SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 2 of 2<<12

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Bikes on the Pacific Crest Trail?, Proponents Are Pushing For It< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 31
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43972
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 17 2012, 2:12 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Tigger @ Nov. 16 2012, 1:32 pm)
QUOTE
I don't care if bikers want to hike on the PCT. I just don't want them to ride their choppers on it. Dang those things are loud...

The glare off their jacket chains and zippers is a little too distracting as well. Not to mention they're very hard to pass on a narrow trail...
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 32
Talus. Search for posts by this member.
Delsolation is my destination
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2123
Joined: Aug. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 18 2012, 7:00 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Just to add my 2 cents I was in a trail (running) race last week.  We all know that cyclists are supposed to yield to hikers and runners.  Maybe half did, and one brushed me.   By the end of the race I was not happy at MTBers...

--------------
“Mountains are not Stadiums where I satisfy my ambition to achieve, they are the cathedrals where I practice my religion.”
― Anatoli Boukreev
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 33
BradMT Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4050
Joined: May 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 18 2012, 9:40 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Talus. @ Nov. 18 2012, 5:00 am)
QUOTE
Just to add my 2 cents I was in a trail (running) race last week.  We all know that cyclists are supposed to yield to hikers and runners.  Maybe half did, and one brushed me.   By the end of the race I was not happy at MTBers...

Arrogant bikers... say it ain't so!

Likely they had fly rods strapped to their bikes too...


--------------
Contentment is natural wealth, luxury is artificial poverty. – Socrates
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 34
ndwoods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 521
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 18 2012, 12:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I am a biker, hiker and equestrian.  I know for a fact that when my park was opened to bikes the trails were lovely with a soft layer of duff and wonderful to walk on or ride on.  Once the bikes started riding the trails, they started getting hard like pavement.  Horses can no longer trot on them and runners run at their own risk of shin splints etc.  The soft duff is gone and the trails are like pavement.

Do I think bikes should be banned in my park? No!

However, the PCT is a whole different thing entirely. Meant as a footpath to be used as a a personal journey path...bikes would indeed take the peace and tranquility out of it and I know from personal experience they would damage the tread.


--------------
http://ndeewoods.com/
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 35
Talus. Search for posts by this member.
Delsolation is my destination
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2123
Joined: Aug. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 18 2012, 5:14 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BradMT @ Nov. 18 2012, 9:40 am)
QUOTE

(Talus. @ Nov. 18 2012, 5:00 am)
QUOTE
Just to add my 2 cents I was in a trail (running) race last week.  We all know that cyclists are supposed to yield to hikers and runners.  Maybe half did, and one brushed me.   By the end of the race I was not happy at MTBers...

Arrogant bikers... say it ain't so!

Likely they had fly rods strapped to their bikes too...

Hey I'm all for sharing the trails, but these guys were obviously not even trying to more over, let alone yielding.  I MTB as well, but I've haven't  run across this many A-holes in a while.

--------------
“Mountains are not Stadiums where I satisfy my ambition to achieve, they are the cathedrals where I practice my religion.”
― Anatoli Boukreev
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 36
Ron. Search for posts by this member.
don't surround yourself with your self
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 11994
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 19 2012, 10:48 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

These last few years I've probably done more mb'ing than hiking/backpacking.

I'm opposed to opening up the PCT to bikes as the trail is most likely not sustainable for that type of impact. A lot of hiking trails aren't even sustainable as hiking trails if they were to become more popular and saw more traffic!


As much as possible mb trails should be purpose built to handle the impact and traffic expected.

Now if you will excuse me I'm going for a ride in the woods :)


--------------
And be kind toward one another
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 37
isawtman Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: Aug. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 20 2012, 2:17 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I think this is the dumbest thing that the Mountain Bikers have ever done.  I am more than happy to support more Mountain Bike Trails, but bikes on the PCT is totally unacceptable for a myriad of reasons already posted.

