is there a website with info that we can tap into?


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Hi, nwbikur — Thanks! We don't have a website and we should. I hadn't thought of that and no one else in our group has mentioned it. Do you know of anyone with the expertise to create one? (Free hosting would also be great, but I don't know if that's feasible.)


----------



## umarth (Dec 5, 2007)

I rolled through about 4 miles of the PCT near Waldo Lake on accident a month ago. I'd love to do it again without the mild accompanying guilt.


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

Agreed on the website. I don't know the first thing about building a webpage so I'm useless in that regard.

Edit: How about this: Change.org


----------



## TobyGadd (Sep 9, 2009)

Hopefully they'll look at the Colorado Trail as an example of how well bikes/peds/horses can get along. Many ago, I did some work on the PCT as part of a professional crew. It sure would be nice to ride it someday!


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

John Kuhl said:


> Horses can use the PCT, it
> isn't just for hikers.


This is a key argument point. All studies to date have indicated that horses have more, or at least the same, impact as mountain bikes.


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

imtnbke said:


> Hi, nwbikur - Thanks! We don't have a website and we should. I hadn't thought of that and no one else in our group has mentioned it. Do you know of anyone with the expertise to create one? (Free hosting would also be great, but I don't know if that's feasible.)





OO7 said:


> Agreed on the website. I don't know the first thing about building a webpage so I'm useless in that regard.
> 
> Edit: How about this: Change.org


I don't have any expertise either but maybe somebody could jump in and lend a hand now that the word is out.

It seems like something like this might take some coordination so having a website seems like a good start. We're going to be up against some stiff and very organized opposition on this. Anything that could unite the various local trail advocacy groups would be essential. I'm sure there will come a time when public comment will be needed so the website might be good for making announcements like this as well.

Exciting stuff ahead!!


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

The Change.org petitions look very simple. I think the important part of it will be a) getting the correct information on the petition and b) getting the word out. I think it will not be hard to garner "support" or signatures from a large volume of MTBers based on this site and all the local boards that the trail will affect.


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

Glad to see this Stickied . . . now lets get started with a petition. In case you can't tell, I'm pretty motivated about this.


----------



## Gordon Shumway (Sep 17, 2012)

I'm in.. huge hiker myself but also always willing and glad to share the trails. If I am on my bike I slow down and say hi to hikers or equestrian folks. If I am hiking I move out of the way as much as I can. I don't get all the hate. The PCT should be open to all.. I was just on a portion of it last month and it is amazing. I bet you.. no I guarantee you more maintenance would be done by the MTBers.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Thanks to 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. I'll be working on that and report back.

*007*, your enthusiasm is most welcome! The idea of a petition makes sense. It can't hurt, even though the Forest Service will be asking for everyone's input when the decision-making process gets going, hopefully in just five months. If you'd like to work with me on designing one, please send me a private message.

There are two other things that you can and others can do *now* if you have time and motivation:

The first is to contact the sports editor of your local newspaper and ask him/her to write a story about this. There's been some great sports coverage about mountain biking access in the past:

Sandsberry: Mountain bikers belong in the Wilderness : Sports Yakima

The second very helpful thing would be to contact one board member (assuming that's all you have time for) of the Pacific Crest Trail Association (Pacific Crest Trail Association - Home) and talk with him/her about the value of including mountain bikers in the PCT trail community. The PCTA is conservative; the staff are opposed to bicycles on the trail, and that is the group's official policy. But it's the PCTA board that sets the policy. Some of the board members might be willing to change the policy. Here's a link to the board members:

Pacific Crest Trail Association


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

imtnbke said:


> Thanks to 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. I'll be working on that and report back.
> 
> *007*, your enthusiasm is most welcome! The idea of a petition makes sense. It can't hurt, even though the Forest Service will be asking for everyone's input when the decision-making process gets going, hopefully in just five months. If you'd like to work with me on designing one, please send me a private message.
> 
> ...


PM Sent. I think the value in a petition is that it can provide an indication to legislators of the extent of interest surrounding this topic. Even though its you are correct that the actual decision making will involve input from multiple sources, this can be one loud voice if we get enough people on board. It would SUCK to see the opposition come to the table with a few thousand signatures if we weren't prepared.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

I agree with that, and we appreciate your help on getting the petition going.


----------



## abegold (Jan 30, 2004)

TwoHeadsBrewing said:


> This is a key argument point. All studies to date have indicated that horses have more, or at least the same, impact as mountain bikes.


Horse impact around 10x that of a mountain bike and a hiker as equal to a mountain bike.


----------



## bt (Nov 24, 2007)

I know a section moto guys thrash often


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

_"I know a section moto guys thrash often."_

If you don't mind saying, which section is that, how often do motorcycles use it, and what damage (if any) do they do?

We're trying to gather all the information we can about the actual conditions on the PCT, as opposed to people's mental image of the trail, which may not jibe with reality. Everyone's personal knowledge is most helpful.

Thanks.


----------



## muddblood (Jul 10, 2012)

imtnbke said:


> There are two other things that you can and others can do *now* if you have time and motivation:
> 
> The first is to contact the sports editor of your local newspaper and ask him/her to write a story about this. There's been some great sports coverage about mountain biking access in the past:
> 
> ...


So we just hop on this web site and email as many board of directors as we can? Is there a formal online petition? I will help in ANY way I can!!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

abegold said:


> Horse impact around 10x that of a mountain bike and a hiker as equal to a mountain bike.


Too bad statistics like that are usually twisted in favor of certain parties or against a certain party. I like how that guy believed that horses have no more impact than a mtn biker... wonder about the origins of the statistics he found.

I'm sure some will target the heavier, aggressive, adrenaline junky mtn bikers when "making up" their statistics. For example, if you got a 225+ lbs biker on a 35+ lbs bike on 26x2.0 mud tires (widely spaced spiky knobs), going 15-25 MPH in not the smoothest manner, anti-mtn bikers can claim they have 10x more impact on the trail than a hiker, specifically some lightfooted 60 lbs 9 year old hiker with boots with wide stable footprint and a very low profile tread (and since some other statistics say horses do 10x more impact than a hiker...). On the other hand, a skilled 120 lbs biker on a 22 lbs bike riding at a steady and controlled cruising speed, with big 29x2.2 tires with a tightly spaced low profile tire, may do 1/2 as much impact than a 225 lbs hiker with small feet and boots with an aggressive lug pattern. Or you can look at a beginner rider that drags his brakes and skids down descents or tries to go fast and winds up doing heavy late braking causing erosion or look at the heavy clumsy footed hiker sliding down the descent and not blaming the poor design of the trail...

It's all about weight/forces and how big of a footprint that weight is spread out to the ground and also the strength of the impacts (footsteps and acceleration, including deceleration, direction changes, etc.) in the end. A light riding horse weighs about 1000 lbs and... just look at race courses and general habitats, horse racing courses get obliterated and ranches tend to be powdered up a bit too, and trails show clear identifiable damage. CX bikes cut up CX race courses pretty badly. XC races tend to widen out what used to be singletrack, creating all sorts of sissy lines, and while the dirt tends to be smoothened and hardpacked (many consider this a benefit), depressions form that can turn into puddles. Lots of riding over time tends to "move the trails", as people take more favorable lines and unused lines get taken over by the growth. DH oriented trails tend to transform to look like nothing a hiker or horse belong on.

It's fortunate to have IMBA being associated with mtn bikers, who's particularly influential on trail use as a whole. Interesting how they're "sterilizing" multi-use trails, redesigning them to be sustainable, and trying to prove that sustainable can be fun and encouraging the creation of bike specific "bike park" or "flow" style trails for the aggressive adrenadline junky mtn bikers, to try and lure them away from abusing the multi-use trails, so the other trail users don't consider mtn bikers as inconsiderate and unwelcome as a whole.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

muddblood said:


> So we just hop on this web site and email as many board of directors as we can? Is there a formal online petition? I will help in ANY way I can!!


It would be better to call one of them (or send them an e-mail with your phone number and ask them to call you). It's not necessary to call all of them-pick one who you think might be interested in what you have to say. What's needed is dialogue. Some of these people may have minimal knowledge of mountain biking and reflexively fear the idea of bicycles on trails.

For now, that would be great. Later we'll be asking you to submit a comment to the Forest Service. That might not happen for several months, though. And we'll be drawing up a petition for you to consider signing too.

Thanks.


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

Varaxis said:


> Too bad statistics like that are usually twisted in favor of certain parties or against a certain party. I like how that guy believed that horses have no more impact than a mtn biker... wonder about the origins of the statistics he found.
> 
> I'm sure some will target the heavier, aggressive, adrenaline junky mtn bikers when "making up" their statistics. For example, if you got a 225+ lbs biker on a 35+ lbs bike on 26x2.0 mud tires (widely spaced spiky knobs), going 15-25 MPH in not the smoothest manner, anti-mtn bikers can claim they have 10x more impact on the trail than a hiker, specifically some lightfooted 60 lbs 9 year old hiker with boots with wide stable footprint and a very low profile tread (and since some other statistics say horses do 10x more impact than a hiker...). On the other hand, a skilled 120 lbs biker on a 22 lbs bike riding at a steady and controlled cruising speed, with big 29x2.2 tires with a tightly spaced low profile tire, may do 1/2 as much impact than a 225 lbs hiker with small feet and boots with an aggressive lug pattern. Or you can look at a beginner rider that drags his brakes and skids down descents or tries to go fast and winds up doing heavy late braking causing erosion or look at the heavy clumsy footed hiker sliding down the descent and not blaming the poor design of the trail...
> 
> ...


I certainly agree with you, but I'd love to see this conversation take part outside of this thread. I don't want to see this thread derailed from the primary point, which is gaining community support for greater access to the PCT.


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

Honestly, I don't want to see mountain bikers when I'm out on the PCT. I've considered how great of a trail it would be to bike, but still, I like to backpack on backpacking trails. Keeping it continuous would be great. Sorry to rain on the parade of those interested, I know some people would love it. This is just a conflict of interest. Because of past conflicts with cyclists while hiking multi use trails, I usually don't hike multi use. It seems like another deterrent for the PCT to me.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

It brings up the point that you need more points that better support your message, than something unreliable like that, when delivered in a concise manner. You can't give someone like that a 3 paragraph message and expect them to read it all, considering how busy they are. Most people wouldn't know what to say when they try to contact...

You got to have plenty of reliable support for your statement in order to convince someone, yet keep it concise. Best if you cite a reputable source (pref non-biased) and use their credentials to enhance your claims.

I've also hiked trails and find it disturbing how inconsiderate how a vast majority of mtn bikers were to hikers, especially those in groups. Hikers on the trails can feel like cyclists on a road. On a narrow road with plenty of traffic, a cyclist can feel unwelcome and prefer a road where there's no cars. The more bikers on a trail, a hiker can feel unwelcome and may prefer a trail with no bikers. I don't hike much since they seem too much of a minority and minorities in these kinds of cases tend to lose. I don't think opening trails in general to mtn bikers is a bad thing though. Still plenty of places to hike where bikers can't ride (up at least), which are true gems.


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

ehigh said:


> Honestly, I don't want to see mountain bikers when I'm out on the PCT. I've considered how great of a trail it would be to bike, but still, I like to backpack on backpacking trails. Keeping it continuous would be great. Sorry to rain on the parade of those interested, I know some people would love it. This is just a conflict of interest. Because of past conflicts with cyclists while hiking multi use trails, I usually don't hike multi use. It seems like another deterrent for the PCT to me.


How would seeing a mt. biker while you're on the PCT negatively affect your experience? What do you feel when you see other hikers? How do you feel when you see equestrians?


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

Czar Chasm said:


> How would seeing a mt. biker while you're on the PCT negatively affect your experience? What do you feel when you see other hikers? How do you feel when you see equestrians?


It's happened to me, and it's happened to friends:

I ride a lot of multi use trails. 
Just recently, I was hiking a trail I've ridden well over a hundred times. I was walking along when I spotted a group of cyclists coming downhill. I yielded, even though I had the right of way, and one cussed at me, "these are biker trails, **** off!"

And after that, it hit me. About every time I'm hiking a multi use trail I experience some sort of trail user conflict with bikers that reflects some sort of aggressive mentality, albeit sometimes passive. It sucks because I mostly ride and I get hung up on the days I go on a hike by some jerk off. And really, I don't get it. I know I'm well tempered when it comes to conflict resolution. I do my best. But you know what, I would hate looking over my shoulder with a 30 pound pack on and having to stop for a cyclist just because I feel that "I should" like so many hikers do on multi use trails, regardless of the hikers having the right of way. Countless hikers pull over for cyclists on multi use trails when they shouldn't even think about it.
It's a nuisance.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

That's amazing. I don't know where you live, but I have to wonder if there's something in the air or the water there. I've ridden perhaps 30,000 miles on trails and dirt roads and have hiked and backpacked hundreds of miles, and I can barely remember any unpleasantnesses. Admittedly I hike much less than I used to, because I much prefer mountain biking; and when I backpacked in the 1970s and 1980s there were few if any trail cyclists around. But on recent hikes, the mountain bikers I've encountered have been just fine.

I do hear stories like this from adamantly antibicycle old-school hikers, and they sometimes allege they were injured by a mountain biker, but no one has ever been able to document a bad encounter with a police report, a hospital record, or the like. Our local park statistics show a number of allegations of rude or dangerous mountain biker behavior but, according to official records, zero documentation of actual injury. I think they're making the injury claims up. I see it as being like claims of voter fraud in states that lack a photo ID requirement to vote: allegations of fraud all over the place but virtually no proof that any has occurred (maybe it's happened once or twice).


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

Well that's a bummer. The bad apples in every user group sure do some PR damage... but I think they'll always be the exception, not the norm. I personally feel that the PCT goes through some very remote areas that even when it opens, will see very little bicycle traffic. Not a lot of people (from any user group) typically go much more than 5-10 miles beyond any trailhead. If I was hiking the PCT for several weeks, and was 20 miles from nowhere, and I bumped into a mt. biker or bikers, I think I'd be thrilled to see/talk with another person(s), and possibly get info about what's ahead of me.


