[pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
Donna Saufley
dsaufley at sprynet.com
Thu Nov 4 18:43:24 CDT 2010
I've never seen an organization that wouldn't take a check! I did not go
through the automated donation process at the PCTA website to verify this,
but did click on the print-friendly version, where it states:
Membership Application
To Join the PCTA, please mail or fax this form with your payment
(either credit card information or check) to:
Pacific Crest Trail Association
1331 Garden Highway
Sacramento, CA 95833
Fax: (916) 285-1865
Everyone should send a check for some amount to see if they'll take 'em ;o)
L-Rod
From: Timothy Nye [mailto:timpnye at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:12 PM
To: Jim Banks
Cc: Donna Saufley; pct-l at backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
Interesting. My membership notice was for $60.00. Last year I paid $50.00.
Thre was no box to check for a check. The only option provided was to
provide credit card information with monthly installments. Of course I have
also provided additional contributions seperate from the membership in the
past.
Your situation may be different.
My facts are straight. The information is not false. Now I'm wondering
why my membership is roughly twice yours. There wasn't a lesser amount
provided as an option. This was in June. The policy may have changed in
the interim. Because my experience was different from yours I'm not
suggesting that you get your facts straight or you stop giving out false
information. I can't think of a possible motivation for posting, lets call
it what is implied, a lie, on this site. I'm sensitive to the credit card
information given my experience ast spring with Spot, where they continued
to automatically renew my membership; with the explanation that I hadn't
contacted to tell them not to and that they automatically renew as a service
to me.
Mr. Nye was my father.
This is a lesser issue to me, although it may detract from the larger one.
I don't want the PCTA to devolve into a fund raising operation as a senecure
for those who run it. i do want it to be able to, and perform as, an
effective voice for the trail community with the government entities with
which it partners. Being able to take the lead and effectively deal with
the mountaion biking issue wiould resolve a lot of my concerns and with my
trepidation.
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Jim Banks <jbanks4 at socal.rr.com> wrote:
Well Mr. Nye, I think you better get your facts straight before you start
giving out false information. I just received my notice of annual
membership renewal for the PCTA and the basic membership amount is $35, the
same that it has been for several years at least, and they have the
following boxes to check "My Check is enclosed" or "Please charge my credit
card." So why would you broadcast to the list that the membership rates
went up 20% and that they do not accept checks?
I-Beam
-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
On Behalf Of Timothy Nye
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:13 PM
To: Donna Saufley
Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
Thank you all for taking my comments in the spirit with which they were
meant. I love the trail.
I quit, rather sold, my practice in order to hike the trail.
A couple of additional clarifications:
My thought in so far as the PCTA is concerned is not that they have an
actual existing authority of enforcdement, but they do possess moral
suasion. They mount a lobbying effort on capitol hill that if the main
focus one year was to preserve the trail from biking intrusion it could lead
to congressional pressure that would lead to a political appointee
bird-dogging this issue and having an impact. A political solution to move
forward in creating an environment where enforcement will hopefully take
place. No guarantee, but a good chance, I think. ( Absolutely right about
the trail head being the enforcement point)
At Castle Crags this summer the PCT Campsite was renamed by the Park Service
the "PCT Hiker and PCT Biker Campsite" with campers urged to pay their
three dollar fee in order to preserve " PCT hiking and PCT biking on the
trail".
My practice was in Sacramento. I negotiated plenty of leases for my
business. I am familiar with the property involved. I also ( don't ask me
how) know the particulars of the PCT lease in question, or at least had the
details volunteered to me, although it was sometime ago and I didn't take
especial note of them. A dollar eighty five per square foot for the first
year is disproportionately in excess of what is available in the region and
for waht is actually needed. The justification from the executive that it
is safe to take a walk at lunchtime could have been met in virtually any
other area of town at far less cost.
Yes, I'm aware that the facility is dedicated to nonprofit organizations.
Sutter Health, the lessor, is a non profit. I represented many nonprofits,
including Sutter Health, during my career. The term, in my opinion, is a
misnomer. High salaries seem to be the norm in my experience....a lavish
facility creates a mind set in support of this. (Next time you need a
lawyer and you're in an imposing office in a highrise with a lot of art on
the walls, take a good look around. Remember, you, as the client, are
paying extra for it)
I didn't renew my PCTA membership this year. They won't take a check. In
addition to raising the membership fee by 20%, they want a credit card
number and will take monthly withdrawals...that seems to be a headed in a
certain direction as far as renewals and future increases are concerned.
Rather than paying full-time posistions the volunteer spirit should not be
minimized. It just seems to me that a distancing is taking place.
Donna, you always make a lot of sense. I just hope that the Board can get
together and ask for this to become a priority issue when lobbying in the
future.
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Donna Saufley <dsaufley at sprynet.com> wrote:
> AsABat, I completely agree with what you're saying. I've heard about the
> Ridge Runners on the AT, though I am not at all certain how that program
> works. There are the backcountry rangers in the Sierras as an example
> closer to home (they get paid but it's mostly a labor of love). On the
> other side of the argument, I've become aware of how much paid staff time
> can go towards operating volunteer programs. There are dollars involved
in
> training volunteers and supervising them in the field, as well as
providing
> materials and uniforms. No doubt there has to be liability coverage, etc.
> And, you can't fire them because they are volunteers! Devil's advocacy
> aside, I personally believe there should be programs like you describe.
> Though we as hikers tend to hate the reality, it all takes funding.
>
>
>
> I also agree with Tortoise, cuts in government spending has had a huge
> effect on agency resources, and lack of law enforcement. This is one of
the
> threats to the PCT. Even though that is true, the PCTA has managed to
lobby
> Congress successfully for increased funding from the USFS for trail
> maintenance (this is part of AHS' "Hike the Hill" event, and is entirely
> volunteer self-funded). The PCTA has gained much respect on all levels
for
> their programs and contributions toward maintenance of the trail. They've
> defied the odds and grown the budget number. But politics are fickle,
who
> knows where the economy is going, and the threat to funding remains.
>
>
>
> L-Rod
>
>
>
> *From:* AsABat [mailto:asabat at 4jeffrey.net]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 04, 2010 10:32 AM
> *To:* dsaufley at sprynet.com; 'Timothy Nye'; moodyjj at comcast.net
>
> *Cc:* pct-l at backcountry.net
> *Subject:* Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
>
>
>
> Donna et al,
>
> While the PCTA does not have enforcement authority, there are many cases
> where the forest service uses volunteers to provide a public contact in
the
> field. Into and San Gorgonio both come to mind. A volunteer in uniform has
> some power even if they can't write citations. A volunteer at a popular
> trailhead can provide info and educate users about the rules. A radio can
be
> used to call LE when needed with description and license number. The
> challenge as you notes is the many jurisdictions.
>
> AsABat
>
>
>
> -----Original message-----
>
> *From: *Donna Saufley <dsaufley at sprynet.com>*
> To: *'Timothy Nye' <timpnye at gmail.com>, 'Jim & Jane
> Moody' <moodyjj at comcast.net>*
> Cc: *pct-l at backcountry.net*
> Sent: *Thu, Nov 4, 2010 16:36:08 GMT+00:00*
> Subject: *Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
>
> Timothy,
>
> I think that the PCTA as enforcer is a common misconception that people
> have
> about the organization's purpose and scope. The PCTA is not the "authority
> having jurisdiction" over policing activities the trail. The organization
> is a private partner to the public agencies that manage the trail. Their
> mission is to protect, preserve, and promote the trail by education and
> private support for the trails needs.
>
> The US Forest Service is the lead agency for the PCT, on point for the
> myriad of other agencies that the trail passes through: Bureau of Land
> Management, National Parks, state and county parks in three states, Bureau
> of Indian Affairs, and privately held lands. Each agency the trail passes
> through has different definitions of the "authority having jurisdiction"
> for
> that stretch. Some have law enforcement capabilities, others do not. They
> all have different concepts of what "wilderness" is, and what you can do
> within it. All of them, even within the different districts of the USFS,
> have differing focus and priorities. Because of this it is a gargantuan
> task
> to maintain relationships with disparate group given agency staff changes
> and have different mandates coming down from their leadership.
>
> The Memorandum of Understanding that prescribes the relationship between
> the
> agencies and the PCTA does not pass any enforcement authority to the PCTA,
> only standards for trail maintenance and permission to affiliate the
> organization with the trail (i.e., have membership, trail maintenance
> projects, and solicit private funding in the name of the PCT). Therefore,
> the PCTA cannot by itself change the purpose and uses of the PCT; that is
> defined by law in the federal National Trails System Act of 1968. The PCTA
> cannot unilaterally decide that it wants mountain bikers on the trail, nor
> can they cite violators or enforce the law. My experience is that folks at
> the PCTA VEHEMENTLY DO NOT want bikes on the PCT.
>
> The PCTA's regional representative role is our best resource. This
position
> was created in part to have a presence and relationship with all of the
> agency offices to keep the trail on the agencies' radar. They are on the
> ground and meeting face-to-face with the agencies, building relationships.
> They coordinate and lead trail maintenance projects, train crew leaders
and
> volunteers, and are a presence at meetings where issues and threats in
> their
> area are being discussed (like transmission lines, high speed rail,
mining,
> logging, roads, etc.) They can also bring issues like mountain bike abuse
> to
> the attention of the agencies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
> alone has created its own set of opportunities and challenges for our
> regional reps. The ARRA funds created (fortunate) three times the number
of
> trail crew projects without a commensurate increase in administrative
> dollars (not so fortunate). The regional reps all have very full plates
but
> are each inspiringly dedicated to protecting and preserving the trail.
> Donations to the PCTA's general fund helps keeps these reps on the ground
> with the tools that they need.
>
> When we began hosting hikers in 1997, the PCTA had two paid staff. Not
much
> they could do, no matter how much they cared. Just issuing permits and
> answering the phone was a full plate. As the PCTA has grown, they have
been
> able to have a greater presence in all the places they need to be, on all
> the issues they need to face. For example, until very recent history,
there
> was no inventory of the easements and legal holdings of the parcels of
land
> the trail passes through. Putting together this inventory was a major
> accomplishment of the PCTA. Since that was created, the PCTA adopted an
> ambitious land management plan that seeks to protect the more than 250
> miles
> of trail segments that have weak or non-existent legal easements, or are
in
> danger of having view shed destroyed by (you name the threat, there are so
> many). Such a plan will take major dollars and big time donors to
> implement.
> The organization is committed to making it happen.
>
> If you care about protecting the trail, donate to the PCTA. They really
> need
> general funds to help run the organization and pay the staff including the
> regional reps, but your donations can be specified for land protection or
> trail maintenance projects. There will soon be a representative for every
> section of the trail because of support from donors like you.
>
> L-Rod
>
> p.s. the new office space the PCTA was lucky to move into does not
> represent a big increase in rent from what they were paying for a
> depressing
> hovel where there was simply not enough room for staff. The rent may be
> somewhat higher, but many costs like internet access, meeting rooms, and
> utilities are now included, in addition to the larger space that was
> inarguably needed. More importantly, their new location is in the
> Non-Profit
> Resource Center www.nprcenter.org <http://www.nprcenter.org/> . The NPR
Center's site states "offering
> comprehensive resources, from a professionally-staffed library, access to
a
> grant funder database, from fundraising workshops to management
networking,
> the Center enables new and existing nonprofits to improve management,
> operations, fund development, marketing & public relations, board
> development and more." The NPR Center is brilliant concept and the
> opportunity to move there a truly valuable resource and location for the
> PCTA. And, it just happens to be located in the most beautiful place I've
> seen in Sacramento.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
> On Behalf Of Timothy Nye
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:49 PM
> To: Jim & Jane Moody
> Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
>
> I am a lawyer; or at least I was until I retired. This really is political
> problem rather than a legal problem, in my opinion. Even worse, it has
it's
> antecedents with Mahatma Ghandi. It's called civil disobediance. This can
> allow the bikers, and possibly the general public, to discount and
minimize
> our objections. The bikers view the restrictions on mountain biking as
> unfair. Yes, it's illegal behavior, but it's illegal behavior that there
is
> no practical effective way to counter other than to take the high ground,
> as
> we already have the law on our side. We are discovering, as the British
did
> in pre-partition India, that there are very few other responses that can
be
> effective. We are caught in a posistion of weakness because of a lack of
> official enforcement. The mountain biking community is creating a new
> reality on the ground, such that,an amendment to the law so that mountain
> biking is permitted will no longer be viewed as a change but merely
> bringing
> the law in conformity with reality. In my opinion we are nearly at this
> point if not already there.
>
> Unfortunately, and I'm sure not all on the list will appreciate the
> analogy,
> we are in the same posistion as the state of Arizona with respect to
> illegal
> immigration. The powers that be will not enforce the "border" for the PCT
> as to mountain bikers. We really cannot do anything officially as the
> legal right to enforcement is arguably limited to the federal government.
> For a variety of reasons they have abdicated this responsibility. Some,
> such as the State of California Park Service at Castle Crags have adopted
a
> policy welcoming and sanctioning mountain biking on the trail.
>
> Law enforcement would mean that the wilderness, that which we are seeking
> to
> maintain, would be that much less wild. Even assuming, which I doubt, that
> we could have bounty hunters / rangers prowling the wilderness looking for
> mountain biking scofflaws, and even if they were effective, we would have
> rangers / bounty hunters in the wilderness, but not just in wilderness
> areas. The trail could seem to get pretty crowded even if the bike
> suppression effort were successful; albeit the absence of bikers is
clearly
> a net plus.
>
> What would it take to get to the point of enforcing the official
> prohibition?
>
> I see only two possibilities. First, the federal appointment of someone
who
> is commited, first and foremeost, to enforcement and is in a sufficiently
> important posistion that they can make it happen. Think "tea party" for
the
> PCT "Constitution"... a fanatic would be best absent the pejorative
aspects
> of the term. Second, the PCTA. This would take political capital, and my
> impression is that they (not the Board, Donna!) are more concerned about
> fund raising.
>
> I've been waging an internal fight with myself about whether to post this
> next for the last six months as it may be viewed as a flame or
> inappropriate, but I really don't know what else I should do as I am
> concerned about the trail and this is the community. I know somw will take
> issue with what I say, but I am really concerned about what it may heral
> for
> the trail. I have serious reservations about the the direction the PCTA
has
> taken over the last year and a half, from the abolition of trail fest (
for
> financial reasons-at the same time the PCTA signed an exorbitant lease on
a
> class A building on the Sacramento River-I used to negotiate leases in
> Sacramento and know the termo to the most recent change banning members of
> the Board of Directors to be nominated by anyone but the Board internally.
> The executive is increasingly insulated from outside control and the
> community as a whole while raising dues this year by 20% and soliciting
> inherientences. The thing about this latter aspect, is that such bequests
> in
> California are able to be spent independent from any attempted strings
> placed on them by the one making the bequest. My gut feeling is that
> executive pay and benefits are likely to be the real goal here, but then
> who
> am I to say whether that is right or wrong and what is excessive and what
> is
> not excessive. This requires a lot of trust. I will say that I was going
> to make a large four figure donation to the PCTA this year, as it would be
> matched by my wife's employer. Given the above, and my gut feeling which I
> just can't shake, we passed on the donation.
>
> I think that the Board could direct the PCTA in this matter. I checked out
> the memebrship of the Board and was dissuaded from saying anything since
> the
> memebrship of the board is clearly impressive. Then the resyriction on new
> board memebers was passed and now a long time member of the PCTA left for
> ADZPCTKO decrying corporatization of the PCTA.
>
> We don't need trail police. We need this to made a priority with the
> existing enforcement mechanisms available with feedback so that we know
> that
> directives to enforce the ban are actually being implemented. This could
> validate the PCTA and enlarge it's role, while at the same time ridding
the
> trail of the biker problem. ( I noted in an earlier post that I was afraid
> that the PCTA might view bikers as another source of dues...Donna assured
> that this would not be the case, but this is the source of my concern)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Jim & Jane Moody wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I'm not a lawyer, but I used to play one on TV (live City Council
> meetings,
> > actually). What you are referring to is "adverse possession", wherein
> > someone gains a right to land based on the unchallenged use of it for a
> long
> > time. A typical situation might be a driveway across someone else's
> > property that non-owners use to gain access to someplace else (say a
lake
> or
> > park) for many years, and where the property is not posted as "private -
> no
> > trespassing". Since riding bikes on the PCT is illegal and signed
thusly,
> I
> > can't imagine that simply violating a law without being caught somehow
> would
> > cause that law to become void. If I drive faster than the speed limit
for
> a
> > year then get caught, I won't get far with the defense that "I've done
it
> > for a full year and nobody made me stop."
> >
> >
> >
> > "Grandfather clause" describes an activity that was legal and ongoing,
> then
> > became nonconforming after passage of an amendment to a law or
> regulation.
> > Here's an example - your house is 10 ft from the rear property line,
> which
> > was the requirement when it was built. Years later the City Council
> decides
> > that the rear yard setback should be 20 ft and passes a zoning ordinance
> > amendment to that effect. Your house now does not conform to the Zoning
> > Code, but you are protected against having to tear down and rebuild.
> >
> >
> >
> > By the way, if anybody needs an overpriced planning & zoning consultant
> > before hiking starts back, let me know.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mango
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Edward Anderson"
> > To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 5:30:38 PM
> > Subject: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We all agree that mountain bikes on the PCT are a serious safety hazard
> for
> > other users, that their wheel tracks create channels for water to run
> down
> > causing deepening ruts and erosion, and that, by law, they are not
> allowed
> > either on the PCT or in wilderness areas. We who use the PCT, even
though
> > wheeled vehicles are unlawful, often meet them on the trail. There are
> > more of
> > these confrontations every year. Since there is no enforcement of the
> ban,
> > and
> > the word is getting out among mountain bikers (and motorcycle users)
that
> > they
> > can go ahead and ride on the trail without consequence, we can expect
> that
> > this
> > problem will become greater each year. And, as we have now become aware,
> > they
> > will be pushing to see the law changed so that the PCT and wilderness
> areas
> > be
> > open to wheeled vehicles. So long as there is no enforcement, and all we
> > do is
> > deprecate their sometimes very rude, unsafe, and destructive behavior,
> > their
> > numbers will increase. Here is a question for the lawyers on this
> > forum: If
> > illegal trespassing on the PCT is tolerated and it goes on for long
> enough,
> > is
> > there a time when the "grandfather clause" might apply?
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pct-L mailing list
> > Pct-L at backcountry.net
> > To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> >
> > List Archives:
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>
_______________________________________________
Pct-L mailing list
Pct-L at backcountry.net
To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
List Archives:
http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
More information about the Pct-L
mailing list