Their strategy of pitting hikers against bikers is really bad when they would have our whole hearted support for building their own trails
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 38
isawtman Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: Aug. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 22 2012, 8:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I went over to the Sharing the PCT Facebook page
and was told by some Mountain Bike Riders that they
don't care if it is legal or not, and they just ride it at will anyway.  
I think the Forest Service needs to step up their enforcement.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 39
paula53 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1015
Joined: Feb. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 22 2012, 9:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I like to hike the parts of the Tahoe Rim Trail. On the Spooner Lake section, dirt bikers (motorcycles) were on the trail. They,the bikers did not care. Nor did the rangers when I called to report them. The reasons given, not enough rangers to investigate,  and  that by the time they got up there, the bikers would be gone.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 40
no_granola Search for posts by this member.
minor deity
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 13176
Joined: Dec. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 22 2012, 10:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Trekking pole beats spokes like rock beats scissors.

--------------
I never imagined that being obnoxious would get me where I am today.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 41
wildlifenate Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5856
Joined: Jul. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 22 2012, 11:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(isawtman @ Nov. 20 2012, 1:17 am)
QUOTE
Their strategy of pitting hikers against bikers is really bad when they would have our whole hearted support for building their own trails

regardless about what you think about bikes on the PCT or not, I find this statement misleading.  It may be your opinion, but it is not shared by everyone.

I know of more than one case where hikers have opposed purpose-built bike trails in areas of parks that have no official trails, even when those bikers intend to clean up decades of abandoned garbage from illegal dumping.  Mountain bikers have to fight for every bit of access they get, largely because of old, entrenched ideas like are being posted here, most of which can be addressed.

In fact, Wilderness designation is used as a weapon to exclude bikes from trails where they have been ridden legally for decades or more.  Some members on this very forum have said as much.

Bikes have a history in the backcountry going much farther back than just a couple of decades, too.  Bikes have been out there, albeit in lesser numbers, for well over 100 years now.

This one of the 25th Infantry in 1896 in Montana.


25th Infantry in Yellowstone


And those guys didn't always even ride on trails.

True, some trails are not appropriate for bike access for various reasons.  I'm not arguing that.  I just want logical decisions to be made about that by the land manager who knows the trails best and how they are used.


--------------
The GPS Geek
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 42
isawtman Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: Aug. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 23 2012, 12:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Well, Nate

Proposing that Mountain Bikes be allowed on the PCT is not the way to win over hikers.

You say it's true that some trails are not appropriate for bikes. That would be the whole PCT.  The PCT is only one trail, can't mountain bikers just stay off of just one trail in the in CA/OR/WA.  Meanwhile, Mountain bikers can ride on 337 trails in CA according to this website: http://www.singletracks.com/California-bike-trails_5.html  And then there are 91 in Oregon listed here http://www.singletracks.com/Oregon-bike-trails_36.html  and finally 92 in Washington listed here http://www.singletracks.com/mountain-bike/best_trails.php?state=46

I'd say for the most part Hikers are supportive of Mountain Bikers building their own trails, especially if it means keeping them off hiking trails.  Of course, there are always a few instances where that isn't always the case.  Mountain Bikers have developed such a bad reputation for not following the rules that now people are wary of them.  I think the PCT is a pretty good example of that.  They know they are not supposed to ride on it, but they do so anyway.

According to the law that created the PCT, it is to be primarily a footpath. If we open it up to hoards of mountain bikers, then it will cease to be primarily a footpath.  

And Mountain Bikers say they don't damage the trail that much.  They say it is about the same as hikers or horses.  Well, just the added traffic on the trail is going to be damaging it.

Again, I think that pitting hikers vs mountain bikers is the worst strategy I've ever seen by any organization.  These people freely admit that they ride on the trail when they know it's against the rules.  Then you seem to think that they are going to stop to pick up some trash, Right!!

I hope that if the Forest Service does open this to Review, that they actually add more penalties for riding Mountain Bikes on the PCT
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 43
wildlifenate Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5856
Joined: Jul. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 23 2012, 1:25 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

you throw out some sources showing how many individual trails are open to bikes.  what's the mileage on that?

and what's the comparable metric for the amount of hiking trail for those same areas?