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

ehigh said:


> It's happened to me, and it's happened to friends:
> 
> I ride a lot of multi use trails.
> Just recently, I was hiking a trail I've ridden well over a hundred times. I was walking along when I spotted a group of cyclists coming downhill. I yielded, even though I had the right of way, and one cussed at me, "these are biker trails, **** off!"
> ...


For every biker being an a$$hole, there's a hiker, equestrian, or runner that's exactly the same. I've had bad run-ins with all types of users, and what they are doing (riding/hiking/running) has nothing to with how they act. I'd say 99 out of 100 people I come across are really friendly and we exchange greetings. And I think that's a pretty good percentage. I'm not sure anyone should expect 100% nice people everywhere...it's just not reasonable.

I would be willing to bet that the people who encounter nasty people on a regular basis are actually themselves rude or at least socially inept. We have people around here that have already made up their minds that mountain bikers are all reckless and rude bastards. And I'd bet that gets reinforced each time they go out because they're dicks to MTB'ers and get it thrown right back in their face. You get out of life what you put in. And if you shoot negative energy at someone, it will likely be reflected right back at you. Thankfully the opposite is also true!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

You technically don't ever seen other hikers unless they're going the other way, and they're usually pretty cool and considerate. You can see the expressions on their face and body language and their gear and can get a basic story about them from that, making it cool to see them. I rarely catch up to other hikers nor have other hikers catching up to me, going in the same direction, unless in a group with young kids in it. On occasion, some pass along some gossip that there's some *******s or a large group on the trail that I should look out for and it's sad when they're identified as mtn bikers.

When I see equestrians, I'm usually polite, and marvel at how healthy, strong, and good looking their horses look, but then when I see the gouges in the trail and the horse poo... I definitely yield, since I don't know how to really act around horses and know they're a bit faster than me. Amazing to see them go down hills.

I know hikers have the right of way on a trail, but I rather step off the trail to let any faster folks pass, no matter what they're riding or not riding, and in some areas, that's kind of inconvenient. I guess since I'm trying to be considerate. Bikers are typically the fastest, and I consider it an interruption every time a biker goes by. The most annoying type of biker is the one that quietly "sneaks up" from behind. I put a bell on my hardtail, since I didn't want to be that kind of rider. 

If I were a local to the PCT and hiked it, I simply would just switch to biking, since hiking would no longer be appealing due to the trail being used by a "bigger beast". If there are less hikers, would the wilderness areas of the trail get neglected? The portion close to me goes through Big Bear, which has all sorts of good riding nearby, but I can think of epic rides going north along the PCT.

People say they feel unsafe riding their bikes on the road, while many others insist that it's safe. On the road, you can ride to the right and drivers can give ya room without much inconvenience, but roadies still prefer lightly traveled roads that feel safe, due to having space to ride without dealing with traffic going in the same direction. It's sort of the same feeling with hikers, except that it's hard to go nonstop with bikers passing by in the same direction and not all bikers actually yield to hikers going in the opposing direction. I know there are times where my companion has screamed out in fear as bikers skid to a stop (but laugh afterwards, embarrassed by their reaction). Just easier to give plenty of room to let people pass, since people look out of control when they slow down.

What would you do as a biker if you saw a big animal on the trail, that wasn't hostile to humans? Hikers feel like the rabbits, deer, birds, etc. on the trail, and feel like it's best to prepare to flee. If hikers had the strength, size, and mass of a moose, it'd be a different story.

I've been known to be rude to cyclists that don't yield. I might say something like "thanks a lot" in a sarcastic manner when they slow down, see that I am hanging on the edge of side of the trail with exposure, and then skid through. It's even more worrisome when it's a newb and he's shaking all the way down, maybe dabbing and waddling. Then there's the Strava guys... That's why I made an earlier comment that I found it interesting that IMBA was encouraging the creation of sustainable bike park and flow type trails (for bikers only) to help keep aggressive riders from abusing multiuse trails.

Hikers do feel unwelcome on multi-use trails. Rather just stick to hiking up mountain peaks, where it's typically far too steep and rugged to ride unless you're a masochist or something. Figured I'd try trail running and bouldering again once it cools down or something.


----------



## Gordon Shumway (Sep 17, 2012)

I agree with a lot of you.. Both sides. I've come across angry MTBers who act like they are shooting a Mountain Dew commercial and I am in their way. I have also come across granola hikers who act like no one should be on "their trail." I always try to be sincere to anyone I see on the trail because I feel we are both out doing something a lot of folks don't even experience at all. Doesn't matter if I'm hiking or biking. I was hiking in the sierras in August and came across the rudest hiker/backpacker I have ever come into contact with. I can guarentee that he would have been just as rude, if not more of a jerk, to MTBers. A-holes are everywhere and I have to agree with someone's comment above, 99% of my trail interactions are positive.. It's the 1%ers (haha) that can ruin the experience. I am totally for opening the PCT to MTBing.


----------



## TobyGadd (Sep 9, 2009)

OCtrailMonkey said:


> It's the 1%ers (haha) that can ruin the experience. I am totally for opening the PCT to MTBing.


Yep.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Yep. I just adapt. I ain't calling myself mtb'er, hiker, or whatever. I just wanna enjoy the outdoors and if they let me ride my bike on the PCT, I'd explore more of it than I ever would just hiking. I think things like hiking the Sierras and maybe climbing Mt Whitney is something a hiker would enjoy more than PCT, but it's nice to have some nice trails to get experience on before trying something like that. I'm not a serious hiker, but if I wanted to challenge myself hiking, HTFU and accepting mtb'ers would be the easier part of the challenge.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

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


----------



## TahoeBC (Apr 11, 2006)

Thanks for your efforts imtnbke!

Hopefully the outcome in the end will be left to the individual land mangers which are many to decide if sections should be opened up or not. I do not think the PCTA has any authority what so ever to decide if the trail is closed or opened to bikes, although there opinion may weigh heavily with the feds.

Of course Wilderness areas will be off limit, but there are many sections of trail that just opening short section to bike use opens up amazing links for larger rides (These happen to be the most poached sections because of this).

Saying that the trail was not built to sustain bike traffic is ridiculous, if it was built to sustain horse traffic it fine for bikes. A buddy of mine who builds lots of trails was explaining how much longer it takes to build trails to support horse traffic, not only the trail bed, but clearing a large swath both horizontally & vertically allow a horse with panniers to pass.

Getting bikers involvement with the trail will only improve the trail as MUCH more maintenance will occur on sections being overgrown and with tree removal. Not to mention the monetary effect of people joining the PCTA.

Some how 1000 of miles of trails are shared between Hikers / Horses / Bikers, for the most part without indecent, and guess what the trails seem to hold up ok.

Ideally some sections will open up. Possibly with an odd/even day thing, or something seasonal, like Sept 1st till the first snowfall when the though hikers are done.

There's one example of a 1/4 miles section of PCT blocks the connection of 100's of miles of trails, do we really need to create another parallel trial in the forest, just because this 1/4 mile section that runs next to a major freeway cannot be shared? pretty unbelievable.


----------



## Howley (Nov 23, 2005)

Where is IMBA on this?


----------



## ayayron (Apr 11, 2011)

PCT biking would be amazing


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

Howley said:


> Where is IMBA on this?


They are aware of the situation and we are working on their involvement.


----------



## slowmotion (Mar 29, 2007)

big thanks to you and people like you who take time out of their busy schedules to make the possibility of this and other things happen which benefit the rest of us who are either too lazy, too busy, to cynical so on and so forth.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

You're welcome, slowmotion, TahoeBC, and everyone else. I can understand cynicism. However, I give us a fighting chance to gain some sort of access on the non-Wilderness PCT. We'll be asking for your help when the time comes.


----------



## NailheadSS (Oct 6, 2012)

There is lots of PCT within a few miles of the house. Years ago I remember fighting for this to happen.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

NailheadSS said:


> There is lots of PCT within a few miles of the house. Years ago I remember fighting for this to happen.


What happened when you did?


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

The PCT-L is pure comedy. Here's one of the better gems... shows the mindset of these folks, which is crazy :crazy:


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

In some parts, the Forest Service relies on mountain bikers to maintain the Perfect Cycling Trail. When was the last time you saw hikers and equestrians lending a hand. Not around here. I'd even finally pay for the double tax called the "Adventure Pass" to sport my mistress in public.


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

Czar Chasm said:


> The PCT-L is pure comedy. Here's one of the better gems... shows the mindset of these folks, which is crazy :crazy:


Crazy? Are you kidding? Take a walk in their shoes. 
Hike all your life, reach the age of 40, discover all your favorite local hiking trails are now allowing mountain bikes, get run off the trail countless times and see what you'd have to say if you were them. 
I'd have some 'crazy' **** to say about mountain bikers.

There isn't some 1% of us tarnishing our reputation. It's a much larger percent than that.

Mountain bikers make up for a lot of trail stewardship, but that's a lasting impression that doesn't ward off the first impression that many experience as they get dusted when they step off the side of the trail to yield.

To those of you too immature to acknowledge the impression that some mountain bikers give off, grow up. I'm not saying any of you are one of them, but seriously, we impress some and piss off other's. If you fail to acknowledge that we have confliction with and have hurt the feelings of other user groups, it looks really bad for the rest of us when you can't see through someone else's eyes for a minute. There isn't any right or wrong on this issue, it's a conflict of interest.


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

Well yeah, if I got to play golf on a private golf course all my life, and there were usually only 2 other golfers somewhere else on the course, then suddenly I find out I _might _have to share _my _golf course with several other foursomes... some of which _might _drive their carts past the "no carts beyond here" signs, _might make me wait _at the tee box for my shot(!), _might_ rudely demand to play through, or _might_ possibly hit/injure me with their golf ball, hit from a different fairway, I'd be upset too! I want my golf course private, and don't want to share it with others... especially if they dress funny too.

If backpacking was the most important thing in my life, I'd fight for exclusion too. And I'd fight dirty as well. ("Phony photo-ops of fake trail maintenance"???). There... I put myself in their shoes 

The hiking contingent essentially says "you have _enough _bike trails, leave this one for us." I say "You're incorrect about "enough"... and you've had this one to yourselves for 24 years... plus you also have all the Wilderness Areas and National Parks already (not to mention regional areas/trails). Time to share."

If bicycles weren't unjustly banned in '88, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the rule changes, we won't be having this discussion in 2030. The PCT will not die. Thru-hikers won't disappear.

I've come across more than 50 people in my years of exploring the PCT on a bicycle. 1 person went ape$hit, a couple scoldings, several dirty looks, and tons of friendly conversations with happy hikers and a few equestrians. Hikers are usually just happy to see someone, especially someone that provides trail info, maybe some water, and often times a chocolate chip cookie. Nobody I've come across has ever been forced off the trail, had to jump off the trail, or been injured... well, the ape$hit guy might have been emotionally injured from yelling and screaming at a friendly person walking a bike on dirt.


----------



## Fast Eddy (Dec 30, 2003)

Please feel free to voice your opinions regarding bikes on the PCT to our hiker friends. I encourage you to be civil and show folks how friendly their future trail-mates can be. Consider this to be a reciprocal link.

http://www.facebook.com/SavethePCT


----------



## Scott forty G. (Dec 25, 2009)

I smell Revolution around the corner.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/2228180397/permalink/10152137744210398/


----------



## nickelforanegg (Oct 11, 2012)

*From a PCT hiker's perspective*

Hi all,

While I don't expect to convince you that the PCT hiker is right, I will give you my perspective as a PCT thru-hiker and hopefully convince you that our reasoning is not malicious or intended to keep the trail exclusive. I hiked the entire PCT in 2007, I have volunteered on trail maintenance crews, and my wife is on a local chapter of the PCTA.

I think our set of arguments against allowing bikers on the PCT come down to one common factor: the speed disparity between hikers and bikers. Speed disparity comes through in each of the following arguments:

-"Loss of the wilderness feel" Let's say for the sake of simplicity that mountain bikers on average travel twice the speed of hikers. On a hiker-only trail, two people traveling by foot can hike for an entire day in the same direction, separated by as little as a half-mile, and never see each other. The same separation is never maintained when the person behind is traveling by bike.

-"Safety/Annoyance" I frequently hike on multi-use trails near my home that are major mountain biking destinations, and find that it's a very common occurrence to have bikers come from behind on downhills at high speeds. I am in almost every occasion the one who is must move from the trail (sometimes to avoid being hit). It could be just my human nature to avoid fast moving objects. But in many cases, the biker does not even announce their approach. I don't think they're doing this out of neglect or for mean-spirited reasons; it's just the nature of the situation: the biker is moving fast, flying around a corner, and in many cases just does not have the time to give enough forewarning. Regardless of the reasoning, this can be annoying, particularly in the near-miss cases, and this effect is amplified on narrow trails like the PCT.

-"Trail Damage" I am no physicist, but I know that faster things move more dirt. Fast rivers move more sediment, hard winds blow more dust. Bikers move faster than hikers, and skid, break, and jump to avoid obstacles. These things damage trails. Whereas I can understand bikers thinking of the PCT as "any old trail", it's not. It actually ties an entire community together. There are numerous volunteers that work hard all summer to keep up with the current level of trail maintenance (fallen logs, drainage,..), and in many cases they can't keep up. And the people that tend to volunteer are the people who have thru-hiked, intend to thru-hike, or are connected to a thru-hiker. The volunteers TEND not to be the casual hikers who just happen upon the PCT for a weekend. And since bikers will likely never be able to "thru-bike" the PCT (Wilderness act), they are less likely to join that community and feel the community obligation to the trail. Thus by introducing a new group who inflicts more damage on average per user, we should expect that the PCT will be in much worse shape.

Thank you for reading, and see you on the trails,
Nick


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Hi, Nick -- Thank you for taking the time to post these arguments. I for one am trying to grasp and understand the antibicycle hikers' mindset and point of view. It helps that I've backpacked about 125 miles of the PCT. The best way to reach a satisfactory outcome is for people to try to be as open-minded as possible.


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

Hi Nick,

I for one appreciate your honesty and civility. While I don't necessarily agree with you on all your points, I respect you for coming here, being polite and expressing your point of view in a calm and rational manner. Kudo's to you.


