[pct-l] Forest Service to consider allowing Mtn Bikes on the PCT

[Fred Walters]

Not being a US citizen and not having hiked the PCT my input is probably
limited (particularly, not being a US tax payer I don't subsidise those
organisations charged with making such decisions).

However, some thoughts of fighting such "battles"
1.  the more public the arguments against the change, the more the
"opposition" know about your points, the greater their opportunity to argue
against those points.  So in one regard, being more public with the reasons
not to change allows more people to present arguments against the change
but also allows the mountain bikers the opportunity to counter your points.
 Greater secrecy limits the people involved but provides less opportunities
for Mountain bikers to counter your points.

2.  experts and business.  More experts and people who make money/provide
services who argue how adding mountain bikers would have a negative impact
on the trail/their business.  The generous trail angels can easily become
"businesses" (or "operations") saying they would be ending water
caches/food stops/etc. making sections of the trail un-hikable for many -
because they would not be prepared to support mountain bikers ...

3.  examples (with as much proof as possible) about past irresponsible
behaviour.  Even anecdotal incidents might help.  Showing a danger could
help.  Maybe if that danger could make the decision makers legally liable
for legal action/compensation when accidents happen (i.e. allow cars to
drive at 90mph past hospitals and when accidents happen I would expect the
decision maker becomes somewhat liable).  The possibility of future law
suits might help.

4.  examples of negative impacts on other trails.  Maybe there have been
rejections of mountain bikes on other trails ?

5.  People have said how the mountain bikers already break the rules on the
trail.  Demonstration of how they "give them an inch they take a mile"
might help the bodies concerned realise that permitting bikes on the
non-wilderness will mean they will use the wilderness sections as well
(parts).  Maybe a requirement of additional policing (which costs).

6.  Petitions against permitting mountain bikes.  From the link somebody
else posted it looks like this started as a mountain biker petition.  How
do the numbers work out (e.g. more hikers and sympathisers than mountain
bikers) and do petitions help much - I know that e.g. in UK Planning
Applications a petition with 1000 signatures objecting counts as a single
objection).  Also, for many signing a petition makes then lazy and the
don't also send in a written objection (sort of "I've objected through the
petition so I don't need to write a letter ...").

7.  Politicians (and candidates) ?  Do they carry more weight than general
public ?  I believe many are seeking your votes at the moment so a
commitment to object about the change of use for votes ...

I don't know the consultation process and even if it is
permissible/appropriate for non-US citizens to participate - something I
would be doing if permitted.

(Sorry about the long message - particularly for those with iPhones and
small screens  Particularly as my thoughts might be quite inappropriate for
 US consultation)

Fred

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Melanie Clarke <melaniekclarke at gmail.com>wrote:

> I agree that cycles do not belong on hiking trails!  I own a Road Bike and
> believe me, there are plenty of very remote, PAVED, back mountain roads
> that are seldom used by vehicular traffic.  I get the experience of
> breath-taking vistas, flora and fauna by cycling PAVED roads that can even
> rival the hiking experience!  Everyone in my cycling club with broken
> collar bones seem to have acquired it while riding a Mountain Bike.  There
> are far more remote PAVED roads suitable and safe for ROAD cycling than
> hiking trails so why do they have to take the little we have to enjoy
> nature on foot?  Please pardon the *"shouty capitals"*, I'm trying NOT to
> get annoyed by Mountain bikes!  I'm taking deep breaths now...
>
> Aum,
>
> Toga
>
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Maxine Weyant <weyantm at msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I think mountain biking is a wonderful sport but it should NOT be allowed
> > on the PCT.  It's very destructive to the trail tread, and there's a big
> > issue with safety.  I don't agree that 98% of mountain bikers are
> > courteous.  In my experience, it's been about 50%.
> >
> > When I was on the Camino de Santiago in Spain, in the sections where
> > mountain biking was allowed on the same trail as the hikers, there were
> > numerous times when I was almost nailed by cyclists whipping down the
> > trail.  Having to suddenly jump out of the way, or just being suddenly
> > surprised when you're wearing a heavy pack, can cause injuries or
> > worse--falls.  I once almost flew over a 100 foot cliff while I was
> > mountain biking near Mt Rainier when 2 careless cyclists came careening
> > down the trail at full speed and rounded the corner.  To avoid a head-on
> > collision, I had to brake vigorously and my bike skidded off the trail.
> >  Fortunately, the cliff had ended just a few feet before our encounter
> so I
> > ended up face-first in the huckleberry bushes about 8 feet below the
> trail.
> >  We really don't need that type of encounter on the PCT, especially when
> we
> > have so many horses (not to mention hikers zoning out, listening to their
> > mp3 players.)  Why invite tragedy?
> >
> > Sure, maybe the PCTA could make more money by collecting donations from
> > mountain bikers, but their first duty should be to protect and preserve
> the
> > PCT, not just to preserve the PCTA.  I'd be happy to donate even more to
> > keep the bikes off the trail, but if the PCTA doesn't take a vigorous
> stand
> > against allowing bikes on the trail, I'd be likely to send my donations
> > elsewhere.
> >
> > It's my impression that with government budget cuts and USFS staffing
> cuts
> > in the last 10 years, far more trail maintenance is performed by
> > volunteers, not by the USFS.  And while horses may do a LOT of damage to
> > the trail tread, equestrian groups like the Backcountry Horsemen do a LOT
> > of the trail maintenance.  If bikes are allowed on the trail, trail
> > volunteers will have even more work to do.  I don't think the USFS should
> > open the trail to mixed use and invite accelerated trail erosion and
> > rutting if they can't pony up the funds and manpower to maintain the
> trail.
> >  I don't think the volunteers who maintain the trail will appreciate the
> > added burden that mountain bikes would impart.
> >
> > Most non-wilderness areas already have a lot of trails that allow
> mountain
> > biking,  If mountain bikers so badly want a PCT-equivalent experience,
> > perhaps a separate PCT comprised of other trails and fire-roads could be
> > set aside for multi-use.   And if the PCTA wanted to promote and assist
> in
> > the development of such a separate route, provided it was funded by the
> > bike-enthusiasts, I'd be in support of that.
> >
> > Dys-feng shui-nal
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> > All content is copyrighted by the respective authors.
> > Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> All content is copyrighted by the respective authors.
> Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.
>