In most states I'm familiar with, there's often times at least one order of magnitude more miles of hiking trails than mountain bike-accessible trails.  there's not enough public land for the hikers to get their own trails and the bikers to get their own, with equal mileage.

say what you will about how much trash mountain bikers pick up, but I've been riding mountain bikes longer than I've been hiking and I've always picked up trash.  I may not have as much capacity in my pack when I'm biking, but I pick it up all the same.  and I'm not alone.  

Furthermore, where did I say that I wanted bikes on the PCT, anyway?  I said let the land managers decide because they know the trails.  They know them far better than I do.  Maybe there are sections that would be okay for bikes.  Maybe not.  I've never been on the PCT, so I don't really know.

I do know that nobody likes a busy trail.  If anything, it's more irritating for people on mountain bikes because it gets bothersome to dismount for too many walkers and horses or to be stuck in so much bike traffic it feels like you're in a paceline.  The likelihood of bikes being given access to busy spots on the PCT is next to none.  But what can it hurt people to ask?  The worst they'll be told is no.

either way, there are just a lot of people on the west coast who want to access trails.  honestly, I think there's just too many people in parts of it, like parts of CA.  hence the MUCH more insane levels of conflict on the issue than I see in a lot of places.


--------------
The GPS Geek
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 44
RumiDude Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 14410
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 23 2012, 11:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wildlifenate @ Nov. 22 2012, 8:31 pm)
QUOTE
In fact, Wilderness designation is used as a weapon to exclude bikes from trails where they have been ridden legally for decades or more.  Some members on this very forum have said as much.

Bikes have a history in the backcountry going much farther back than just a couple of decades, too.  Bikes have been out there, albeit in lesser numbers, for well over 100 years now.

I would offer two points of correcting false impressions.

First off, to say the Wilderness Act has been used as a "weapon" implies there is a war by hikers against MTBers.  That is just not true.  Some MTBers right here in this thread itself serve to prove there is no war against MTBs.

Secondly your implication about bikes in the backcountry for over 100 years.  The same could be said of autos.  That does not mean autos should be allowed on the PCT or in designated Wilderness.

These false impressions amount to a desperate attempt to make it seem as if MTBers are some how persecuted by hikers and and that bikes somehow belong in designated Wilderness just because bikes have rarely been used in the past by some in the backcountry.

Rumi


--------------
“This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all.”
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 45
isawtman Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: Aug. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 24 2012, 7:33 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I don't think the Mountain Bikers are being persecuted at all

I think the hikers are the ones that are being persecuted.
I went over to the Share the PCT Facebook page and wrote
a post on how I am not in favor of bikes on the PCT.
Pretty soon I was getting some comments from bikers
that I am Geriatric, because I'm over 50. And then they
were making some rude comments because I am a Boy
Scout Leader. (it was so bad that the topic was pulled
off the page)

This is the type of crap that's gonna happen out on the
trail if we allow Mountain Bikers on it.

Bottom line is that the PCT was created by Congress to
be "primarily a footpath."
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 46
wildlifenate Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5856
Joined: Jul. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 24 2012, 5:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(isawtman @ Nov. 24 2012, 6:33 am)
QUOTE
I don't think the Mountain Bikers are being persecuted at all

I think the hikers are the ones that are being persecuted.
I went over to the Share the PCT Facebook page and wrote
a post on how I am not in favor of bikes on the PCT.
Pretty soon I was getting some comments from bikers
that I am Geriatric, because I'm over 50. And then they
were making some rude comments because I am a Boy
Scout Leader. (it was so bad that the topic was pulled
off the page)

This is the type of crap that's gonna happen out on the
trail if we allow Mountain Bikers on it.

Bottom line is that the PCT was created by Congress to
be "primarily a footpath."

the problem is that the group was created on Facebook.

the lowest common denominator arrives in droves when they can cause a ruckus in comments about something on the internet.

you could create a pro-anything page on Facebook and it will get trolled by somebody if it's open access.  Lots of kids on social media with no interpersonal skills.