----------



## moofish (May 3, 2011)

It looked like that PCT-L guy does not know that mountain bikes dont have motors. This seems obvious to us but many people think that MX bikes off road are mountain bikes. Why are the hikers rights more important than bikers rights. As I understand it you are asking for bikes to be allowed back, not allowed for the first time. If you have been taking something you have no moral right to and that opportunity dries up you can be pissed off but that doesnt mean you ever had a right to it. It sounds like hikers are just annoyed that they have to give up something they had no right to in the first place.Like using a tax loophole for years and then finding the law has changed. They have a right to go slow we have a right to go fast (remaining safe of course). Any argument about trail damage is ridiculous if they allow horses.


----------



## Kyle509 (Jul 19, 2006)

Their mentality is absurd and it does make them appear crazy. Look at how they equate us to motorcycles. Look how they try to use the Mike Vandeman arguments about trail damage while they accept pack animals and horses even though it's beyond obvious hiking on any heavily used wilderness trail that they cause major amounts of damage. It's simply a matter of ignoring reality because it doesn't suit your own self interests.

I personally have little to no interest in riding over crowded trails like the PCT. In Eastern WA/North ID we ride trails with horses, hikers, and even motorcycles all on the same trail and maybe 1% of them act like these people do. Most of the PCT in my home state is in wilderness anyway. But what interests me most about this is seeing how it plays out, because I think it could set an example for future trail access decisions.


----------



## PerfectZero (Jul 22, 2010)

ehigh said:


> Hike all your life, reach the age of 40, discover all your favorite local hiking trails are now allowing mountain bikes, get run off the trail countless times and see what you'd have to say if you were them.


The thing is though, most people learn about the concept of sharing before they turn 40.


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

PerfectZero said:


> The thing is though, most people learn about the concept of sharing before they turn 40.


I think that your view of this world is dangerously optimistic then. Call me a pessimist, but these people like real foot path singletrack, not mountain bike singletrack. And they don't want to lose that. I wouldn't either.


----------



## PerfectZero (Jul 22, 2010)

lol "dangerously" optimistic.


----------



## triplep (Oct 22, 2008)

nickelforanegg said:


> Hi all,
> 
> While I don't expect to convince you that the PCT hiker is right, I will give you my perspective as a PCT thru-hiker and hopefully convince you that our reasoning is not malicious or intended to keep the trail exclusive. I hiked the entire PCT in 2007, I have volunteered on trail maintenance crews, and my wife is on a local chapter of the PCTA.


Small world Nick! My wife and I thru hiked the PCT in 07 too. What was your trail name?

I'm conflicted about this, honestly, since I do a lot of hiking and started mountain biking a couple years ago. I can see the points of both sides, and have been on both sides at some point. I think it is important for everybody to listen and for each side not to dismiss the other side's arguments without trying to understand them.

I agree with most of Nick's point and would like to expand on them from my experience. We encountered mountain bikers a couple times on the trip. Some were good, some were bad.

Many parts of the trail are quite exposed and could be extremely dangerous for hikers/bikers to encounter each other. We encountered one group as they came from behind and they had to follow us for almost a mile before it was safe to pass. They were fortunately the good ones.

We encountered another group later which were quite antagonistic after they were told bikes were not allowed on the PCT. Fortunately it was not as dangerous a location and they rode around us quickly after giving us a piece of their mind.

Everyone should remember that compared to bikes, hikers and horses move slow. Encounters between groups of hikers, and between hikers and horses were not a surprise (unlike the bikes). I spent a significant amount of time hiking "in the zone" when I would have reacted quite slowly to the arrival of a mountain bike. The ability to do that was part of the beauty of the PCT. Most of the people I hiked with and spoke with enjoy being away from it all.

Please also consider that most hikers will probably not be looking out for them. And that in an encounter between a hiker and a biker, the hiker will probably lose. Similar to how between a biker and a car, the biker will lose. I'm sure most bicyclists that have ridden on the road have experienced a jerk in a car who drives too close or cuts you off. To the driver in the car it's no big deal, but to you the cyclist, it's much more serious since it can result in your death. Similar thing with hikers and bikers.

I'm not sure every biker really understands that. I know some of the people I've ridden with, or encountered on the trails do not. They don't understand what it is like to have a bike come out of nowhere on a scary piece of trail. The experience level of the hikers on the trails vary greatly too. You have the hard-core Triple Crowners as well as the section hikers, weekend warriors and families with kids.

On the other side, I'm not sure I completely buy the trail damage argument. At least the physical part (the volunteering part makes sense). Portions of the trail in Oregon and Washington, as well as multiple campsites, were in horrible condition due to the combination of rain and horses, and horses are allowed on the PCT. There are irresponsible people everywhere.

I think the "loss of wilderness feel" is a big factor in this. If you have never been out on a long hike, you might not understand what the hikers are concerned about. I'm not sure I am able to explain that without this turning into a novel.

That all said, I'm not sure where I sit on the issue of bikes on the PCT, but if the policy is changed, it hope it is done intelligently with minimal impact to the current users. As Nick said, the PCT is not "any old trail." It is unique and I feel lucky that it was around for me to have experienced it.

IMO, the mountain bike community should step up and try to show what they can contribute to the PCT and how they can help make it better, rather than just argue that it is their "right" to bike there.

Btw, some of the mountain bikers should come experience the hiking side and the PCT community. It's amazing!

-Patrick


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

If I read one more post (here or on FB) about "_could _be injured" or "_could _die" , I might barf. I know it's just a tactic, but puh-leez. It's gotten old. I don't believe there is a single person out enjoying a trail on wheels, foot, or hooves that's looking to hurt another person. Worried about being injured or dying? Stay home!

Some thoughtful points above, Patrick... although I don't believe there is a single thing the mountain biking community can say or do that would change the mindset of 99.7% of the vocal PCT hikers/equestrians. I could offer a $10M donation and I'm sure they'd turn it down if it meant letting me ride on the PCT one time.

And for the "jerks" that get "caught" riding on the PCT... if it were legal, there wouldn't be f-bomb confrontations where holier-than-thou hikers try and educate non-compliant riders on the rules. There might actually be more kinship and dialogue... but I guess that spoils the hiker's wilderness experience. Oh well.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

The Official stance of the PCTA (as of today):



> The PCTA has issued this response:
> 
> Pacific Crest Trail Association
> 
> ...


[email protected]
Phone: 916-285-1846

If you do contact please be civil/nice. Many of these people have it deeply ingrained that MTB'rs are bad, and riding is bad....based on nothing more than anecdotes and 'feelings'.

If it is possible to change their views it would benefit all involved.


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

triplep said:


> IMO, the mountain bike community should step up and try to show what they can contribute to the PCT and how they can help make it better, rather than just argue that it is their "right" to bike there


I couldn't have said it better. This is what we need to to AS A COMMUNITY, and I believe without a shadow of doubt that we can contribute in a mutually beneficial way.

Cheers to you kind soul . . . cheers. :thumbsup:


----------



## triplep (Oct 22, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


> If I read one more post (here or on FB) about "_could _be injured" or "_could _die" , I might barf. I know it's just a tactic, but puh-leez. It's gotten old. I don't believe there is a single person out enjoying a trail on wheels, foot, or hooves that's looking to hurt another person. Worried about being injured or dying? Stay home!


IMO, it is one thing to get injured doing something dangerous because you do something dumb yourself, and another thing because somebody else does it to you. People often do things that endanger others not because of malice, but because of negligence.



Empty_Beer said:


> Some thoughtful points above, Patrick... although I don't believe there is a single thing the mountain biking community can say or do that would change the mindset of 99.7% of the vocal PCT hikers/equestrians. I could offer a $10M donation and I'm sure they'd turn it down if it meant letting me ride on the PCT one time.


Maybe there isn't a way to change the mindset of the vocal community. But the MTB community looking to increase their access, and thus I believe it is the responsibility of the MTB community to address the concerns of the current users. Addressing it with dismissiveness and contempt will only hurt matters. However, by talking in a constructive, understanding way, you might sway the people who don't have a strong opinion, and that probably silently make up the majority of the PCT community.

There was a similar situation in MA where I live with the Fells. And even though there were very vocal opponents, a good resolution was arrived at after the mess. Change can happen. It might not satisfy everybody. And it might not happen tomorrow.



Empty_Beer said:


> And for the "jerks" that get "caught" riding on the PCT... if it were legal, there wouldn't be f-bomb confrontations where holier-than-thou hikers try and educate non-compliant riders on the rules. There might actually be more kinship and dialogue... but I guess that spoils the hiker's wilderness experience. Oh well.


You could argue that there would be more kinship and dialog if the mountain bikers didn't break the law while simultaneously advocating their view.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

CHUM said:


> The Official stance of the PCTA (as of today):
> 
> [email protected]
> Phone: 916-285-1846
> ...


I think a good strategy is to ask them how they plan on adapting, if the USFS allows bikes on the PCT. Once they start thinking about potentially increasing membership from welcoming mtn bikers, their tune might change. Getting support from outside the mtb community would be awesome. :thumbsup:

It's a better strategy than relying on a community that's has an image created from the racing scene, the mtb films, the news of the "delinquencies" like poaching trails and unauthorized trail building, calling in airlifts off the trail greatly overshadowing the "good" or so-called "true" image people think mtbing has. Also a better strategy than trying to get them to give reasons why they oppose us and trying to counter them.

If we agree to support PCTA, and they support us, it could lead to a favorable outcome in the USFS's decision. Maybe it'll even lead to a start of good relationship with "them" (the hikers and equestrians) which can remedy all sorts of problems, even if they are simply "misunderstandings".


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Varaxis said:


> I think a good strategy is to ask them how they plan on adapting, if the USFS allows bikes on the PCT. Once they start thinking about potentially increasing membership from welcoming mtn bikers, their tune might change. Getting support from outside the mtb community would be awesome. :thumbsup:
> 
> It's a better strategy than relying on a community that's has an image created from the racing scene, the mtb films, the news of the "delinquencies" like poaching trails and unauthorized trail building, calling in airlifts off the trail greatly overshadowing the "good" or so-called "true" image people think mtbing has. Also a better strategy than trying to get them to give reasons why they oppose us and trying to counter them.
> 
> If we agree to support PCTA, and they support us, it could lead to a favorable outcome in the USFS's decision. Maybe it'll even lead to a start of good relationship with "them" (the hikers and equestrians) which can remedy all sorts of problems, even if they are simply "misunderstandings".


I agree with much of what you're saying about the right approach to the skeptics and I for one am going to try to take that approach. I also completely agree with you that the gonzo image that comes from some advertising, YouTube posts, racing flyers, and the like makes gaining access to trails harder. That's true even if the mountain bike skeptics overreact to those things, because it's kind of understandable that they do, given their lack of knowledge about riding a bicycle on a trail. SUV manufacturers may run ads showing their vehicles rampaging through pristine landscapes, spraying water and mud and roaring through streambeds, but most people understand that only 1 in 100,000 vehicle owners drives that way. There's no similar familiarity with how mountain bikes are actually used, so displays of gonzo riding hurt.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

The research is out there and gets presented to the hiking groups and land managers on a regular basis showing that mt bikes are far less damaging to the trail that horses, and land managers are getting it. That issue is slowly becoming less of an impediment to access than other issues

The biggest one that isn't going away is the relative speed difference issue. I would not go so far as to say that car:bike::bike:hiker, but bike>>>horse>hiker in the speed department and there is no fundamental truth that will change that. But that does not mean it cannot be managed through smart trail design and user management. Sure, the whole trail will not be appropriate for bikes. But there are segments that are now and segments that could be with minor work.

There is growing demand for bikepacking routes. Bikepackers use a trail differently than the weekend warrior. Just like backpackers use a trail differently than trail runners. And backpackers and bikepackers use trails more similarly to each other. There should be cameraderie there. 

And yet opportunities for bikepacking are hard to come by. People in some states have to travel a very long way just to find a suitable route. Opening enough segments of the PCT to bikes to allow bikepackers to piece together another long route would be quite the resource. Even if those PCT segments had to be linked to other existing mtb trails to connect them and bypass no bike zones like Wildernesses and other spots.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Good points, NateHawk.

I'd point out that, almost invariably when mountain bikers ask for access to an existing trail, the current users predict doom. Then, almost invariably, when the land manager allows mountain bikes to use that trail, everything turns out to be fine and nothing is heard from anyone again. The stock response to this regular result from the naysayers is that mountain bikers have driven all other users away, but they've never come up with any evidence for this assertion.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

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?


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

imtnbke said:


> 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?


Great idea. :thumbsup:


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

CHUM said:


> Great idea. :thumbsup:


Agreed . . . and to add to that, if someone were willing to generate MAPS of those potential trails, that would be AWESOME.

Public Request: I need maps, pictures, etc. of people biking, doing trail maintenance, etc. for our website. Please provide pictures to which YOU own the rights to, or point me in the direction of whom I can request rights from. By posting your pictures here, you acknowledge the intended use as for publication via a website affiliated with the PCT Reassessment Initiative.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

TwoHeadsBrewing said:


> This is a key argument point. All studies to date have indicated that horses have more, or at least the same, impact as mountain bikes.


Horses have a far larger impact on the environment, they have to be carefully fed certified weed free hay so their **** cannot spread weeds. Their hair of course will hold onto seeds, their footprints alone cause far more trail damage and of course they are noisier than a MTN bike unless you have wet squeaking brakes 

Its a non issue however, to even sit and have to fight for such a wonderful silent sport such as mtn biking to be allowed onto the peoples land is simply amazing.
I certainly hope this passes, and it should not take any real thought to let it.


----------



## albertdc (Mar 2, 2007)

Just another thought in case of so much opposition arises that failure appears eminent, the MTBers could offer a compromise of designating even days open to mountain bikes and odd days open to hikers/horses only. We have some trails in Salt Lake City set up like that. The benefit for us (besides gaining access to trails that might not have otherwise allowed bikes) is that on those even days when bikes are allowed, dogs MUST BE ON A LEASH. This also helps reduce trail conflicts. On hiker-only days, dogs can be off leash.
Obviously full time access would be better, but sometimes baby steps are a good start.