QUOTE
First off, to say the Wilderness Act has been used as a "weapon" implies there is a war by hikers against MTBers.  That is just not true.  Some MTBers right here in this thread itself serve to prove there is no war against MTBs.

Secondly your implication about bikes in the backcountry for over 100 years.  The same could be said of autos.  That does not mean autos should be allowed on the PCT or in designated Wilderness.

These false impressions amount to a desperate attempt to make it seem as if MTBers are some how persecuted by hikers and and that bikes somehow belong in designated Wilderness just because bikes have rarely been used in the past by some in the backcountry.

Rumi


no, it's not an all out war.  There are a lot of people who do both.  

but there most definitely are some bikers who think bikes should be able to use all trails just as there are some hikers who think bikes should be banned from all trails.  The bikers who want bikes on all trails don't really have much they can do about it except to ride them anyway risking fines.  The hikers who don't want bikes on any trails can advocate for any and every Wilderness designation that includes areas that have bike trails and they use that.

and speaking of misconceptions, you're comparing cars to bikes?

all I'm saying is that high level federal government needs to stay out of the business of telling people what they can and cannot do on a trail.  That's a local issue.  Land managers should have the ability to permit or prohibit users from a trail if they have good reason to do so.


--------------
The GPS Geek
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 47
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43972
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 24 2012, 5:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So in summery, given that "The current amount of areas designated by the NWPS as wilderness totals 107.5 million acres of wilderness in 44 states and Puerto Rico, totaling 4.82% of the United States", it can be taken that over ninety-five point eighteen percent of the entire United States is insufficient to satisfy mtb'rs?

My view?

Settle for the 95%

A further item is the PCT was established as a National Scenic Trail, not a "recreation" trail, which is a separate and instinct category. Recreation trails are the category for bicycle recreation.
"Unlike the scenic trails, the recreation trails may be established and developed for particular recreation uses. Under the language recommended by the conference committee, appropriate areas might be developed as bicycle trails, jogging trails, "tote goat" trails, bridle paths, or strolling paths or some reasonable combination of such uses. The aim of recreation trails is to satisfy a variety of recreation interests primarily at locations readily accessible to the population centers of the Nation."

The Act itself:
THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT

The called-for advisory councils ensure local input.

http://www.pcta.org/about_pcta/mission.asp
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 48
wildlifenate Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5856
Joined: Jul. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 24 2012, 6:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

that's a pretty stupid comparison saying that 95% of the country is even available for recreation uses.

here is a very detailed survey of public lands

So essentially 703.3 million acres of the US is federal public land.  It does not account for state and locally managed public land, so it's not a perfect metric.

subtract the 107.5 million acres of Wilderness.
subtract Indian Reservations (44.5 million acres)
subtract DOD land and other federal agencies, most of whom prohibit recreation (129.2 million acres)
subtract most NPS land (75 million acres)

That gives 307.4 million acres of federal land that mostly doesn't have blanket bans on mtb access (that doesn't count Wilderness Study Areas in the Northern Rockies, which do have blanket bans because of regional USFS policy - I do not have acreage for that).  State land is a mixed bag of access, but there's a total of 196.9 million acres of it.

That gives 504.3 million acres of land as a possibility, but it's likely an overestimate.  Even though that number still does not account for city-owned parks, enough of it still has bans in effect that it should still more than account for the lands I haven't accounted for.  

Since the total land area of the US is 2.263 billion acres, the total amount of public land that could POSSIBLY allow bikes is something around 22.3% of the land area of the country.

That fails to tell the whole story, however, because a lot of that land is not useful for any kind of trails, let alone mtb trails, because it occurs in a heavily fragmented fashion, especially in the eastern half of the country.  Some whole Nat. Forests have 20 miles or fewer of trails accessible for bikes in thousands of acres.  This is why I asked about trail mileage above.  

In Texas, the USFS manages 675,000 acres with one 75 mile network in the LBJ Grassland, a 21 mile trail at the Double Lake Recreation Area, and 75 miles in the Sam Houston NF that are shared with motos (not many nonmotorized users go here) for effectively fewer than 100 miles.