Sent from my Galaxy S3


----------



## JRS73 (May 26, 2012)

My Vasque Clarion's have a wider and more aggressive tread than my mtb tires. Each boot will hit the trail in two different spots. If I use a walking stick or poles, they will contact the trail in 1 or 2 additional spots. That means I am contacting the trail in 3 or 4 different spots within a few feet. On my bike the two contacts are in the same spot. On a multi day trip my pack usually weighs more than my bike, so size and weight of a bike itself is not really an issue in regards to the trail.

IMO, the real issue is elitist attitudes. If all outdoor enthusiasts were courteous and watched out for each other, there would be no problem. However, too many people/groups have a hard-on about how great they are compared to everybody else. We are out there for the same experience, but we all just do it in different ways.


----------



## RiskEverything (Mar 23, 2006)

Where I ride, there are very few multi-use trails. Most parks have multi-use "two-track" for the vehicles which help with trail maintenance, and hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers each have their own designated trails. I occasionally come across people hiking the MTB trails and I usually warn them to keep eyes and ears open for approaching bikes as riders won't be expecting to encounter them. Other than that, I actually encourage them to hike or run the bike trails as they are much more challenging than the hiking-only trails.

There was a recent mass lay-off of USFS personnel, everywhere except the most popular parks for mountain biking. The bikers contribute 90%+ of the income to the park, they designed, created, and maintain the trail system. The rangers maintain the hiking and horse trails because neither of those user groups do any maintenance at all. Other areas of the state thinking about giving trail access to bikers talk to Alafia River State Park rangers about their experience working with the SWAMP club as it has become a model of success.

SWAMP maintains 4 trail systems, by the way. They rotate trail maintenance on Saturdays and hold club rides on Sundays.


----------



## Thirdeye270 (Oct 23, 2012)

Interesting, I hope you achieve your goal!


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

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


----------



## mpmffitz (Jul 18, 2008)

Hopefully some down only signs can be added to the trails. There are some great ridge lines.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

I was just thinking about my experiences with cycling The Arizona Trail. The AZ trail is around 700 miles long, I believe, and traverses Arizona from the Mexican border all the way up to the south rim of the Grand Canyon. Over the years, I've ridden most of it. It's very similar to the PCT in many ways.....it crosses all kinds of terrain, and for the most part it is singletrack. It's much shorter than the PCT, but aside from that, lots of similarities, and traffic on it, whether foot, hoof, or soft-rubber air-filled tire traffic, is very low in general. Just like the PCT in that respect.

The major way it DOES differ from the PCT is that right from the get-go, the AZ trail has always been open to ALL non-motorized users. And I gotta say, that for all of Arizona's boneheaded politics (IMO) I have never encountered a hiker on this trail, or a horse person, who acted like they didn't approve of me being there. In fact, everybody I encountered seemed to be quite friendly to me. One day, the only person I saw for an entire stretch of the trail , from Lake Mary down past Mormon Lake, was a guy who kinda looked like Osama bin Laden! He turned out to be a Sikh, not a Muslim, but he also turned out to be a real friendly guy. He was hiking north, I was riding south. He gave me all kinds of useful info on the trail, and on different segments of the trail....he's hiked the whole route at least once.

In all, my experience with other kinds of trail users on the AZ trail was completely, 100%, positive. 
Only here, in CA, do I encounter this highly divisive, possessive attitude towards a public trail on public land used by members of the .....Public.

If anything, people I encountered on the AZ trail were concerned about MY safety, telling me about upcoming obstacles, the size of their mountain lions, etc.... Imagine that!

So, I think that the attitudes of those opposing cycling on the PCT are to a large extent supported by ideological-fueled agendas, which is sad, because when I talk to these people, I find that I share a love for the land, and for nature, and also have a shared value for solitude and the benefit of communing with nature via a solo ride on the trail, that matches their love of hiking the same surface.

It's a damn shame that the 'anti's' are so entrenched in their beliefs, their ideological line in the sand, that they feel entirely comfortable with what amounts to denying me the equal right to enjoy the trail, in _my_ way. I sense that in so many ways, these hiker folk are otherwise entirely decent, reasonable people, and most of the horse-folk are, as well.

So, I'm optimistic about this issue. Call me a hopeless romantic, but I think that, like Rodney King, (God bless that poor tortured soul) we CAN all get along. It's just gonna take some work, and a bit of 'Tough Love', on our part, both towards the haters and also towards our own kind who are bent on bullying other users.

Sorry for the run-on, rantlike statement. I'll try not to let it happen again! :thumbsup:

Oh yeah, and I wanted to mention, that my bikes all have a really nice-sounding, 'mellifluous' two-tone brass bell. Coming up behind a hiker or equestrian, it never fails to deraw a smile, even from the 'haters'. Although in their case the smile is a fleeting one, quickly suppressed, and replaced with the requisite, dissaproving frown.

Oh yeah....one other thing. Bells are USELESS in the face of an I-pod wearer. They couldn't hear a rattler if they were about to step on it this their ear buds firmly in place!


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

Why apologize? Input like this - especially of an experiential nature - is invaluable.


----------



## shirley0123 (Oct 25, 2012)

nice


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

OO7 said:


> Why apologize? Input like this - especially of an experiential nature - is invaluable.


Thank you, secret agent man....do you think that post would be helpful if I put it up on the PCT comments page? My previous post there was a wee, tad bit in-their-face.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Hi, Ray — That's an excellent comment about the Arizona trail. Yes, put it on the PCT comments page. And the moderator of the sharing the PCT Facebook page would like to make it the highlight there for today too, if that's OK with you.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

imtnbke said:


> Hi, Ray - That's an excellent comment about the Arizona trail. Yes, put it on the PCT comments page. And the moderator of the sharing the PCT Facebook page would like to make it the highlight there for today too, if that's OK with you.


That's totally OK with me. anything that will help.


----------



## crux (Jan 10, 2004)

I'll be a bad influence and donate time and my own money in sustainment of the PCT in northern NM that would allow cyclists access on the trail.

Area is perfect for cycling and very remote to access on foot. If one could bikepack in the area it would be perfect. My daughter is almost old enough where she could ride with us (without gear) to make it a perfect family trip


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Crux, do you mean the CDNST? The PCT runs through Washington, Oregon, and California.

If you do mean the CDNST, what's it like? Do you mean south of Cumbres Pass? I've ridden it north of Cumbres Pass. It's fantastic.


----------



## crux (Jan 10, 2004)

imtnbke said:


> Crux, do you mean the CDNST? The PCT runs through Washington, Oregon, and California.
> 
> If you do mean the CDNST, what's it like? Do you mean south of Cumbres Pass? I've ridden it north of Cumbres Pass. It's fantastic.


I'm thinking south of Cumbres Pass. East of Cuba NM there are quite a bit of trails there and I think your right I confused PCT for CDNST. Currently there is a section of trail that is prime for cycling yet the letter of the law on the trail is anything with a wheel is not allowed.

Trail sign specifically call out wheelbarrows, trailers and wheelchairs as well from entering the area. Don't know how the last one is quite legal and wish I had a camera at the time taking a photo of the sign. Wonder how the wilderness act views individuals with a disability from entering the area. Not asking we pave the woods, but if someone is disabled and inclined of entering wilderness areas I don't feel as if they should be faced with a sign indicating they are not welcome.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Crux, that's a long story. The Forest Service's Wilderness rules are nonsensical, counterproductive, and arguably in violation of the congressionally enacted Wilderness Act of 1964, which was passed by a Congress that wanted people to get outdoor exercise and signed by President Johnson, who made statements during his presidency about his appreciation for bicycles. Check out this website. It explains a lot.

Wilderness and bicycling issues, philosophy, and advocacy

Wheelchairs, BTW, are allowed in Wilderness, but that's a more recent law and maybe the FS hasn't gotten around to changing the sign.


----------



## verslowrdr (Mar 22, 2004)

OK, to reiterate a post I did in the Washington forum.... and a follow up here....

Google Earth shapefiles from Wilderness.net + PCT trail file from Forest Service

And when you put them all together you get a 7MB KMZ here. It's too large to load into Google Maps (probably because it includes the entire PCT) but that gives y'all the tools to start really drilling into this sucker. Most of Washington state is obviously off-limits, but there are some interesting (albeit shortish) possibilities south of I90.


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

Thanks, Slow . . . . you are right about the wilderness portions. We've held off on posting maps of "the possibilities" for now though for a few particular reasons. Send me a PM if you want to know more.

Also note: People who are interested in the PCT and want to be kept abreast of information can post here about joining the PCT group on here. There's a private social group that is invite only (PM CHUM for permission) where we can discuss, argue, ***** and moan all we want without fear of scrutiny from the opposition.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Great observation, sirvalve. That's the kind of thing the Forest Service will benefit from hearing when the public comment and rulemaking process gears up. We still anticipate it happening next spring-not that many months away now.

As always, we invite people to check out our website:

Sharing the Pacific Crest TrailHome » Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail

and our Facebook page:

www.facebook.com/sharingthepct


----------



## Seaview (Apr 30, 2006)

*Buy ticket 5 dollars*

Like entrance at Acadia national park , 5 dollars each hike or bike


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

Maurizio said:


> Like entrance at Acadia national park , 5 dollars each hike or bike


We've thought of this idea, however, its my understanding that such fees actually CREATE a headache for the Administration in charge because its now a program that they have to implement, facilitate, enforce and monitor . . . in a system that is already low on resources. Many times the fees collected are simply directed in an loop that perpetuates the program itself without any real benefit.

Plus then there's the whole issue of "Double taxation" . . . . take a look at the recently abandoned Adventure Pass program.


----------



## 3blackbikes (May 4, 2011)

What about proposing seasonal-use guidelines? I believe most thru-hikers start at the Mexico border in April, and make their way north as summer unfolds. At least for the So-Cal region south of Kennedy meadows, bikers allowed June through Feb./March, so they are not "interfering" during the heavy hiker traffic times. Of course, the downside of this would be riding in the hot desert in summer, which ain't so fun....

sorry if this has already been mentioned, I was skimming to catch up on the post.


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

3blackbikes said:


> What about proposing seasonal-use guidelines? I believe most thru-hikers start at the Mexico border in April, and make their way north as summer unfolds. At least for the So-Cal region south of Kennedy meadows, bikers allowed June through Feb./March, so they are not "interfering" during the heavy hiker traffic times. Of course, the downside of this would be riding in the hot desert in summer, which ain't so fun....
> 
> sorry if this has already been mentioned, I was skimming to catch up on the post.


No worries man. Any and all ideas are welcome.


----------



## next (Nov 4, 2012)

*whoot*



imtnbke said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


coolio


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Ray Raton said:


> I was just thinking about my experiences with cycling The Arizona Trail. The AZ trail is around 700 miles long, I believe, and traverses Arizona from the Mexican border all the way up to the south rim of the Grand Canyon. Over the years, I've ridden most of it. It's very similar to the PCT in many ways.....it crosses all kinds of terrain, and for the most part it is singletrack. It's much shorter than the PCT, but aside from that, lots of similarities, and traffic on it, whether foot, hoof, or soft-rubber air-filled tire traffic, is very low in general. Just like the PCT in that respect.
> 
> The major way it DOES differ from the PCT is that right from the get-go, the AZ trail has always been open to ALL non-motorized users. And I gotta say, that for all of Arizona's boneheaded politics (IMO) I have never encountered a hiker on this trail, or a horse person, who acted like they didn't approve of me being there. In fact, everybody I encountered seemed to be quite friendly to me. One day, the only person I saw for an entire stretch of the trail , from Lake Mary down past Mormon Lake, was a guy who kinda looked like Osama bin Laden! He turned out to be a Sikh, not a Muslim, but he also turned out to be a real friendly guy. He was hiking north, I was riding south. He gave me all kinds of useful info on the trail, and on different segments of the trail....he's hiked the whole route at least once.
> 
> ...


most of those people opposing cycling do nothing but walk around the trailhead.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

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


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

Here's a legal way to hike and "ride" the PCT  No pedals or drivetrain = not a bike!


----------



## TahoeBC (Apr 11, 2006)

I know your just joking around, but a foldable gravity bike just seems kinda silly in most cases.

But I have looked into packing a bike on a light weight military Alice frame some what disassembled as a possible tool to create larger loops on the PCT. But as I researched it I discovered that you cannot even possess a bike (even disassembled and not rideable) in wilderness or the pct. So why bother, just ride it, if your gonna get a ticket either way.

I have recently after ignoring this little project for a few years got the rig ready for my first adventure to combine some non rid-able peak bagging and unconnected trail's for some interesting adventure riding/off trail hiking that I hope to try out as soon as the snow melts next year.

Here is a photo someone posted that got me interested in the ideal in the first place, this fellow did the whole Tahoe Rim, hiking the non-bike legal sections and even this could have gotten him a ticket 










And the thread I started a few years ago on this.
https://forums.mtbr.com/california-norcal/bike-backpack-non-poach-alternative-540024.html


----------



## nuclear_powered (Apr 18, 2007)

*Good luck*

I'm not from your country, so I don't really have anything to offer but my best wishes that you not only gain access to this and other trails that fall under the odd 'no motorized vehicles - that includes mountain bikes' rule, but that you also manage to achieve some kind of harmony with the other user groups that seem so threatened by your potential presence.

The small amount of time I've spent being (albeit minimally) involved with trail advocacy, I've noticed it was beneficial to form the approach that we as MTB users were all about making the trails better and more sustainable for ALL users, whereas other user groups were all about making the trails better just for themselves. This distinction proved to make a difference in at least one 'battle' I knew of. But we're still a very young sport in Australia, and there's a long way to go.

Best of luck. I hope I find myself back there one day riding some of your amazing trails.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Thanks, Nuclear Powered. A lot of this dispute can be attributed to the unique influence of the 17th century Puritan tradition in the United States, which continues to exert a powerful pull even on issues like this. That influence turns what should be a land management issue into a moral panic.

See this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/are-americans-still-puritan.html


----------



## abegold (Jan 30, 2004)

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.


----------



## jimwg (Aug 7, 2010)

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.


----------



## bwcastle (Dec 3, 2012)

Subscribed! As a Forest Service employee, I know first hand how difficult and slow change can be, hopefully this initiative doesn't fall on def ears. Keep up the good fight!


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

imtnbke said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


It's about time. I lived in Tahoe for a few years, and there was NOTHING else for me to ride there


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

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.