As for backpacking, there is a 20 mile trail in the Davey Crockett NF and a 129 mile trail in the Sam Houston NF as well as 28 miles in the Sabine NF.  For day hiking, mileage is not posted on the USFS website, but there are many trails.  And as a whole, the USFS in Texas is slightly more friendly to mountain bikes, but unfriendly to trail recreation in general and there is still more than a 2:1 ratio of hiking trails to biking trails.  Of course, all of the biking trails permit hiking, so biking trails are really just a subset of the hiking trails.  More unfortunate still, the biking trails occur in a couple areas rather remote from each other, while the hiking trails are much more equitably distributed among all forests.


--------------
The GPS Geek
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 49
isawtman Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: Aug. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 24 2012, 7:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Nate, you're saying that there still is more than a 2 to 1 margin of hiking trails over Mountain Biking trails.  Well, I'd say the Mountain bikers are doing pretty good. According to a University of Minnesota Study walkers/hikers did 113 million person/days of hiking during the study year while Mountain bikers did a total of 30 million person/days of Mountain Biking. So, that means there are 3 1/2 times more people hiking than Mountain Biking.

Personally, I really don't think they should leave it up to the local land managers regarding riding bikes on the PCT.  I think that would become really confusing, and end up with even more bikers biking where they shouldn't be.

I think these Mountain Bikers should be respecting what the Congress of the United States of America set out to do with the Pacific Crest Trail.  They designated that it should be "primarily a Footpath."  The only listed exception to that rule was horses.

And it should be noted that they could have allowed Mountain Bikes, but specifically did not.  And also, the Pacific Crest Trail Association is on record as being against allowing Mountain Bikers on the PCT.  The PCTA is the
organization of volunteers that is responsible for maintaining and building the trail.

I'm all for more Mountain Biking Trails, and that's what the Mountain Bikers should be working for.  California and Oregon only have one National Scenic
Trail and that's the PCT.  Washington has two including the Pacific Northwest Trail. And there are only 11 National Scenic Trails across our great nation. Can't the mountain bikers respect these great trails and ride on the many
trails they are permitted to bike on.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 50
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43972
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 24 2012, 9:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wildlifenate @ Nov. 24 2012, 3:48 pm)
QUOTE
that's a pretty stupid comparison saying that 95% of the country is even available for recreation uses.

...

"Stupid"?

Yeah that's a convincing response.

Or not.

:cool:
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 51
RumiDude Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 14410
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 25 2012, 12:27 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wildlifenate @ Nov. 24 2012, 2:15 pm)
QUOTE
and speaking of misconceptions, you're comparing cars to bikes?

You claimed bikes have been used in the backcountry for over a hundred years.  I don't know what you think that adds to this discussion, but I simply pointed out the same could be said of autos.  Are you denying this is so?

Rumi


--------------
“This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all.”
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 52
BradMT Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4050
Joined: May 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 25 2012, 10:01 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

There's a general (and seemingly increasing) lack of civility and courtesy in America and bikers and dog owners stand out on backcountry trails as the least courteous among us. But even many backpackers seem to lack genuine courtesy these days.

As a "for instance", used to be considered "trail courtesy" to move over and stop when going up-hill to allow a downhill b-packer to pass. When's the last time you had someone do that for you? Some still do, but I notice fewer and fewer following that old practice (especially the under 40 crowd).

Our culture is increasingly self absorbed and of course it's showing up everywhere... bikers on walking trails is just one more manifestation of that self-absorption.

Rant-off :D


--------------
Contentment is natural wealth, luxury is artificial poverty. – Socrates
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 53
isawtman Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: Aug. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 25 2012, 10:24 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

According to the Mountain bike Wiki "The sport became popular in the 1970s in Marin county, California, USA."  So, maybe bikes were used in the wilderness in some fashion going back to the 1800, but there's a big difference between a stray bike every once in a while and the hoards of mountain bikers that are out there today.

Plus, this is a National Scenic Trail, and I believe if Mountain Bikes are allowed on the trail that they will lessen the scenic experience for hikers. Seeing Wildlife is part of the scenic experience on the trail.  If Bikes are allowed on the trail I'm sure there would be cases where a hiker could have seen a Big Horn Sheep, but no, some mountain biker scared it away.

And one more thing that really bugs me.  Again, the PCT was created by Congress as primarily a footpath.  There are many Mountain Bikers that know it's against the law to bike on the PCT but they do it anyway.  To me it's like they are taking a big dump on the Constitution of the United States of America.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 54
wildlifenate Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5856
Joined: Jul. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 26 2012, 1:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(isawtman @ Nov. 24 2012, 6:31 pm)
QUOTE
Nate, you're saying that there still is more than a 2 to 1 margin of hiking trails over Mountain Biking trails.  Well, I'd say the Mountain bikers are doing pretty good. According to a University of Minnesota Study walkers/hikers did 113 million person/days of hiking during the study year while Mountain bikers did a total of 30 million person/days of Mountain Biking. So, that means there are 3 1/2 times more people hiking than Mountain Biking.

I said the margin is 2:1 (or more accurately, fewer than 50% of nonmotorized trails permit mountain bikes, since all mtb trails permit hiking) on the USFS land in Texas.  I did not extrapolate to elsewhere.  Those numbers will change when taking into account state and local land.  I was using those numbers as an example of what I was asking for others to use for comparison.

Your estimate that there are 3 1/2 times more people hiking than mountain biking is ridiculous.  You're failing to account for the fact that the number of person-days (it's not person/days) accounts for the amount of time one person is on the trail.  One person on the trail for 7 days is 7 person-days.  Okay, so that metric tells me that most mountain bikers are day users.  That's not a stretch of the imagination.  Those numbers also don't really help us understand how many people are using the trails unless we know how long the average trip lasted.  Care to share a link to this study?  That number is probably provided.

I will say this, there is an increasing demand for places mountain bikers can go to spend many days on the trail.  Lightweight and ultralight backpacking gear and techniques are enabling this, but a lack of places to go is restricting it.  This pent up demand is going to force some changes somewhere sometime.  This pressure to open the PCT to bikes is only one of them.

There is a lot of debate about when/where mountain biking became popular.  Marin County, CA is often cited because a number of the guys who were riding their bikes in the woods in Marin founded bike manufacturing companies to produce actual mountain bikes.  But people had been riding bikes off road commonly for a long time in many different places before that.

I have to ask, though, what does the Constitution have to do with a hiking trail?  There isn't a phantom amendment I'm unaware of, is there?

Also-
National Trails System Act
I don't see anything in there regarding prohibitions of specific uses, or use designations of specific trails.  I do see in there that bicycles are mentioned as potential legitimate uses.  4wd vehicles, as well, for that matter.

Bicycles were permitted until 1988.


--------------
The GPS Geek
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 55
RumiDude Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 14410
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 26 2012, 3:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wildlifenate @ Nov. 26 2012, 10:22 am)
QUOTE
There is a lot of debate about when/where mountain biking became popular.  Marin County, CA is often cited because a number of the guys who were riding their bikes in the woods in Marin founded bike manufacturing companies to produce actual mountain bikes.  But people had been riding bikes off road commonly for a long time in many different places before that.

Again, VERY misleading.  Does riding a fat tire bike through a field constitute off-road?  On a beach?  Along a short bit of trail?  But before MTBs we essentially invented back in the late 70s in Marin County, CA., bikes used off-road was not common at all.  It took almost a couple decades before the bike industry geared up and tru MYBs became available to the general public and became popular.  Before that, road bikes had to be specially modified to handle off-road riding.

It is simply misleading to infer that because a few specially modified bikes were ridden off-roads since bikes were invented that it was in any sense common.  That is why it wasn't till 1988, when MTBs were rapidly growing in popular use, that bikes were prohibited from the PCT.