----------



## Unkown (Dec 25, 2012)

Doubt it will happen.


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

Unkown said:


> Doubt it will happen.


Please elaborate:skep:


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

*Jolly jolly*



Unkown said:


> Doubt it will happen.


And a very merry Christmas to you too.


----------



## jimwg (Aug 7, 2010)

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.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

jimwg said:


> 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.


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:


----------



## spiderjason (Dec 26, 2012)

Good job!!!!!


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Thanks! We'll let everyone know when we hear something from the Forest Service.


----------



## tribune (Feb 21, 2006)

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.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

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.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

On that topic about using bells to warn people on foot, see video clip below*.

* not in English, but you shouldn't have a prob understanding it.


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

tribune said:


> 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.





imtnbke said:


> 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.


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

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?


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

imtnbke said:


> 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.


Hope hubs. Just spin back a few turns, you can hear them quite well. Some other good hubs work too.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

tribune said:


> Think that restricting mountain bikers from certain trails is more due to a *concern of speed and sur*prise 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.





imtnbke said:


> 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*.


Skipping the bell aspect ... I gotta agree with both of you.

Impact isn't just about erosion ... It's also about perception.

Almost running walking) into someone, as you both make a turn in a hallway comes to mind ... Startle effect.

If I were cresting a hill, and someone came barreling over it on the downhill, at other than a walking pace ... I'd probaby be wondering WTF is wrong with that person.
Although I gotta admit, if it was a horse rider, I'd be more than pi$$ed.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

bikeabuser said:


> Skipping the bell aspect ... I gotta agree with both of you.
> 
> Impact isn't just about erosion ... It's also about perception.
> 
> ...


I for one found a very nice-sounding 2-tone brass bell that I have on all my bikes, now. 
Just have to remember to use it.

The other problem with alerting hikers is the earbud phenomenon. If a hiker has gone onto the trail with their i-pod or mp3 player, they are not gonna hear you if their volume is turned up, and it often is, in my experience. Hence, they create their OWN 'startle effect'.

I never did understand why people would go to a nature preserve place and then proceed to seal themselves off acoustically from the natural sounds all around them, but that's just my opinion. 
It does present some safety hazards by not being able to hear certain warning sounds, like bike bells, rattlesnakes, various growls, etc....


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

Ray Raton said:


> I for one found a very nice-sounding 2-tone brass bell that I have on all my bikes, now.
> Just have to remember to use it.
> 
> The other problem with alerting hikers is the earbud phenomenon. If a hiker has gone onto the trail with their i-pod or mp3 player, they are not gonna hear you if their volume is turned up, and it often is, in my experience. Hence, they create their OWN 'startle effect'.
> ...


I too ride with a bell, and I ring it regularly. Basically any time line of sight is obscured and traffic could be around the turn, I'll send out a couple rings.

Now, if someone has their headphones in and that is the reason they didn't hear me, then that is something beyond my control, and if it causes them to startle when they see me, I can't be held responsible for that.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

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

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'.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

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.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

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.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

OO7 said:


> I too ride with a bell, and I ring it regularly. Basically any time line of sight is obscured and traffic could be around the turn, I'll send out a couple rings.
> 
> Now, if someone has their headphones in and that is the reason they didn't hear me, then that is something beyond my control, and if it causes them to startle when they see me, I can't be held responsible for that.


Your opinion is reasonable, just like my opinion that people we encounter on trails that sit on Public Lands should be responsible for the actions and behavior of their animals is reasonable.

Yet, it's clear that my reasoned opinion is WRONG. It's correct, if the animal in question is a dog, but it's wrong, if the animal in question is a horse.

The only way I can see this making sense is by viewing our rules through the lens of Social Class.

But this is a discussion for a different thread. For the sake of access to the PCT, I am willing to make all kinds of extra concessions to reason! :thumbsup:


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

bikeabuser said:


> Although I gotta admit, if it was a horse rider, I'd be more than pi$$ed.


I am more then pissed when local poorly trained slave toy animals clog singletrack, destroy trails, and poop all over the place, while their smug and lazy owners lie to land managers.


----------



## verslowrdr (Mar 22, 2004)

Ray Raton said:


> ...It does present some safety hazards by not being able to hear certain warning sounds, like bike bells, rattlesnakes, various growls, etc....


This is actually a potentially serious issue. A buddy of ours was rummaging around in a wild local drainage when he suddenly heard something 'grunt like a pig' out of the brush close by. He started talking loud and backed out of there with his bike and never did see what it was (wasn't about to go look!) but we're all assuming it was a bear.

I keep telling folks to imagine how this would have been perceived by the bear if ear buds had been involved:
- Bear is probably surprised by human but decides to hide and hang tight hoping it will just go away
- Human inadvertently gets closer
- Bear for whatever reason doesn't run like they usually do around here. Is it injured? Does it have cubs? Who knows, but for whatever reason it's now feeling cornered and panicked and issues a 'verbal warning'.
- At this point if the human doesn't shoo off- or worse yet, just gets closer- the bear is now probably going to assume this is a potentially aggressive encounter and up the ante accordingly. After all, she's playing by some fairly well-understood cross-species rules: 'I gave you a clear and fair warning, and you ignored it.'

Needless to say, it all goes downhill from there.

tl;dr: *there may be things urgently attempting to communicate with you that don't grok earbuds.*


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

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.


----------



## BigRingGrinder (Jan 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

I have a couple of tonal things I do to signal any possibly approaching people on blind corners. One of them is a rendition of the telephone ring from the 1967 classic movie _In Like Flint_ (which I know dates me terribly):

Myxer - Zorkmaster - In Like Flint - Red Phone ring - Ringtone


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

no, no, no. 

just ride em


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

imtnbke said:


> Hi, nwbikur - Thanks! We don't have a website and we should. I hadn't thought of that and no one else in our group has mentioned it. Do you know of anyone with the expertise to create one? (Free hosting would also be great, but I don't know if that's feasible.)


just start a facebook page for it. It's free and easy and a great way to spread the word.


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

dirtdan said:


> just start a facebook page for it. It's free and easy and a great way to spread the word.


Oh, we've got one now!

Sharing the Pacific Crest TrailHome » Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail

Check it out!


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

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.
> 
> ...


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.
> 
> ...


*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....*


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Get the ACLU involved.


----------



## Traildogcharlton (Jan 30, 2013)

Hey,

Does anyone know the current status of this? The original post stated sometime near march 2013 and that is rapidly approaching.

best regards

ac

Well I see I had the posts backwards and just saw it has been updated. New to the interface of this website!


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

see post #141


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Traildogcharlton said:


> Hey,
> 
> Does anyone know the current status of this? The original post stated sometime near march 2013 and that is rapidly approaching.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## evdog (Mar 18, 2007)

we need to offer the spammers some sort of reward if they bombard USFS with pro-mtb comments that lead to them overturning the bike prohibition on pct.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

evdog said:


> we need to offer the spammers some sort of reward if they bombard USFS with pro-mtb comments that lead to them overturning the bike prohibition on pct.


:lol:


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

evdog said:


> we need to offer the spammers some sort of reward if they bombard USFS with pro-mtb comments that lead to them overturning the bike prohibition on pct.


:idea:


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

The Pacific Crest Trail Association, which serves to "preserve, protect and promote" the PCT, just put out an on-line survey asking folks for input on their 2013 Strategic Plan. This is an excellent opportunity for mountain bikers to voice their opinions about how the MTB community can help the PCTA achieve their goals, which are:

1) The PCT corridor is permanently protected.
2) The entire PCT is designed, constructed and maintained through partnerships.
3) The PCT is well-known nationally and internationally.
4) The PCT Association has the financial resources needed to accomplish its mission.
5) The PCT Association has the human resources needed to accomplish its mission.
6) The PCT Association has the systems and infrastructure needed to accomplish its mission.

The PCTA is currently opposed to bikes. As you can imagine, the positive effect the MTB community can have on these goals of trail construction & maintenance, funding (via memberships, donations and grants), and global marketing should be hard for them to ignore. Not to mention our ability to get youth involved with the trail, creating life-long stewards of this National treasure.

Whether you have a personal interest in accessing the PCT, or live across the country and support equal access for mt. bikers on public trails, your brief input would be appreciated. There are only 3 questions.

Survey: PCTA 2013 Strategic Plan Input

For question #2, if you don't have any insight into a particular section in need, feel free to write: "All non-Wilderness portions should be available to bicycles."

BTW, when you read "preserve & protect" the PCT, it has very little to do with bicycles (if any) and mostly everything to do with maintaining the trail while fending off development and logging encroachments that affect the character of the trail.

Thank you for your support.


----------



## Iwonder (Oct 20, 2009)

Kyle509 said:


> Well, consider me subscribed.


Ditto


----------



## 007 (Jun 16, 2005)

Roberta565 said:


> Agreed on the website. I don't know the first thing about building a webpage so I'm useless in that regard.


We have a website . . . Sharing the Pacific Crest TrailHome » Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail

You should check it out!


----------



## SomethingRelatedToBiking (Jan 17, 2008)

abegold said:


> Horse impact around 10x that of a mountain bike and a hiker as equal to a mountain bike.


As an ex-federally employed trail maintenance worker in Big Bend National Park I agree that horses do more damage on a per instance basis, BUT there are considerably more bikes than horses these days...considerably more. If every cyclist had skills and no one rode up on the sides of turns you would be right about hikers equaling mountain bikes...but that will never, ever happen.

I thru hiked the PCT in 2000 (AT 1999 & 2002). I stood aside as a Big Bear local poached some trail with a couple lycra clad tourists. All the turns were slashed in that area.

I haven't decided on this issue because I keep asking myself, "Is nothing sacred?"

I think everyone on this thread has a noble image of a bearded man bike-packing this trail. Reality is the Big Bear local.


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

SomethingRelatedToBiking said:


> ... If every cyclist had skills and no one rode up on the sides of turns you would be right about hikers equaling mountain bikes...but that will never, ever happen....


Do no go on believing you are are the only ex-fed that has ever done trail work posting on this forum.

Have you ever seen a pile of human feces left in the middle of a trail? I doubt it was left by a mtn biker, it was a hiker. How about the amount of trash left by a hiker versus a mtn biker? I guarantee hikers leave more. How many abandoned campfires left burning by mtn bikers compared to hikers? The worst campsite I ever saw (fire left burning, trash and human feces everywhere) was left by a sierra club sponsored group. Most mountain bikepackers pride themselves on their LNT skills, far more so than hikers.

There a few bad apple in every group, yes. Everyone here concedes that. I contend there are more bad apples amongst the hikers than the mtn bikers. My 32+ plus years in the Forest Service gives me plenty of anecdotal evidence bikes on trails is not a significant problem.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

dave54 said:


> Do no go on believing you are are the only ex-fed that has ever done trail work posting on this forum.
> 
> Have you ever seen a pile of human feces left in the middle of a trail? I doubt it was left by a mtn biker, it was a hiker. How about the amount of trash left by a hiker versus a mtn biker? I guarantee hikers leave more. How many abandoned campfires left burning by mtn bikers compared to hikers? The worst campsite I ever saw (fire left burning, trash and human feces everywhere) was left by a sierra club sponsored group. Most mountain bikepackers pride themselves on their LNT skills, far more so than hikers.
> 
> There a few bad apple in every group, yes. Everyone here concedes that. I contend there are more bad apples amongst the hikers than the mtn bikers. My 32+ plus years in the Forest Service gives me plenty of anecdotal evidence bikes on trails is not a significant problem.


To further support your comments, Dave, I point out, again, that bicyclists, among the "3" user groups, are far less likely to actually leave the trail track or surface itself than hikers and horses. I guess it's a matter of perspective, the fellow above equates far more import to a bit of berming on a trail turn, terming it "slashing" (very destructive imagery there) to the post-holing caused frequently by horses as their owners /riders urge them to leave the trail and/or ride them on a trail surface before it has sufficiently dried after a rain to support their steel-shod 1000 lb. + weight .

It's just not acceptable to me, to let people, former fed employees/servants or not, get away with this kind of duplicity, without at least calling them on it. I prefer to do so face to face, but I'll do it here, online, too, if I have to, and this one really calls for it.

Shame on you, "Something Related to Biking". And yes, something here is "sacred". It's called the Truth. Let the ideology "go"....


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

"Is nothing sacred?" 
- To who? One person's ideal of non-motorized recreation, or the other person's? (Hint: premier trail in premier places is sacred to all.)

Remember, the people that carved the trail into the Earth caused the most damage... everything after that, whether it be from boot, hoove, knobby tire, or rain is negligible. 

I've never heard of a day mountain biker causing a forest fire. A hiker caused forest fire trumps any evidence of bikes on dirt trails, ever.


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

Empty_Beer said:


> "Is nothing sacred?"
> - To who? One person's ideal of non-motorized recreation, or the other person's? (Hint: premier trail in premier places is sacred to all.)
> 
> Remember, the people that carved the trail into the Earth caused the most damage... everything after that, whether it be from boot, hoove, knobby tire, or rain is negligible.
> ...


True. Three miles of trail built to standard specs is a one acre cleacut.

How many hikers have I seen smoking while hiking? I could not count. I have never seen a mountain biker smoke while riding.

I also cannot recall a single forest fire started by a biker. There may be one, somewhere, sometime... I do not know of it.


----------



## tommignon (Jan 27, 2010)

One other reason to allow Bikes, It allows persons with disabilities to ride some of the trail.
I am one of those. I am 40% disabled from my 20 years in the Navy. My knees are shot. I can't Hike but I can ride a bike.

ADA where are you,
Thanks.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

tommignon said:


> One other reason to allow Bikes, It allows persons with disabilities to rise some of the trail.
> I am one of those. I am 40% disabled from my 20 years in the Navy. My knees are shot. I can't Hike but I can ride a bike.
> 
> ADA where are you,
> Thanks.


This is a very valid point. I also have many disabilities and retained hardware that makes it difficult to hike for any length of time, but I can ride my well-adjusted bike for 20 miles or further with no pain penalty. 
I'll bet there are more than a few trail users out there in the same boat.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

from the Sharing the PCT Facebook page.
_____________________________________________________________________
Last Thursday, PCTRI sent a letter to the Forest Service's regional forester in charge of the PCT, replying to the agency's initial rejection of our request to cancel or reconsider the no-bikes policy. The reply is long and has a lot of legal stuff in it, but perhaps a few people will be interested to read it. Those who are may want to copy it into a Word or pdf document; it'll be easier to read.

Here's the text:

We received your letter of February 6, 2013, declining to rescind or reconsider the 1988 order closing bicycle access to the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT).

We hereby request that you reconsider the decision. In addition, we would like to meet with you and your staff to discuss this controversy.

We offer the following reasons for our request, which are in 
answer to items communicated in the letter.

I. Federal statutes and regulations

The letter notes the existence of 36 C.F.R. § 212.21, in which the Forest Service declared that the PCT is "primarily a footpath and horseback riding trail." The regulation was, however, promulgated in 1978, when the only alternative to foot and horse travel was by motorcycle or other motor vehicle. In the context of its time, it is essentially a declaration that the PCT is off-limits to motorized travel.

In addition, the regulation arguably was superseded by act of Congress, because in 1983 Congress amended the National Trails System Act, which governs the PCT, to declare that "bicycling," including specifically "trail biking"-i.e., mountain biking-is a suitable "[p]otential" trail use on national trails. (16 U.S.C. § 1246(j).) In addition, as the letter observes, "[o]ther uses along the trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, may be permitted . . . ." (16 U.S.C. § 1246(c).) This is what allows bicycle use on the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) despite a Forest Service declaration that the CDNST is primarily dedicated to foot and horse travel (see the next paragraph).

Furthermore, primary (36 C.F.R. § 212.21) does not mean exclusive. The 2009 CDNST Comprehensive Plan declares that "*ackpacking, nature walking, day hiking, [and] horseback riding, . . . are compatible with the nature and purposes of the CDNST." Mountain biking is not mentioned. Yet the same plan also declares that "icycle use may be allowed on the CDNST (16 U.S.C. § 1246(c)) if the use is consistent is consistent with the applicable . . . management plan and will not substantially interfere with the nature and the purposes of the CDNST." As is well known, lots of mountain biking takes place on the CDNST and there are few if any problems.

Finally, we note the letter's reference to 16 U.S.C. § 1244(e), which provides in relevant part that "within two complete fiscal years of November 10, 1978, for the Pacific Crest and Appalachian Trails, the responsible Secretary shall . . . submit . . . a comprehensive plan for the . . . use of the trail, including but not limited to, the following items: [¶] "(1) specific objectives and practices to be observed in the management of the trail, including . . . an identified carrying capacity of the trail and a plan for its implementation."

Since the Forest Service believes the PCT Comprehensive Plan must be revised to allow for bicycle use, then, in fairness, it should also have revised it in 1988, when three employees signed the document closing the PCT to bicycles. We are not aware that any such effort was made, and we observe that the 1988 closure order does not appear in the appendices to the plan. In addition, the statute does not call for a plan revision each time there is a change in trail management practices. Finally, within the PCT Comprehensive Plan, language exists that allows for bicycle use. It is found on page 1 of the original version and consists of President Johnson's embryonic 1965 statement that led to his signing the National Trails System Act of 1968: "The forgotten outdoorsmen of today are those who like to walk, hike, ride, horseback, or bicycle. For them, we must have trails . . . ."

In sum, we doubt that the enormous undertaking of a PCT Comprehensive Plan revision is required in order to repeal or reconsider the informally created 1988 PCT bicycle closure.
Although we have asked for rulemaking in the alternative to rescinding the closure order, we also disagree with the letter's statement that rulemaking, along with a Comprehensive Plan amendment, is required. No rulemaking accompanied the order and none is required to rescind it. It is simply a typed declaration of what should have been a short-term, temporary policy as the Forest Service worked out mountain biking management on the PCT in 1988, as it has since done successfully on the tens of thousands of miles of other trail to which the letter refers.

II. Public input following the described PCT Advisory Council decision

The letter mentions that the closure was unanimously supported by the then-existing PCT Advisory Council. We are not aware that any mountain bikers were on that body. More to the point, we know of no evidence that mountain bikers or the public at large were informed about this drastic change in policy.

The lack of public notice and of an opportunity for public comment are central to our position that the policy must be reconsidered to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as 36 C.F.R. § 261.70, the Forest Service regulation that provides:

"(a) Pursuant to 7 CFR 2.60, the Chief, and each Regional Forester, to whom the Chief has delegated authority, may issue regulations prohibiting acts or omissions within all or any part of the area over which he has jurisdiction, for one or more of the following purposes:
[¶] . . . [¶]
(3) Protection of property, roads, or trails. 
[¶] . . . [¶]
(7) Public safety.
[¶] . . . [¶]
(9) Establishing reasonable rules of public conduct.
[¶] . . . [¶]
(c) In issuing any regulations under paragraph (a) of this section, the issuing officer shall follow 5 U.S.C. 553.
(d) In a situation when the issuing officer determines that a notice of proposed rule making and public participation thereon is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, he shall issue, with the concurrence of the Chief, an interim regulation containing an expiration date.
(e) No interim regulation issued under paragraph (d) of this section will be effective for more than 90 days unless readopted as a permanent rule after a notice of proposed rule making under 5 U.S.C. 553 (b) and (c)."

In other words, the 1988 bicycle closure became invalid 90 days after its promulgation, because there was no rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Its effect may have been revived by the Forest Service's decision of February 6, 2013. But in our view that decision will become ineffective on May 7, 2013, for want of the followup procedures required by 36 C.F.R. § 261.70. We understand that there may be an APA exception for so-called interpretative rules, but in our view a blanket ban on bicycles on the PCT cannot be merely interpretative given its far-reaching substantive nature and the requirement that the policy be harmonized with 16 U.S.C. § 1246(j)'s allowance for mountain biking.

III. Questions of fairness and policy considerations

The letter informs us that there are many miles of national forest trail managed specifically for mountain biking. Overall, however, Forest Service policy toward mountain biking is unfair and unjustifiably exclusionary. In California, Oregon, and Washington, the great majority of the most beautiful and remote Forest Service trails are off-limits to cyclists because they lie in Wilderness areas. The non-Wilderness PCT would be one of the few exceptions were it not for the separate closure order that forbids bicycle use on it too.

The letter mentions the PCT's problems with "ecological restoration and the backlog of maintenance." (P. 2.) The Pacific Crest Trail Association (PCTA) has acknowledged that it cannot sustain the entirety of the trail. Presumably this is a PCTA appeal for yet more taxpayer funding. At the same time, the PCTA wants to preserve the restrictionist status quo. Mountain bikers have an established history of doing restoration and maintenance work on trails. It seems incongruous to us that the PCTA and the Forest Service would look askance at a source of volunteer labor, to be provided by a nonmotorized and environmentally benign user group, only to turn to the federal government for more money to fund the PCT for the relatively few people who currently use it. In this latter regard, our research has disclosed that much of the PCT sits virtually unused year-round except for a few weeks during which a smattering of through-hikers may walk a section.

One continuing problem with the current policy is the manner in which it divides the trail community. On the Internet, PCT purists have been threatening to assault any mountain bikers they find on the PCT. The threats have been coming from hikers who, thanks to the 1988 closure order, regard the PCT as their taxpayer-funded private preserve and retreat. This is a management problem for the Forest Service that a fair policy will alleviate.

IV. Unbalanced input from interest groups preceding this decision

Finally, we wish to observe that after the Forest Service communicated to us that a review of the closure order might occur in March of 2013, we asked our supporters not to bother your staff or the PCTA before any review occurred. The PCT traditionalists were not so considerate, however, and bombarded both your office and the PCTA with hostile, pleading, and frantic e-mails. In addition, despite our request, your office has never been willing to meet with us, at the same time that we have the impression it was consulting with the PCTA regarding our request. This strikes us as unfair. Our offer to meet with you and your staff remains open.

Again, we ask you to rescind or reconsider the 1988 order.
_____________________________________________________________________

so awesome...so very, very awesome....*


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Guess the spam problem isn't solved after all


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

NateHawk said:


> Guess the spam problem isn't solved after all


It will never be 100% 'solved' - but man-O-man is it better now!


----------



## caedmassey (Jan 28, 2013)

Awesome


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

The Gov will only move if you take them to court. Otherwise you got nothin'.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Sorry for all the words....but this is pretty BIG. A lot of official statements about the positives of Mountain Bikers on FS trails...specifically a National Scenic Trail...

That and the HUGE statement that Mountain bikes are considered a "semi-primitive" mode of travel. Many of these statements directly contradict what the anti-sharing people claim...and debunks many of their arguments to keep us off trails.

*From the Sharing the PCT Facebook page:* (edited to remove some content...very long )

Forest Service made a major announcement in favor of mountain biking on National Scenic Trails. The PCT is one National Scenic Trail; the Continental Divide Trail (CDNST) is another.

The Forest Service in Colorado has reversed course about mountain biking on a 31-mile planned CDNST reroute and will allow bicycles.

They recognize that the CDNST's primary use is for hiking and horseback riding, and yet mountain biking should be allowed where it will not interfere with those primary uses. The documents conclude that in low-visitation areas no meaningful interference is likely and multiuse is beneficial.
__________________________________________________________
*The full text of the documents below:*
Decision:
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/1155...i.com/11558/www/nepa/65572_FSPLT3_1424409.pdf

Environmental Assessment:
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/1155...i.com/11558/www/nepa/65572_FSPLT3_1424408.pdf
__________________________________________________________

*Some tasty nuggets from the decision (again from the Sharing the PCT FB page):*
[header: Biking [Is] Not Substantial Interference with Nature and Purposes of the Act]

We believe the selection of Alternative 5 [allowing bicycling, horse use, and hiking on the proposed 31 miles of new CDNST trail to be constructed] meets the most objectives of both the CDNST and the CT [Colorado Trail] as detailed in our analysis below.

We have thoroughly analyzed the laws, regulations and policy in order to determine that *including mountain bikes on this segment is not a substantial interference with the nature and purposes of the Act*. ["The Act" means the Trails System Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq.]

Our review of law, policy and direction together with the considerations specific to this segment indicates that *bikes are an appropriate use of the CDNST*. . . . se of bikes on this segment does not cause a substantial interference with nature and purposes of The Act.

We believe "Maximum outdoor recreation potential for conservation and enjoyment . . ." (16 U.S.C. 1242) is *best met through the inclusion of bikes in these multiple-use management areas* on both the GMUG [Gunnison] and RNF [Rio Grande] [national forests].

*Bikes are considered a semi-primitive non-motorized use.*

After reviewing the effects analysis presented in the EA, *we have found no substantial interference from the inclusion of bikes with the nature and purposes of The Act*.

Our decision to include bikes on this segment supports multiple-use, non-motorized family recreation in a wide variety of unpopulated ecosystems consistent with the goals of the CT [Colorado Trail]. *Selection of a hiker/horse only alternative would have undermined the duality of the non-motorized trail*.

*more:*
*Volunteer base consistent with The Act (16 U.S.C. 1250) is primarily mountain biking clubs in this area. Due to limited agency funding and staffing, the GMUG [Gunnison] and RGNF [Rio Grande] [national forests] would rely heavily on these groups for the sustainable construction and long-term maintenance of this trail.* CTF [Colorado Trail Foundation] would be the likely continue to be coordinator/agency partner for this segment of coincident CDNST/CT who would network with other non-motorized groups if bike use were included.

Many hikers have expressed a desire for trail design that avoids pointless ups and downs, moderate grades, grade control (switchbacks), and proper drainage (all features similar to Trail Class 3 with the designed use of Hiker); these nearly identical design features would also be accomplished though *our recommendation of Trail Class 2 or 3 with use designed for Bicycle which has the added capacity for volunteer construction and maintenance that is not likely to be generated by hiking groups* alone in this remote area of Colorado.

*While we understand CDNST thru-hiker desires for exclusive use of the trail, exclusion of bikes (and for that matter horses), would not be an environmentally or fiscally responsible decision on our part. We believe that if we considered only hiker/horse use, the trail would never be fully constructed and maintenance would rarely occur because of the lack of established hiker or backcountry horseman volunteer groups*...

Local communities rely on tourism generated by opportunities on federal lands. *Rural communities would experience the largest economic benefit from the inclusion of all three user groups who would spend money on gas, food, lodging, supplies and equipment*.

*and yes...MORE:*
*Commenters expressed concern that the use of bikes on this segment of trail would encourage illegal use of the CDNST in the La Garita Wilderness. This segment joins the existing non-motorized alignment before the wilderness boundary where this had not previously been an over-arching concern. This trail junction further serves as an entry/exit point back to the road system for bikers wishing to make a loop. While illegal use may occasionally occur in the wilderness, it is not anticipated to be more of a concern on the new alignment than on the existing route.*

*Many segments of the CDNST in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico (where not in designated wilderness) include mountain bikes as a valid use.*

*II.	Forest Service replies to comments in the EA:*

Policy (FSM 2353.44b(9)) *directs that generally the CDNST should be designed for either Trail Class 2 or Trail Class 3 with a designed use of Pack and Saddlestock. Both of these trail classes and associated design features are very similar for either hikers or mountain bikes* . . . . Allowing horse uses which is also compatible with the Act increases the footprint of the trail beyond what is needed for either hikers or mountain bikers. Slope (grade) is not expected to be a factor in the design as it is estimated at less than 10% for the proposed alignment.

EA has considered whether or not a substantial interference with the nature and purposes of the Act would occur with the inclusion of bikes. EA has considered best available science regarding social and resource impacts. *None of the readily available science suggests a relationship to clothing of bikers affecting horses. *We would assume that a biker's physiological response on a horse would be similar to that of other animals which we have discussed under wildlife comments below.

*While designated wilderness areas do preclude recreational "mechanized transport," many other trails are open to mountain bikes in the vicinity even though the opportunity for specifically non-motorized trails appears to be limited. *

[Comment: Bicyclists search for wilderness quality experiences, just like the hiker and equestrian. Bicycling is entirely consistent with the nature and purposes of the CDNST. Bicycling is common in Roadless Areas nationwide.] Reply: User is correct. . . . EA has considered whether or not a substantial interference with the nature and purposes of the Act would occur with the inclusion of bikes.

We believe proper trail design will minimize conflict potential. Commenter's signing suggestions are valid. We will work with our partners to determine what works best for this remote and likely little used site.

[*Comment: User conflict will occur, including displacement and disruption of the hiking and quieter trail experiences*. The look and feel of mountain bike riding, the speeds, sports gear, relationship to a machine and other aspects of the sport are incompatible with the contemplative, slower paced trail uses envisioned for the trail.] Reply: *The Act did not prohibit biking or motorized uses. The Act (16 U.S.C. 1242) describes that National Scenic Trails "will be extended trails so located as to provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass."* The 1976 Study Report further describes the purposes of the CDNST: "The primary purpose of this trail is to provide a continuous, appealing trail route, designed for the hiker and horseman, but compatible with other land uses. . . . One of the primary purposes for establishing the CDNST would be to provide hiking and horseback access to those lands where man's impact on the environment has not been adverse to a substantial degree and where the environment remains relatively unaltered. Therefore, the protection of the land resource must remain a paramount consideration in establishing and managing the trail. There must be sufficient environmental controls to assure that the values for which the trail is established are not jeopardized. . . . The basic goal of the CDNST is to provide hikers and horseback riders an opportunity to experience the diverse country along the Continental Divide in a manner that will assure a high quality recreation experience while maintaining a constant respect for the natural environment.


----------



## GeePhroh (Jan 13, 2004)

^^Wow -- huge! I'm completely flabbergasted at the reasonable and logically sound analysis from the USFS. It's almost as if someone decided to apply *science* to the evaluation process...


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Yes, it's quite amazing. We're in a race against time. As younger people rise higher and higher in the ranks of the Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management, more decisions are going to go our way, and antiquated rules are going to be rescinded, including the blanket, no-exceptions bicycle ban in Wilderness. The question is whether we'll be (a) alive and (b) still able to ride when this happens. To repeat, it's a race against time.

There was an outfit called the Continental Divide Trail Association that, just like the Pacific Crest Trail Association, despised the ideas of bikes on its pet trail. The CDTA went defunct a couple of years ago. It no longer had a big enough membership to keep going. It disappeared seemingly overnight, although it had been influential until the day of its demise. It's something that you'd think would be sobering to the PCTA, but PCTA board members and staff remain fixated against bicycles on the PCT and two board members have refused to even speak to a PCTRI volunteer. The CDTA has been replaced by a new antibicycle clan called the Continental Divide Trail Coalition, but it's a small group and the Forest Service rejected its stance that bikes be kept off of the new La Garita segment, which hopefully will be built next year.

When it opens, La Garita is likely to be similar to Snow Mesa, which is one of the great unknown mountain bike rides in North America, especially if you continue off the east side of the mesa (you'll need a GPS) and down Miner Creek Trail to Creede. See these links:

Snow Mesa (Colo. Tr.) Western Slope Trail Reviews

http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/snow-mesa-596526.html

The Snow Mesa ride starts at 10,898 feet elevation (Spring Creek Pass) and goes up to about 12,420 feet on the mesa itself. Breathing is difficult unless you live in Leadville, Silverton, or Breckenridge.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

Thanks again for starting this thread as a sticky in Passion, CHUM. I'd forgotten about it being here....I was focused more on the SoCal forum. 
But the significance of the PCT is much much more than simply a regional issue.


----------



## jeffw-13 (Apr 30, 2008)

Wow that's fantastic. It sounds like they realized they need to allow mountain bikes mainly because they're the only ones who will do any construction or maintenance lol.

Pretty consistent with what Ive seen locally here in Western PA. I have seen equestrians headed out with cutting tool on occasion, but only to cut off low hanging branches.

Congratulation to you guys for your hard work. Well done


----------



## HTR4EVR (Jun 15, 2007)

Don't think is a good idea but if they decide to open it to bikes anyway I'll be ready...


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

IMBA threw their hat in 










yay!


----------



## Borgbox (Jun 30, 2012)

What would the implications regarding this be for the Appalachain Trail, given the USFS possibly opens up the PCT? Could this transfer over or would another hearing and exchange have to take place?


----------



## brianW. (Nov 15, 2010)

Borgbox said:


> What would the implications regarding this be for the Appalachain Trail, given the USFS possibly opens up the PCT? Could this transfer over or would another hearing and exchange have to take place?


From the AT sections I hiked mostly in NH, VT,MA, and some in GA, TN I feel that trail is a different beast. Very little in the way of switch backs and some sections resembling more a pile of boulders then a trail. However there are some trails near the AT that i feel would be great to explore via bike but they are "wilderness area" like the Pemigewasset Wilderness Area in NH. Funny thing is a lot of the trails follow old logging rail road beds.

There is also a hut system in Maine close to the AT that is being billed to hikers, x/c skiers and mt bikers.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Borgbox said:


> What would the implications regarding this be for the Appalachain Trail, given the USFS possibly opens up the PCT? Could this transfer over or would another hearing and exchange have to take place?


It's unlikely that the Appalachian Trail would ever become mountain bike accessible. First, it is governed by a different law, which specifies that it is a "footpath." Second, much of it would be unappealing to ride -- too rocky, rooty, steep, and muddy. So it wouldn't be worth lobbying for a change in the law to gain access.


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

SomethingRelatedToBiking said:


> I keep asking myself, "Is nothing sacred?"
> 
> I think everyone on this thread has a noble image of a bearded man bike-packing this trail. Reality is the Big Bear local.


Agreed!

As a mt biker, thru hiker, mountaineer, rock climber, etc. BS on allowing bikes on the PCT.

Much of the central / southern Sierra section is too hard, rocky, etc to really ride anyway. Having to step aside while some bozo blasts down Foresters Pass would be just fantastic!

*"Is nothing sacred?"*

It's going to be weekend bozos shredding the trails where the PCT crosses a road.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> Agreed!
> 
> As a mt biker, thru hiker, mountaineer, rock climber, etc. BS on allowing bikes on the PCT.
> 
> ...


The PCT isn't sacred, it's just exclusive use of a public trail. As such, it might be Un-American, but sacred, no. In my neck of the woods, SD county, the pluses for me would be tremendous. The stretch of trail that parallels Sunrise Hwy. has no attraction to any kind of cyclist other than the cross country type, and it would make multiple new loops possible when connecting with trails on the other side of the Hwy. that are bike accessible. 
There are a few sections where a shuttle might be possible, but their attractiveness to downhill shredders is negligible.

I don't have any familiarity with the Big Bear situation, but I can imagine scenes where something could go awry, but there has got to be a way to increase access and prevent abuses other than continuing an unfair, arbitrary ban on cyclists for the entire trail. 
People who support that either don't like the idea of cyclists on trails in general, or have their own special interest in mind, which is fine. They need to acquire private land where they can indulge their special interest, not expect the taxpayers to pay for it on the public dime. Or public land.


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

Ray Raton said:


> People who support that either don't like the idea of cyclists on trails in general, or have their own special interest in mind, which is fine.


Where does this logic stop? If bikes are allowed, why not motorcycles? Etc., etc, etc.

I can respect your situation of wanting to ride the PCT near SD. What I fear is a Tahoe Rim Trail situation in the Sierra Crest Area (Tahoe south to Mt. Whitney or down to 178). You can walk over 300 miles down the crest without crossing a road (120 - 178). What a prime spot for mt. biking! Many world class meadows, wicked downhills, etc. This would be a hard core riders paradise. I have eyeballed many sections while hiking along.

If riding is allowed, I can see this turned into a zoo of sorts. Horse packers carrying bikes to the top of Foresters pass for downhill trill rides, etc. Being 3 days from the nearest trail head and having to step aside while a group of bikers blast by would kind of take the adventure out of it, don't you think? There are very few places were you can get away from the BS of man and go on an adventure anymore and they need to be preserved.

I'm 12 road miles from the Tahoe lake shore. The Tahoe Rim Trail might be a model of what you are asking for. In an attempt to provide mixed use you get a confusing set of rules:

Tahoe Rim Trail Association

Biking the 9.2 miles between Tahoe Meadows and Tunnel Creek Rd. is allowed only on even numbered days. From Tunnel Creek Rd. to North Canyon-Hobart Rd. biking is allowed every day, but not on the 1 mile Marlette Peak Trail segment on the west side of Marlette Peak. Bikes are not allowed between North Canyon-Hobart Rd. and Spooner Summit. One can ride 5 miles down the North Canyon road to the parking area and facilities at Spooner Lake.

BTW - this a great area to ride - Recommended!



Ray Raton said:


> They need to acquire private land where they can indulge their special interest, not expect the taxpayers to pay for it on the public dime. Or public land.


Couldn't you make this argument with ANY land use group? It's my land and I want to do what I want! You don't like me driving my jeep up here -> to bad.....

I spent 2 seasons of full time rock climbing in Yosemite Valley. You can free solo El Cap but you can't para-sail back down. The free solo is WAY MORE dangerous. Why the no para-sailing then?

You need to draw a line somewhere....


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> Where does this logic stop? If bikes are allowed, why not motorcycles? Etc., etc, etc.
> 
> I can respect your situation of wanting to ride the PCT near SD. What I fear is a Tahoe Rim Trail situation in the Sierra Crest Area (Tahoe south to Mt. Whitney or down to 178). You can walk over 300 miles down the crest without crossing a road (120 - 178). What a prime spot for mt. biking! Many world class meadows, wicked downhills, etc. This would be a hard core riders paradise. I have eyeballed many sections while hiking along.
> 
> ...


Well, the absurdity of equating bicycle impact on a trail with jeeps or motorcycles is just that. I will make a note of the trail you suggested, but there are basically no more evidence-based arguments left for the anti-bike crowd in terms of trail impact.

I can see how certain sections of any trail can be (and have been ) abused by the shuttle-crowd, but I'm of course speaking for the majority of cyclists, who, like myself, respect the equal rights of other trail users to access the same trail. Even equestrians, who tear the crap out of trails and never contribute to their repair or maintenance.

I concede the point you make about how there are gonna be some....complications. I just don't see those as being an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Here in SD county, the examples of exclusivity and environmental impact claims are carried out to the extreme, the result being very little trail space allowed to cyclists, one of the major trail user groups, if not the major use group, here.

But it wasn't the cyclists who voted to allow the land to be sold an developed, eradicating the decades-old 'social trails the everybody used. Developers have put the pinch on everything here from basic water access to channeling traffic. Trails mitigation gets thrown under the bus by the issue of open space mitigation, and all of the trails on the mitigation land are then criminalized.
So when an opportunity to open up an Xc-friendly section of PCT pops up in this county, I jump at the prospect. More trails are desparately needed.


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

I understand your concerns (referring to 2 posts above), but that's what lawyers dismissively call a "parade of horribles," i.e., imagining the worst even though it's improbable. (The modern term, I suppose, is FUD.) If something like that started happening, the Forest Service and IMBA would jointly come up with a management tool to address it. Meanwhile, hundreds of miles of the PCT are growing over for lack of use and hikers are having to bushwhack and dodge poison oak. The PCTA admits it can't maintain the entire trail, and obviously the Forest Service can't either, although some national forests have to devote 20% of their entire trail maintenance budget to the PCT even if hardly anyone is using it. That's the current reality. Reform is desperately needed and multiuse will be a necessary component of it.


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

Sorry if I didn't make this more clear...

Absolutely let people ride on 'certain' sections of the PCT. 

Other sections need to be preserved for the wilderness experience it can only provide. Not many places left in the US where you can hike along side 14k' mountains for 300 miles with out crossing a road. As an avid rider, I say bikes on those sections would be a major buzz kill for back packers. Leave the no bike, no hang glider, no one wheel deer cart status in place....

ETA - 

Disclaimer - never rode a horse in the back country or had a food drop from a pack train.

Why the hate for horses on the trail? 

I don't particularly like hiking thru the sandy slog and piles of crap but historically they are the reason some trails exist. The JMT was built primarily for horse packing. Gear was to heavy then for people to carry.

Yes - they create more wear and tear than people but it isn't that bad....


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> Sorry if I didn't make this more clear...
> 
> Absolutely let people ride on 'certain' sections of the PCT.
> 
> ...


For some reason people easily overlook that we are not seeking access to the designated Wilderness sections of the PCT - only the non wilderness areas.

That leaves roughly 60% of the PCT off limits to bikes at a minimum.


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

CHUM -

That point point didn't escape me at all. I can see the mt. bike, hang glider, etc. sneaking it's way in with a change of management at the USDA...

This is the area I'm concerned with:









The problem is overlapping jurisdictions and confusing rules that are subject to change. A week long trip can easily take you into a forest, a wilderness area and a NP.

The bear can is a classic example. First you needed one in some areas, then you didn't, then you did, etc. The Ursack (kevlar food sack) was OK in some areas and then not..... Back and forth.... Week long trip -> your screwed...


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> CHUM -
> 
> That point point didn't escape me at all. I can see the mt. bike, hang glider, etc. sneaking it's way in with a change of management at the USDA...
> 
> ...


:lol: are you trying to say bikepackers are too dumb to plan out a route?

I know I'm not going to change your mind...not even going to try. But a bikepacker would have to follow the same guidelines as a backpacker concerning bells, canisters, stove types, etc...

All those green areas in your pretty map show exactly where we are not advocating riding/legalizing....and that's a lot a of pretty green blobs for the sole use of pack/equestrian/hikers.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Dead Dog - wouldn't you enjoy being able to ride up Xmas Valley Trail, hit the TRT to go up past Round Lake, hit the PCT for 2 miles to the top of Sayles Canyon, drop Sayles, hit Pony Express to the .2 mile section of PCT/Pony XP that gets you to the snow park, then hit Hawley Grade back to the bottom of Xmas Valley? It'd be a really nice, hard, beautiful, challenging loop, no? 

Would you like to ride from Boreal to Sierra City? 40 miles of non-Wilderness singletrack? Maybe do that once a year or so?


----------



## evdog (Mar 18, 2007)

CHUM said:


> But a bikepacker would have to follow the same guidelines as a backpacker concerning bells, canisters, stove types, etc...


And if we were ever to get access to Wilderness like in the Sierras, we would be subject to permits and/or quotas too. So if a trio of MTBers got an overnight permit in the backcountry then it would mean 3 less hikers would be allowed.

A lot of people make the point that many trails in the Sierras would be completely unsuitable for MTB. So why not let the terrain dictate where people can or cannot go. Can you imagine pushing a bike up Whitney? I was pretty much destroyed hiking it. I think it would be a small percentage of people willing to pay the price to access Wilderness areas in the Sierras. A bit of regulation could solve most if not all of the problems.

A lot of anti's quote things like dead-dog about how being passed by MTBers ruins their wilderness experience. Well how about having 250 other people per day on Whitney in a never ending day and night conga line? Same with a lot of other popular trails. Truth is a lot of the hard core anti's don't like seeing other hikers either. If you truly want isolation, go off trail 50-100 yards. You are not going to find it on the trails regardless of whether bikes are there or not. If a bike passes you it will be out of sight in a minute or two. You are going to be stuck with those other hikers in front of you for ages.

Its all moot though as we're not going to get access to Wilderness. But we should definitely have access outside of Wilderness. It makes way too much sense. Despite all the doom and gloom from anti's a lot of PCT sections would not see much bike traffic just as they do not see much hiker traffic. Most MTBers are weekend warriors who only want their typical 2 hr Saturday am or after work loop. Many PCT sections would be a difficult and remote backcountry ride requiring a full day and a lot of commitment. Some sections would see more traffic like Big Bear or Mt Laguna. But hikers and bikes have coexisted nicely on multi use trails for decades. I really don't forsee allowing bikes on PCT will be any different.


----------



## bradkay (Apr 9, 2013)

"Why the hate for horses on the trail? 

I don't particularly like hiking thru the sandy slog and piles of crap but historically they are the reason some trails exist. The JMT was built primarily for horse packing. Gear was to heavy then for people to carry.

Yes - they create more wear and tear than people but it isn't that bad.... "

Personally it is because the horsepackers are the cause of the worst campsite destruction and trashing in the deep wilderness areas. I remember a campsite south of Kearsarge pass with burlap bags and #10 cans scattered about as well as a multitude of tree boughs that had been cut in order to provide bedding - and this in a National Park wilderness. You can guarantee that it wasn't backpackers who brought in those #10 cans...


----------



## evdog (Mar 18, 2007)

I met a guy a few days ago who was telling me about a guided MTB trip he did back in the late 80s. The guide co had supplies and camp gear carried in by pack horses for each nights camp. The riders just had to ride from camp to camp. He got on the trip because he had heard it was the last year this sort of thing would be allowed. 

Their ride went around 75 miles on the PCT ending at Kennedy Meadows. He couldn't recall their starting point but this would have taken them through some of the John Muir, Golden Trout and South Sierra Wilderness. He said to this day the trip is still one of his favorite memories. 

Lucky guy to experience that!


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

bradkay said:


> Personally it is because the horsepackers are the cause of the worst campsite destruction and trashing in the deep wilderness areas. I remember a campsite south of Kearsarge pass with burlap bags and #10 cans scattered about as well as a multitude of tree boughs that had been cut in order to provide bedding - and this in a National Park wilderness. You can guarantee that it wasn't backpackers who brought in those #10 cans...


Yea - I remember Bull Frog Lake, (just over Kearsage), being COMPLETELY trashed by the horse packers. The FS has shut that stuff down now with grazing restrictions, etc.

I just got back from doing a loop around the Matterhorn:
Twin Lks -> Mule Pass - Burro Pass -> Matterhorn Pass -> Horse Pass -> Twin Lks.

We crossed horse packers twice and other than some poop in the trail you couldn't even tell they had been there. No sandy slogs, tore up dusty trail, etc. I didn't see any grazed meadows either. I think the horse packers are getting better at what they do....

Matterhorn Pass (trailess) - 
I stopped reading about routes a while back because it takes some of the fun away. Figuring out how to down climb the class 3 was 'interesting'! Finally got it to go after 2 failed attempts. Twice we had to the lower packs on ropes. Check it out if you are in the area but I recommend climbing it east to west instead...


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Quick update - IMBA expands on gaining access to appropriate sections on National Scenic Trails
Long Live Long Rides! | International Mountain Bicycling Association

*LONG LIVE LONG RIDES!*


> ...The Pacific Crest Trail currently offers no bicycle access. IMBA has already begun advocating for a change in this policy. Not for sections of the PCT that are protected as Wilderness, but in places where mountain biking would be compatible with other uses.
> 
> The revamped "Long live long rides" campaign does not focus solely on National Scenic Trails. We are interested in developing possibilities for multi-hour and multi-day rides wherever we find them. North Dakota's Maah Daah Hey trail (an IMBA Epic) is a good example of a multi-day ride....
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

^^^Good News! :thumbsup:


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Update from the Sharing the PCT FB page:



> We're way behind in updating our loyal audience, for which we apologize.
> 
> The lack of a recent update prompted Maxwell Baker to ask yesterday if PCTRI is dead.
> 
> ...





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


The above in Red is very true - all suggestions are appreciated, considered and discussed in the overall strategy.

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

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

my .02


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

CHUM said:


> Update from the Sharing the PCT FB page:
> 
> The above in Red is very true - all suggestions are appreciated, considered and discussed in the overall strategy.
> 
> ...


Hopefully, you are correct. I'd like to legally ride some of the Laguna mountain sections....make for some really fine long loops that way. 
It would be nice if it happens before I die, and while I can still ride a bike.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Ray Raton said:


> Hopefully, you are correct. I'd like to legally ride some of the Laguna mountain sections....make for some really fine long loops that way.
> It would be nice if it happens before I die, and while I can still ride a bike.


Yah - it's phenomenally ridiculous that MTB's are banned from short sections of PCT that tie in longer loops. No one cares except a very small number of fanatics...

We did a poll a ways back to find out who (if anyone) has ever received a ticket for MTB'ing the PCT - I think it was less than 10....with fines never going above $100. And even some of those were rumored...

If anyone here has received a citation for riding the PCT please let me know


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

CHUM said:


> Yah - it's phenomenally ridiculous that MTB's are banned from short sections of PCT that tie in longer loops. No one cares except a very small number of fanatics...
> 
> We did a poll a ways back to find out who (if anyone) has ever received a ticket for MTB'ing the PCT - I think it was less than 10....with fines never going above $100. And even some of those were rumored...
> 
> If anyone here has received a citation for riding the PCT please let me know


As a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen, I, of course, would never _dream_ of violating a law, no matter how _specious and ridiculous_ it is. But I've heard of mtb riders along that section encountering hikers who actually greeted them with friendly salutations.

I like to believe that most PCT hikers are like this. If not, when the law is changed to reflect a reason-based foundation, they will _learn_ to be like this.


----------



## Mordy (May 31, 2006)

I'll just pipe in that opening the PCT in my local are would at least get more people on the trail other than motorcyclists poaching it.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Latest update - We finaly received the letter from the USFS....and it was as we expected

*THE LETTER HAS ARRIVED*



> As expected, we have received a letter from the USFS, which can be effectively summed up in two letters: "NO"
> 
> Although not what we were hoping for, none of us here at the PCTRI are even remotely surprised by this, as it has been the anticipated response since our initial meeting with them. Let us be clear, that we are not by any means considering this a defeat. Quite the contrary actually, as our movement is gaining momentum. We are currently in the process of planning our subsequent actions and will be updating our site as we march forward.
> 
> ...


bottom line...this is a stalemate.

USFS has no interest in changing, nor do they have any real interest in enforcement (my opinion only).

from the Sharing the PCT FB page Moderator:


> The issue may be decided, for a fraction of the cost, if a Forest Service employee encounters a mountain biker on the PCT and cites her or him, and she or he decides to bring the citation to court and challenge the legality of the closure. This page has hypothesized before that the FS might even be looking to cite a mountain biker so as to get to court and have a court put an end to this morass, one way or the other. Judging by its recent letter to PCTRI, the FS appears not to be happy about those Unabomber-style threats on PCT-L (the PCTA-affiliated discussion group) to sabotage the PCT and/or assault mountain bikers.
> 
> As this page has stated before, however, don't make yourself a guinea pig for a citation. With modern computerization of criminal record systems, even a misdemeanor conviction can present problems, such as not being eligible for a job you want or being unable to visit the United Kingdom or Canada. The closure could be legally valid-the FS says it is, anyway-so people should not defy it.


For more up to date discussion you can visit the Facebook page on this subject:
https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct


----------



## SNS (Nov 21, 2013)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> ... There are very few places were you can get away from the BS of man and go on an adventure anymore and they need to be preserved...


This is why I want to ride the PCT, to go on an adventure. As much as I'd like to hike the PCT, I just do not have the time, so riding allows me to cover bigger sections of the PCT.

I've ridden some of the TRT, behind Tahoe City, and it was amazing. I imagine sections of the PCT to be like this, but longer.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Update:

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



> Mr. Randy Moore
> Regional Forester
> U.S. Forest Service
> 1323 Club Drive
> ...


----------



## HTR4EVR (Jun 15, 2007)

Open for MTBers and closed for horses, I hope...


----------



## TheAtomicGoose (Sep 20, 2013)

What's the latest on this?


----------



## imtnbke (Aug 8, 2003)

Thanks for asking. As described above, the US Forest Service said "no" again in November 2013. But it said it would offer, as an alternative, to sponsor a conference or workshop with various interest groups to discuss the management of the National Scenic Trails System overall. The PCT is one of those trails (the Continental Divide Trail is another).

Such a public forum might lead to what we asked the Forest Service to do on its own (we also believe the law requires it): reconsider the no-bicycles rule on the non-Wilderness portion of the PCT that federal agencies manage. (There are reportedly about 300 miles of PCT not on federal land, and we don't know what rule or policy operates on them.)

The Forest Service invited us to propose a facilitator or moderator for the conference or workshop. We're working on finding suitable candidates. We're also gearing up to ask our fan base of some 1350 people on Facebook to tell us about portions of the PCT, not in Wilderness, that might work for a pilot program that we're going to press for despite the latest negative decision.

You can follow developments at two sites:

www.facebook.com/SharingThePCT

Sharing the Pacific Crest TrailHome » Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail

We must be doing something right, by the way, because the occasional threat of violence continues to emerge from the ranks of the this-is-mine PCT diehards, and the American Hiking Society is trying to raise $50,000 to counter our work. Here's just one forum among a bunch of them where you can see the roiling intensity of the continuing debate over mountain biking on the PCT (the title refers to Wilderness, but much of the talk is about the PCT, 60% of which is not in any Wilderness area):

NWHikers.net - View topic - Bikes in Wilderness - Let's Get Touchy Feely


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Legally riding the PCT!










"A friend provided us with this photo of mountain bikers legally riding on the PCT in the early 1980's. The location is just a little North of Crystal and Basin Peaks, near Donner Summit in California. The photo accompanied an article written in the Sacramento Union about the growth of mountain biking in 1983, although the photo may have been taken in 1982.

We remain hopeful that one day, mountain bikers will again enjoy this segment of the PCT legally."

www.facebook.com/SharingThePct

www.sharingthepct.org <-----riders from CA, OR & WA ought to provide input on the section surveys!


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

So the Pacific Crest Trail Association appears to be working with the USFS to gain more power, control and management of the PCT, by working with them to create a "Management Area" for three National Forests the trail currently goes through (Inyo, Sierra & Sequoia -- the "early adopters"... more to come). In theory, this is something anyone could support as it does help with permanently protecting the trail corridor from development and extraction. But, giving the PCTA and their anti-bike stance more power is no bueno. They could literally rule that no MTB legal trails can _cross _the PCT (or get near the trail)!

*So it's time for mt. bikers to write the Forest Service again* and oppose this "Management Area" portion of the proposed Planning Rule. It's also a great opportunity to let your voice be heard by the USFS about this ridiculous ban on bicycles on the PCT.

Make comments here: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=3375 -- *Do this by Sept. 27!*

See the details regarding the PCT starting on page 59 here.

Here are a few letters other trail advocates have shared:

#1


> "The conservation of the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) is very important to me. For this reason, I take great interest in the current proposal to establish special management areas such as what might be created along the PCT corridor so as to better care for the trail. However, I am loath to support any proposal that may perpetuate the unfair, inappropriate and unnecessary exclusion from the PCT of trail users who would like to experience parts of the trail by bicycle.
> 
> The 1988 temporary Closure Order that is the basis for the bicycle exclusion is badly outdated; reflects 25-year-old management practice; never involved significant public input; does not serve the long-term conservation goals for the PCT; and unfairly prevents a significant segment of the public from accessing any part of the public trail in a safe and sustainable manner. Preserving a 2,650-mile public trail for the exclusive use of a relatively tiny segment of the public is bad policy and it erodes public support for the trail.
> 
> Until USFS agrees to a transparent, public review of the 1988 Closure Order, it is very difficult to support efforts that may perpetuate the plainly outdated ban on bicycle access."


#2


> "To the Decision Makers addressing the Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests Land Management Plans:
> 
> As an avid outdoorsman and a lover of the gorgeous Sierras, I am pleased to see efforts to sustainably manage this magnificent natural resource. However, I must strenuously object to the codifying of the ill-advised ban on bicycle across these portions of the PCT (as well as non-Wilderness areas across the PCT as a whole)
> 
> ...


#3


> "Dear Sir or Madam:
> 
> "I cannot support any proposal that may perpetuate the unfair, unenforceable, and probably unlawful putative exclusion of bicycle riders on the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). It's unclear to me whether this plan does this, but if it does, count me against it.
> 
> ...


More chatter about this on the FB page: https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct


----------



## TahoeBC (Apr 11, 2006)

The big issue here is the PCTA will be given the right to say how trails are used withing the PCT Corridor, this is a "PRIVATE" lobbying group how is it that they get veto power over trails that intersect the PCT. This means no new bike legal trails that cross the PCT, a trail that cuts this state and in fact the whole west coast in half. We could even loose access to trails leading up to the PCT, if adopted in Tahoe this could potentially impact trails like the TRT out of Big Meadows, Sayles, Bryant Meadows, Pony Express, DLRT.

This is a ******** backdoor deal going down as a way to shut out bikes, I think any letters should really focus on not allowing the PCTL to have a final say on trails within the PCT "Corridor"


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail from Trail Lover on Vimeo.


----------