Rumi


--------------
“This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all.”
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 56
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43972
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 26 2012, 3:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BradMT @ Nov. 25 2012, 7:01 am)
QUOTE
There's a general (and seemingly increasing) lack of civility and courtesy in America and bikers and dog owners stand out on backcountry trails as the least courteous among us. But even many backpackers seem to lack genuine courtesy these days.

As a "for instance", used to be considered "trail courtesy" to move over and stop when going up-hill to allow a downhill b-packer to pass. When's the last time you had someone do that for you? Some still do, but I notice fewer and fewer following that old practice (especially the under 40 crowd).

Our culture is increasingly self absorbed and of course it's showing up everywhere... bikers on walking trails is just one more manifestation of that self-absorption.

Rant-off :D

I ascribe a lot of those sorts of actions, not stepping off, setting up camp in inappropriate locations and such at least in part to the newer ways people get involved in many activities. Instead of books or local groups they hit a few websites, gear up and go.

That cuts new people off from a lot of the cultural "wisdom" that would have been communicated from an outdoors club or what have you.

"trail courtesy" isn't necessarily all that obvious nor are a lot of the rest of the "courtesy" types of things like a low profile campsite etc.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 57
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43972
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 26 2012, 3:28 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(isawtman @ Nov. 25 2012, 7:24 am)
QUOTE
.....And one more thing that really bugs me.  Again, the PCT was created by Congress as primarily a footpath.  There are many Mountain Bikers that know it's against the law to bike on the PCT but they do it anyway.  To me it's like they are taking a big dump on the Constitution of the United States of America.

The wording about primarily a footpath I find in the legislation in connection to the Appalachian Trail but not the PCT, but I do agree with your point about "Scenic" versus "recreational" as I wrote it's within the "recreational" category that bikes are specifically mentioned as appropriate.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 58
RumiDude Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 14410
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 26 2012, 3:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Nov. 26 2012, 12:24 pm)
QUOTE

(BradMT @ Nov. 25 2012, 7:01 am)
QUOTE
As a "for instance", used to be considered "trail courtesy" to move over and stop when going up-hill to allow a downhill b-packer to pass. When's the last time you had someone do that for you? Some still do, but I notice fewer and fewer following that old practice (especially the under 40 crowd).

I ascribe a lot of those sorts of actions, not stepping off, setting up camp in inappropriate locations and such at least in part to the newer ways people get involved in many activities. Instead of books or local groups they hit a few websites, gear up and go.

Part of the trail courtesy issue is simply the fact there is a lot of confusion about it.  Most books I have read on the subject identify the downhill hiker as responsible for stepping off the trail to allow the uphill hiker the right of way.  the logic is to not interrupt uphill momentum of rhythm. I generally step off the trail and allow the others the trail no matter which direction I am going, just because.  I think courtesy in the backcountry follows much of what we see in our everyday living.

Rumi


--------------
“This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all.”
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 59
isawtman Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: Aug. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 27 2012, 12:01 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

Here's the statement fro the Forest Service
regarding Mountain Bikes on the PCT

"The purpose of this order is to comply with the intent of Congress with the National Trails System Act and subsequent regulations designed to protect the experience of the primary users. The Code of Federal Regulations (36 CRF 212) directs that “The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail as defined by the National Trails Systems Act, 82
Stat. 919, shall be administered primarily as a footpath and horseback riding trail"

So the Forest Service has interpreted the law as the PCT being primarily a
Footpath and Horseback riding trail.  It was mentioned regarding the AT
which was the first trail listed and they didn't feel the need to repeat
it for every trail.

I also want to make another point about the University of Minnesota Study which
I mention in a previous post.  The study included both Rail/Trail bicyclists and Mountain Bike Trail bicyclist as one group in their study.  Okay, so what that means is the actual amount of Mountain Bikers was much lower.  But that being said, it probably is a fact that Mountain Biking is more popular in the West than it is in Minnesota.

I think that there is plenty of land out there for everybody to enjoy their own trails
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
58 replies since Nov. 15 2012, 2:00 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 2 of 2<<12
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Bikes on the Pacific Crest Trail?
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions