[pct-l] Pct-L Digest, Vol 58, Issue 10
debi_ba_rodriguez at yahoo.com
debi_ba_rodriguez at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 9 17:05:41 CDT 2012
To much negativity please take me off your email list thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-request at backcountry.net
Sender: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:00:04
To: <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Reply-To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Subject: Pct-L Digest, Vol 58, Issue 10
Send Pct-L mailing list submissions to
pct-l at backcountry.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
pct-l-request at backcountry.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
pct-l-owner at backcountry.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Pct-L digest..."
Please DELETE the copy of the complete digest from your reply. ONLY include stuff that applies to your reply
Today's Topics:
1. Wife Buy-In (andyj92 at aol.com)
2. Fwd: Google Alert - Pacific crest trail (Dan Jacobs)
3. Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes? (Susan Alcorn)
4. Forest Service to consider allowing mountain bikes on the PCT
(mkwart at gci.net)
5. Re: Forest Service to consider allowing Mtn Bikes on the PCT
(ambery-80243 at mypacks.net)
6. Forest Service to consider mntn bikes on the PCT (mkwart at gci.net)
7. Re: Wife Buy-In (Ernie Castillo)
8. Dirt Bikes on the CT (Paul Magnanti)
9. Re: Forest Service to consider mntn bikes on the PCT
(Brick Robbins)
10. Re: Forest Service to consider mntn bikes on the PCT
(Brick Robbins)
11. Re: Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes? (James Lott)
12. Re: Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes? (Dan Jacobs)
13. Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes? (CHUCK CHELIN)
14. Re: Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes? (CHUCK CHELIN)
15. Re: Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes? (Timothy Nye)
16. FS and mountain bikes - AT perspective (Jim & Jane Moody)
17. Mountain Bikes and Trail Damage (Barry Teschlog)
18. Re: Boulder Bidet (Diane Soini of Santa Barbara Hikes)
19. Re: Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes? (Ed Jarrett)
20. Re: Mountain Bikes and Trail Damage (Timothy Nye)
21. OT, but cool Sierra story (Brick Robbins)
22. Re: OT, but cool Sierra story (Ron Graybill)
23. Re: Forest Service to consider allowing Mtn Bikes on the PCT
(Sir Mixalot)
24. Re: Giving way to Mtn Bikes on the PCT (Austin Greavette)
25. bikes on the PCT (Ken Murray)
26. Re: Mountain Bikes and Trail Damage (James Lott)
27. Re: Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes? (James Lott)
28. Re: Mountain Bikes and Trail Damage (Stephen Clark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:16:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: andyj92 at aol.com
Subject: [pct-l] Wife Buy-In
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Message-ID: <8CF738FD8879623-1024-18842 at webmail-d135.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Recent study I read over the weekend noted that secret to long marriages is occassional seperation. AS I approach 44 years of marriage, I guess it's because I was not home and am not now at-home, all-day-every-day. It has caused us to appreciate many of the small things the other does. Rather than a growing list of annoyances and slights, we each see consideration and value in the small things they do around the home and for for each other. Somethings also noted in the report.
One added note regarding leaving the business; prepare for not returning. Yes, we all, never know when this day will be our last. On the trail one is likely to be at a place or in a season when there will be no other humans for a few days or weeks. There is no guarantee that one who finds you has any first aid training. Yes, this is also true for life in "civilization". EMTs and 911 are easier to contact when there is easy cell connection and paved roads to reach you.
That's my $00.02 worth of suggestion.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:24:32 -0700
From: Dan Jacobs <youroldpaldan at gmail.com>
Subject: [pct-l] Fwd: Google Alert - Pacific crest trail
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Message-ID:
<CA+-77MUte3a+4nsNnLpq8dR3NfyfduzsJPyXN9mmdW3-+6yasA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
This came across as a Google news alert. Made me think that there are
plenty of organisations or forums along with the PCTA that could be
mobilized to get your preferred message out to the public and comment on
the proposal when the US Forest Circus opens the public comment period.
Remember: "As a result, the Forest Service is going to begin a rule-making
procedure, probably in ***March of 2013***, to consider making the
non-Wilderness parts of the PCT multi-use. ***This will involve public
notice and comment***." Don't expect too many folks at USFS, NPS, DOI, or
other Alphabet Agency to know what you are talking about if you contact
them now about this issue, and don't be surprised if you seem to be ignored.
Dan Jacobs
Washougal
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Google Alerts <googlealerts-noreply at google.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:11 AM
Subject: Google Alert - Pacific crest trail
To: youroldpaldan at gmail.com
***Web****1* new result for *Pacific crest trail* Portland Hikers ? View
topic - Mountain Bikes on the *Pacific Crest*
*...*<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.portlandhikers.org/forum/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D7%26p%3D95500&ct=ga&cad=CAcQARgAIAEoATAAOABAofbLgwVIAVgAYgVlbi1VUw&cd=IA75iiRDBuo&usg=AFQjCNEoYoqmPeLpwFDJ5UjoTidbZ2qlEg>
While I've seen no formal information from the Forest Service or the DOI,
this link was posted to the PCT-L.
http://forums.mtbr.com/passion/big-news... 16289.
www.portlandhikers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&p...<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.portlandhikers.org/forum/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D7%26p%3D95500&ct=ga&cad=CAcQARgAIAEoBDAAOABAofbLgwVIAVgAYgVlbi1VUw&cd=IA75iiRDBuo&usg=AFQjCNEoYoqmPeLpwFDJ5UjoTidbZ2qlEg>
------------------------------
--
"Loud motorcycle stereos save lives"
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Susan Alcorn <backpack45 at yahoo.com>
Subject: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Message-ID:
<1349718565.14297.YahooMailRC at web182202.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I looked at the site that had arguments for allowing mountain bikes and had
these thoughts: Anyone saying that the impact of bikes and horses would be
similar is poorly informed and incorrect. Yes, both do damage--as do hikers--but
there are potentially many more mountain bike riders than there are
equestrians. Secondly, horses travel at a much slower speed than do most
bicyclists; they don't come around corners unexpectedly with the potential of
running you down. For the record, I don't hate either mountain bikes (or horses)
and I don't see why bike-riders assume anyone hates them just because someone
sees flaws in their arguments.
I also assume that most hikers (in particular long-distance hikers) want a
wilderness experience away from the hustle and bustle of city life. I assume
that some mountain bikers are also interested in their surroundings, but that in
large part they want the thrills of new trails where they can zip along
navigating around the challenging terrain. There is no way that these two uses
are compatible on the PCT.
Where do we file our protests?
Susan Alcorn
Shepherd Canyon Books, Oakland, CA
www.backpack45.com and backpack45.blogspot.com
http://www.examiner.com/hiking-in-san-francisco/susan-alcorn
Publishers of two award-winning books: Camino Chronicle: Walking to Santiago and
We're in the Mountains Not over the Hill: Tales and Tips from Seasoned Women
Backpackers.
********************
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 09:55:48 -0800 (AKDT)
From: mkwart at gci.net
Subject: [pct-l] Forest Service to consider allowing mountain bikes on
the PCT
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Message-ID:
<843297496.725705.1349718948733.JavaMail.mkwart at mail.gci.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=no
The Colorado Trail allows mountain bikes in non wilderness areas. I thru
hiked it last year--my observations:
1. Most of the trail users were day use mountain bikers. They were
intent on going fast and getting a good workout covring many miles in a
day.I only came across two mountain bike campers--one was riding at
night with a headlamp, covering an amazing distance (40+ miles) in a
day.
2. It was hard to hear them to get out of the way. Although the onus for
communication lies with the mountain bikers to yell out, they often were
going so fast, intent on maintaining a fast pace, that they did not do a
very good job. I was usually the one to step aside, although the
regulations said that the mountain bikers should be the ones to yield to
hikers.
3. Trail sociology will be impacted--I found out it was not a good idea
to greet them on the trail. When I was taking a break on the side of the
trail and said "Howdy" to one going uphill 10 feet in front of me--he
was so startled he almost lost his balance. After that I rarely greeted
them--just let them blast by. But I did have some good conversations
sith some who were pushing their bike over a particularly rough piece of
trail.
4. I routinely got in the habit of looking back up the trail on steep
dowhhill stretches to anticipate groups of mountain bikers blasting down
the trail.
5. With mountain bike use will inevitably come mountain bike races--I
encountered some mountain bikers prepping the trail for a race above
Breckenridge. I was gone before the race happened, but can imagine the
potential for impacts on hikers to be great. This should be considered
in any input to the Forest Service. I did experience a mountain bike
race while hiking on the Arizona Trail, but the contestants were so few
(the race was from the Mexican border to Utah) that it posed no problem.
My experience was not overtly unpleasant, but the Colorado Trail does
not go through highly populated areas like the PCT. There could be trail
tread damage. Allowing mountain bikes could also be one step toward
allowing motorcycles--which the Colorado trail also allows. They really
cause a lot of trail tread damage (lots of damage in meadows and wet
spots on the trail) and are a noisy nuisance. You can hear them coming
for miles. The motorcycles wear down the soil on the trail tread,
exposing rocks, making the trail a cobblestone-like nightmare for
hikers. They also widen the trail so that it looks like a highway.
--Fireweed
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:58:59 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
From: ambery-80243 at mypacks.net
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest Service to consider allowing Mtn Bikes on
the PCT
To: pct-l <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID:
<5366866.1349719139878.JavaMail.root at mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Timothy Nye wrote:
"The response I received was that he felt that the PCTA shouldn't raise the issue because they might lose. I didn't agree because I felt the passage of time served only to weaken our position. Now that Scout is Chairman of the Board I wonder if the PCTA will take a position one way or another or, if they do, what it might be. My thought was that wilderness areas should be expanded. However, given their past behavior I'm sure a segment of the bicyclists will violate that prohibition as well. And why not? Their past transgressions have been proved to be a winning strategy that was unopposed. Now may be too late."
Just a couple of points to consider:
One of the recurring issues I have seen here in the Northwest seems to be that mountain bikers and other special interest groups and organizations are usually well-organized and come out in droves when these issues come up, while hikers seem to be not as united. We should never be afraid of losing if the position we are taking seems worthy, and I encourage all hikers to put there two cents in if this comes up for review.
As for the bad behavior and violation of bicycle prohibitions: The Forest Service's PCT page has a Trail-Wide PCT Incident Report Form to bring to their attention any non-emergency illegal actions and/or threats to resources and safety. It may seem like a waste of their time, but it also may be an avenue for us to start documenting violations and creating a record, especially of they are rampant in a particular area.
And lastly, just a question. If the prohibitions are part of the National Trails Act, does it need Congressional approval to be altered?
Regardless of trail damage and impacts, I think the very essence of a path that allows us to walk over 2000 miles without being disturbed by modern or mechanized forms of travel is something rare and worth preserving. I don't believe if it is altered, we will ever get it back.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 10:03:47 -0800 (AKDT)
From: mkwart at gci.net
Subject: [pct-l] Forest Service to consider mntn bikes on the PCT
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Message-ID:
<1680028315.725914.1349719427026.JavaMail.mkwart at mail.gci.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=no
Another addition to my previous post on the subject, I saw no mountain
bikers in wilderness sections of the Colorado Trail. The mountain bike
routes around the wilderness areas were well publicized through the
Colorado Trail guidebook. But lack of mountain bikers in wilderness area
may just be an artifact of fewer and more educated mountain bike users.
Most seemed like locals. There is a big mountain bike culture along the
towns of the CT which doesn't exist as much near the PCT (except
Mammoth, Tahoe or Sisters). I also saw no wilderness law enforcement
people anywhere.
--Fireweed
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:06:43 -0400
From: Ernie Castillo <erniec01 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Wife Buy-In
To: <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID: <COL112-W3403A7A091258AC4BD2F83D8880 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
You miss the obvious way to get spousal approval.
Invite your spouse to train with you, plan with you, and eventually hike with you.
Who knows?
Maybe your spouse will take you up on the offer.
Ernie Castillo
PCT Class of 1980 and single at the time
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Magnanti <pmags at yahoo.com>
Subject: [pct-l] Dirt Bikes on the CT
To: PCT MailingList <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID:
<1349727653.10406.YahooMailNeo at web112104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
It is not so much that dirtbikes are allowed on the CT (a very small area IIRC), is that
dirt bikes were permitted on that section(s) in question before the CT was created.
Basically, the dirt bikes are grandfathered in along these sections of the trail.
Subtle, but important, difference IMO.
?
----------------------------
Paul "Mags" Magnanti
http://www.pmags.com
http://www.twitter.com/pmagsco
http://www.facebook.com/pmags
-------------------------------
The true harvest of my life is intangible.... a little stardust
caught, a portion of the rainbow I have clutched
--Thoreau
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:56:15 -0700
From: Brick Robbins <brick at brickrobbins.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest Service to consider mntn bikes on the PCT
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Message-ID:
<CALV1NznOr02-NCuJJ-5oO5nEaa3sBbpnA7m+7SrP_aEhk0ywBg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:03 AM, <mkwart at gci.net> wrote:
> Another addition to my previous post on the subject, I saw no mountain
> bikers in wilderness sections of the Colorado Trail.
On the Tahoe Rim Trail, entering the Mt Rose wilderness area with the large
"no bikes" sign, there were several prominent bike tracks on the trail,
that even went off the trail and made deep troughs in some of the soft soil.
Here is the sign http://goo.gl/9OyTp
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:59:17 -0700
From: Brick Robbins <brick at brickrobbins.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest Service to consider mntn bikes on the PCT
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Message-ID:
<CALV1Nzn+mU=V6oQfcn+es-VwvDX-=XhXqO1dN-00PgRRHfQbQw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
the "MBLF" written on the no bikes sign means
MOUNTAIN BIKE LIBERATION FRONT
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Brick Robbins <brick at brickrobbins.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:03 AM, <mkwart at gci.net> wrote:
>>
>> Another addition to my previous post on the subject, I saw no mountain
>> bikers in wilderness sections of the Colorado Trail.
>
>
> On the Tahoe Rim Trail, entering the Mt Rose wilderness area with the large "no bikes" sign, there were several prominent bike tracks on the trail, that even went off the trail and made deep troughs in some of the soft soil.
>
> Here is the sign http://goo.gl/9OyTp
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:20:32 -0700
From: James Lott <socalbackpackers at outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
To: "pct-l at backcountry.net" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID: <BLU002-W2120F29EC20851AAEC22273D8880 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I am both a backpacker and a mountain bike rider. While I prefer not to have people on the same trail I am riding on, you can co-exist on the same trails. I find it funny that some of the complaints are that mountain bikers do more damage to the trail than do horses or hikers. My tires are only 2.25 inches wide. How wide are your feet?? I find more damage to a trail by the horses than I do mountain bike and we could go back to the tread about all the horse and cow poop that is left on the trail and about all of the TP the hikers leave behind?
There is no perfect solution, but I don't think that hikers have the sole right to the wilderness.
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:49:25 -0700
> From: backpack45 at yahoo.com
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Subject: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
>
> I looked at the site that had arguments for allowing mountain bikes and had
> these thoughts: Anyone saying that the impact of bikes and horses would be
> similar is poorly informed and incorrect. Yes, both do damage--as do hikers--but
> there are potentially many more mountain bike riders than there are
> equestrians. Secondly, horses travel at a much slower speed than do most
> bicyclists; they don't come around corners unexpectedly with the potential of
> running you down. For the record, I don't hate either mountain bikes (or horses)
> and I don't see why bike-riders assume anyone hates them just because someone
> sees flaws in their arguments.
>
> I also assume that most hikers (in particular long-distance hikers) want a
> wilderness experience away from the hustle and bustle of city life. I assume
> that some mountain bikers are also interested in their surroundings, but that in
> large part they want the thrills of new trails where they can zip along
> navigating around the challenging terrain. There is no way that these two uses
> are compatible on the PCT.
>
> Where do we file our protests?
> Susan Alcorn
>
> Shepherd Canyon Books, Oakland, CA
> www.backpack45.com and backpack45.blogspot.com
> http://www.examiner.com/hiking-in-san-francisco/susan-alcorn
> Publishers of two award-winning books: Camino Chronicle: Walking to Santiago and
> We're in the Mountains Not over the Hill: Tales and Tips from Seasoned Women
> Backpackers.
>
>
>
> ********************
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:32:29 -0700
From: Dan Jacobs <youroldpaldan at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Message-ID:
<CA+-77MVns+2FVciRJoa5FZyGqbYagoKU7gBG9BUbeiY=nMXb0g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:20 PM, James Lott <socalbackpackers at outlook.com>wrote:
> My tires are only 2.25 inches wide. How wide are your feet??
Lets not argue amongst ourselves about this, especially with terrible
anecdotes and pithy claims. These kinds of must be discussed with facts,
not feelings that are difficult to make others understand or value.
We all have our opinions on this issue, lets not allow them to divide us.
When the US Forest Circus opens up the comment period, that will be the
time to let fly, just please fling it in the appropriate direction, and at
the appropriate people.
Thank you.
Dan Jacobs
Washougal
--
"Loud motorcycle stereos save lives"
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:37:58 -0700
From: CHUCK CHELIN <steeleye at wildblue.net>
Subject: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
To: PCT listserve <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID:
<CABc=HNnQ2ne4iqNVzx0sHDJOVs0_=HuDkwGJ97zHa6c41WmMfw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Good afternoon, James,
The greatest damage to trails by bikes doesn?t specifically relate to
contact pressure or area. While footprints, and even hoof prints, may make
staggered impressions here and there, tire tracks are substantially
continuous the entire length of a hill. The resulting grooves invite ? in
fact even compel ? water to fallow and wash out an ever deepening rut.
Additionally,
whether accidentally or on purpose, water bars that have been installed to
get water off the trail are damaged by tires.
Steel-Eye
-Hiking the Pct since before it was the PCT ? 1965
http://www.trailjournals.com/steel-eye
http://www.trailjournals.com/SteelEye09/
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:40:20 -0700
From: CHUCK CHELIN <steeleye at wildblue.net>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
To: PCT listserve <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID:
<CABc=HNkJT4GGmOzb48nXnH90feXehvD9m1nUf2VkujQ9E5izHw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Good afternoon, James,
The greatest damage to trails by bikes doesn?t specifically relate to
contact pressure or area. While footprints, and even hoof prints, may make
staggered impressions here and there, tire tracks are substantially
continuous the entire length of a hill. The resulting grooves invite ? in
fact even compel ? water to fallow and wash out an ever deepening rut.
Additionally,
whether accidentally or on purpose, water bars that have been installed to
get water off the trail are damaged by tires.
Steel-Eye
-Hiking the Pct since before it was the PCT ? 1965
http://www.trailjournals.com/steel-eye
http://www.trailjournals.com/SteelEye09/
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:24:00 -0700
From: Timothy Nye <timpnye at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
To: CHUCK CHELIN <steeleye at wildblue.net>
Cc: PCT listserve <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID: <244A82F0-F943-4CDF-B3C3-0CA504F3795A at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
James,
The issue is not whether wilderness areas should be reserved for hikers. The issue is whether a national scenic trail that was constructed for foot and horse use should be opened up for mechanized transport outside of wilderness areas.
The refusal of the bicyclists that PCT hikers encounter on the trail to abide by the existing restrictions taints a hiker's view of the bicycle community as a whole. It's not a question of whether a violation has ocurred, but only a matter of the extent of the violations. I have yet to see a mountain biker on the trail yield to a hiker, other than attempt to ride around them off trail, and that's an exception, and this bodes ill. Similarly, I have never seen a bicyclist turn around when confronted on the trail and they invariably claim they had no idea they weren't allowed on it. Instead they ride away as quickly as possible up trail. Are we really going to see bicyclists turn around once the reach a wilderness area? Most, some? I'm skeptical.
Let's be honest here. The bicycle community has every other trail, but the PCT available to them. Why must they have the only trail dedicated to equestrians and hikers as well?
I think it is the level of maintenance of the trail which makes the trail so attractive.
I know that bike groups have in the past asserted that they will provide maintenance. They will have to because I'm pretty sure that we'll lose many Backcountry Horseman that currently volunteer to do maintenance. If there is a significant fall off in trail maintenance by disappointed volunteers the very thing that made the trail attractive to the biking community may disappear. Existing trails other than the PCT could be maintained by them if they wished this level of trail experience, but, if my supposition is correct, the PCT is attractive since they aren't doing the heavy lifting. If they wound up having to do the majority of the maintenance in order to keep the trail bike friendly there is a good chance it just wouldn't happen, at least on the majority of the newly accessible portions of the trail.
I for one would be perfectly happy to have a less well maintained trail as a trade off for a trail that is not bike friendly.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 8, 2012, at 3:40 PM, CHUCK CHELIN <steeleye at wildblue.net> wrote:
> Good afternoon, James,
>
> The greatest damage to trails by bikes doesn?t specifically relate to
> contact pressure or area. While footprints, and even hoof prints, may make
> staggered impressions here and there, tire tracks are substantially
> continuous the entire length of a hill. The resulting grooves invite ? in
> fact even compel ? water to fallow and wash out an ever deepening rut.
> Additionally,
> whether accidentally or on purpose, water bars that have been installed to
> get water off the trail are damaged by tires.
>
> Steel-Eye
>
> -Hiking the Pct since before it was the PCT ? 1965
>
> http://www.trailjournals.com/steel-eye
> http://www.trailjournals.com/SteelEye09/
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 00:10:31 +0000 (UTC)
From: Jim & Jane Moody <moodyjj at comcast.net>
Subject: [pct-l] FS and mountain bikes - AT perspective
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Message-ID:
<1987697161.225204.1349741431067.JavaMail.root at sz0094a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
A few "AT-style climbs / descents" would discourage mtn bikers.? Re-r oute th e trail up a steep hill with boulders to be scrambled ever so often, and presto - no bikes.? Granted, this would also interfere with stock travel.
Mango
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Barry Teschlog <tokencivilian at yahoo.com>
Subject: [pct-l] Mountain Bikes and Trail Damage
To: PCTL <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID:
<1349742783.38588.YahooMailNeo at web124506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
To those that claim MTB's don't significantly damage trails, I call ignorance on that statement (and I use dictionary definition of ignorance - lack of knowledge).
I base that statement as a trail maintainer (as a volunteer WTA assistant crew leader and volunteer PCTA crew leader), hiker and avid mountain biker.? I've worked on both the PCT (hiker and stock), trails at Tiger Mountain (just east of Seattle) where trails are open to horse, hiker and MTBs and on the Grand Ridge Trail (just on the other side of I-90 from Tiger) to name a few.? I also LOVE to ride my MTB on some fun, twisty, fast single track (a Trek hard tail) at Duthie Mountain Bike Park (at the north end of the Grand Ridge Trail).? I also thru hiked in 2006.
My first hand observations:? The trails at Duthie are maintained constantly by the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance.? They're also in poor condition due to the heavy MTB traffic.? There are ruts and mud holes all over the place.? Drainage structures are constantly destroyed as the bikers ride in a narrow (preferred) line, causing deep cuts in the ground that throw up a berm, blocking the drainage's.? Skidding in turns and high pressure tires (relative to the ground pressure of hiker feet) cause linear ruts to form in all but the most hardened tread (read that as armored with gravel), causing water to channel ALONG the tread, instead of the proper drainage ACROSS the tread, promoting erosion.? Feet and hooves, when they make impressions in soft tread make point impressions, not channel features like wheels.
The same observed damage applies on the Grand Ridge trail - this trail would be a model of what would happen to the PCT here in Washington were bikes to be allowed.? This trail is a multi use trail - I love to ride it from Tiger to Duthie, do some laps there and return - it's a great work out.? The trouble is that the tread on the Grand Ridge trail shows the wear and tear of the bikers - again, mud holes caused by narrow lines that the MTBers take, or tread that widens out where they can go around their mud holes they cause.? Drainage is blocked by the deep cuts from MTB tracks throwing up berms.? Linear cuts in the trail that channel water along the trail, promoting erosion.? Also, the MTB focused members on the WTA and Evergreen crews have built up the turns to be MTB friendly, NOT hiker and horse friendly - super elevation on a switch back is nice when you're bombing down a hill on the bike - it sucks when you're on foot (not to mention that it
causes drainage problems).? Care to guess how long it would take the PCT to look like a MTB race track instead of a hiker trail were they to get their claws into it?
Most of the trails at Tiger mountain have to be closed to bikes from
October to April else the erosion problems would be far worse than they
already are.? Also, very few people hike on the open to MTB trails - they suck to hike on with the bikes coming by - the bikes drive away the other users.?
Here in Washington, the non wet season that the PCT isn't
under snow is......well, if you're lucky, August to early September.? Open the PCT here to bikes and it'll be rutted mess in no time flat.
As to Wilderness:? If the PCT is open, bikes WILL intrude into the Wilderness,? period.? Statements to the contrary are either pure naivety or lies (deliberate falsehoods with the intent to deceive).? I saw the tracks of a flipping MTBer in Oregon on my thru hike - up the PCT for several miles then blow right on by the sign and on into the Wilderness where I followed them for miles more.? MTB organizations advocate for the opening of Wilderness to bikes - I'll leave it to the readers to find their position statements attesting to this fact themselves.
As to comparative statements of horse damage and bike damage:? So what?? Bikes bring zero TO the trail, unlike horses.? Do hooves do more damage than feet?? Yup.? Do hooves ENABLE the trail to stay open and maintained in the back country?? Absolutely.? Bikes can't pack in the gear to support a trail crew dozens of miles deep into the Wilderness.? Horses can and do.? Just based on utility alone - lets see....bikes do damage and don't bring any particular help (as a machine) in maintaining the trail....hooves do damage, yet are critical assets to maintaining the trail, hence are a net positive....hmmmm....yup, hooves win, bikes loose that argument.
MTB's on the PCT?? Over my dead body.? It's an incompatible use with hikers and equestrians plus I've worked too many hours on the trail these last several years to see it destroyed.
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:07:21 -0700
From: Diane Soini of Santa Barbara Hikes <diane at santabarbarahikes.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Boulder Bidet
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Message-ID:
<E8599A36-1A26-4D7D-805D-12F011097A46 at santabarbarahikes.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
That thing looks delightful! I want one!
On Oct 8, 2012, at 10:00 AM, pct-l-request at backcountry.net wrote:
> From: Yoshihiro Murakami <completewalker at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Boulder Bidet
>
> Dear John
>
> Many Japanese hotels and their houses are equipped by the electric
> driven shower toilet ("Washlet" is a famous product name. ):
>
> for example:
> http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Bidet-BB-3000W-Temperature-Self-Cleaning/
> dp/B0018O9JDG/ref=sr_1_13?
> s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1349656772&sr=1-13&keywords=washlet
>
> So, the Japanese hates hotels and houses without such a device.
>
> The nozzle is different from the bottle of the bicycle, because it is
> optimized for restroom usage . Please try it, You will realize its
> value.
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:15:46 -0700
From: Ed Jarrett <edjarrett at msn.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
To: PCT List <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID: <BLU169-W74E8DAB68AEBA034D7620BAA8F0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I believe there is a perfect solution. Have the mountain bike community build and maintain their own trail. Then there is no conflict between hikers and bikers. And each community can build a trail that is best suited to their needs..
Ed Jarretthttp://aclayjar.blogspot.com/
> From: socalbackpackers at outlook.com
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:20:32 -0700
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
>
> I am both a backpacker and a mountain bike rider. While I prefer not to have people on the same trail I am riding on, you can co-exist on the same trails. I find it funny that some of the complaints are that mountain bikers do more damage to the trail than do horses or hikers. My tires are only 2.25 inches wide. How wide are your feet?? I find more damage to a trail by the horses than I do mountain bike and we could go back to the tread about all the horse and cow poop that is left on the trail and about all of the TP the hikers leave behind?
>
> There is no perfect solution, but I don't think that hikers have the sole right to the wilderness.
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:49:25 -0700
> > From: backpack45 at yahoo.com
> > To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> > Subject: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
> >
> > I looked at the site that had arguments for allowing mountain bikes and had
> > these thoughts: Anyone saying that the impact of bikes and horses would be
> > similar is poorly informed and incorrect. Yes, both do damage--as do hikers--but
> > there are potentially many more mountain bike riders than there are
> > equestrians. Secondly, horses travel at a much slower speed than do most
> > bicyclists; they don't come around corners unexpectedly with the potential of
> > running you down. For the record, I don't hate either mountain bikes (or horses)
> > and I don't see why bike-riders assume anyone hates them just because someone
> > sees flaws in their arguments.
> >
> > I also assume that most hikers (in particular long-distance hikers) want a
> > wilderness experience away from the hustle and bustle of city life. I assume
> > that some mountain bikers are also interested in their surroundings, but that in
> > large part they want the thrills of new trails where they can zip along
> > navigating around the challenging terrain. There is no way that these two uses
> > are compatible on the PCT.
> >
> > Where do we file our protests?
> > Susan Alcorn
> >
> > Shepherd Canyon Books, Oakland, CA
> > www.backpack45.com and backpack45.blogspot.com
> > http://www.examiner.com/hiking-in-san-francisco/susan-alcorn
> > Publishers of two award-winning books: Camino Chronicle: Walking to Santiago and
> > We're in the Mountains Not over the Hill: Tales and Tips from Seasoned Women
> > Backpackers.
> >
> >
> >
> > ********************
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
------------------------------
Message: 20
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:25:48 -0700
From: Timothy Nye <timpnye at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Mountain Bikes and Trail Damage
To: Barry Teschlog <tokencivilian at yahoo.com>
Cc: PCTL <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID: <85BA576D-E5E2-43F1-9BBC-BA46683EC873 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Barry,
Cogent.
My thought with respect to Wilderness Act solution would be a strip of wilderness 50 yards wide or so on all public lands which are traversed by the trail. This would necessarily exclude existing road crossings.
The danger, as I see it, is that we are looking at a possible regulatory fiat that disregards the legislative intent of the original legislation. Remember that the original Congressional enactment proceeded the development of the mountain bike. It would seem that that fact should preclude any regulatory action to execute the Act that would allow such a device The question should not be whether or not it is a specifically excluded activity, rather whether it is a specifically endorsed activity within the ambit the legislation.
Realistically, it is clear to me that the executive branch does not feel it must so defer given the fact they even feel they have the right to even consider such an action.
One of the pluses that horse traffic provides is that allows those with many types of disabilities that cannot either hike, or bike, access to the trail. It allows families access. If bikes are allowed, then access to the trail is actually restricted in terms of the proportion of the population having access to the extent equestrian usage is no longer safe. Thus, allowing bikes may be seen as discriminatory. It must be shown, however, that the MTB's disregard their obligation to yield to horses and hikers.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 8, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Barry Teschlog <tokencivilian at yahoo.com> wrote:
> To those that claim MTB's don't significantly damage trails, I call ignorance on that statement (and I use dictionary definition of ignorance - lack of knowledge).
>
> I base that statement as a trail maintainer (as a volunteer WTA assistant crew leader and volunteer PCTA crew leader), hiker and avid mountain biker. I've worked on both the PCT (hiker and stock), trails at Tiger Mountain (just east of Seattle) where trails are open to horse, hiker and MTBs and on the Grand Ridge Trail (just on the other side of I-90 from Tiger) to name a few. I also LOVE to ride my MTB on some fun, twisty, fast single track (a Trek hard tail) at Duthie Mountain Bike Park (at the north end of the Grand Ridge Trail). I also thru hiked in 2006.
>
>
> My first hand observations: The trails at Duthie are maintained constantly by the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance. They're also in poor condition due to the heavy MTB traffic. There are ruts and mud holes all over the place. Drainage structures are constantly destroyed as the bikers ride in a narrow (preferred) line, causing deep cuts in the ground that throw up a berm, blocking the drainage's. Skidding in turns and high pressure tires (relative to the ground pressure of hiker feet) cause linear ruts to form in all but the most hardened tread (read that as armored with gravel), causing water to channel ALONG the tread, instead of the proper drainage ACROSS the tread, promoting erosion. Feet and hooves, when they make impressions in soft tread make point impressions, not channel features like wheels.
>
>
> The same observed damage applies on the Grand Ridge trail - this trail would be a model of what would happen to the PCT here in Washington were bikes to be allowed. This trail is a multi use trail - I love to ride it from Tiger to Duthie, do some laps there and return - it's a great work out. The trouble is that the tread on the Grand Ridge trail shows the wear and tear of the bikers - again, mud holes caused by narrow lines that the MTBers take, or tread that widens out where they can go around their mud holes they cause. Drainage is blocked by the deep cuts from MTB tracks throwing up berms. Linear cuts in the trail that channel water along the trail, promoting erosion. Also, the MTB focused members on the WTA and Evergreen crews have built up the turns to be MTB friendly, NOT hiker and horse friendly - super elevation on a switch back is nice when you're bombing down a hill on the bike - it sucks when you're on foot (not to mention that it
> causes drainage problems). Care to guess how long it would take the PCT to look like a MTB race track instead of a hiker trail were they to get their claws into it?
>
>
> Most of the trails at Tiger mountain have to be closed to bikes from
> October to April else the erosion problems would be far worse than they
> already are. Also, very few people hike on the open to MTB trails - they suck to hike on with the bikes coming by - the bikes drive away the other users.
>
>
> Here in Washington, the non wet season that the PCT isn't
> under snow is......well, if you're lucky, August to early September. Open the PCT here to bikes and it'll be rutted mess in no time flat.
>
>
> As to Wilderness: If the PCT is open, bikes WILL intrude into the Wilderness, period. Statements to the contrary are either pure naivety or lies (deliberate falsehoods with the intent to deceive). I saw the tracks of a flipping MTBer in Oregon on my thru hike - up the PCT for several miles then blow right on by the sign and on into the Wilderness where I followed them for miles more. MTB organizations advocate for the opening of Wilderness to bikes - I'll leave it to the readers to find their position statements attesting to this fact themselves.
>
> As to comparative statements of horse damage and bike damage: So what? Bikes bring zero TO the trail, unlike horses. Do hooves do more damage than feet? Yup. Do hooves ENABLE the trail to stay open and maintained in the back country? Absolutely. Bikes can't pack in the gear to support a trail crew dozens of miles deep into the Wilderness. Horses can and do. Just based on utility alone - lets see....bikes do damage and don't bring any particular help (as a machine) in maintaining the trail....hooves do damage, yet are critical assets to maintaining the trail, hence are a net positive....hmmmm....yup, hooves win, bikes loose that argument.
>
>
> MTB's on the PCT? Over my dead body. It's an incompatible use with hikers and equestrians plus I've worked too many hours on the trail these last several years to see it destroyed.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
------------------------------
Message: 21
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:23:14 -0700
From: Brick Robbins <brick at brickrobbins.com>
Subject: [pct-l] OT, but cool Sierra story
To: PCT <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID:
<CALV1Nz=g+8BCroGfE36Lu2yNSx9DrfO_mLWOWvjLv4gj76ow1g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1008-hiker-note-20121008,0,5366919.story
Sierra hiker finds note left by La Ca?ada Flintridge teen ? in 1972
Hiker Tim Taylor left a note in a canister on a Sierra peak 40 years
ago. The finders are trying to track down the former La Ca?ada
Flintridge resident but the trail has gone cold.
------------------------------
Message: 22
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:32:39 -0700
From: Ron Graybill <rgraybill44 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] OT, but cool Sierra story
To: Brick Robbins <brick at brickrobbins.com>
Cc: PCT <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID:
<CAEnMNWWpcsp07YYEqL5XWUKW_qNVnDPca4YS0tysv3XKPVQcYA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Local TV news in LA found the guy that left the note.
On Oct 8, 2012 6:23 PM, "Brick Robbins" <brick at brickrobbins.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1008-hiker-note-20121008,0,5366919.story
>
> Sierra hiker finds note left by La Ca?ada Flintridge teen ? in 1972
> Hiker Tim Taylor left a note in a canister on a Sierra peak 40 years
> ago. The finders are trying to track down the former La Ca?ada
> Flintridge resident but the trail has gone cold.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
------------------------------
Message: 23
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 06:06:11 -0700
From: Sir Mixalot <atetuna at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest Service to consider allowing Mtn Bikes on
the PCT
To: Brick Robbins <brick at brickrobbins.com>
Cc: PCT <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID:
<CAKhNvBVKuVjDtxvV_=Fqrk6guzmgYEyOfNWYoro1ep4bC3f2Nw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I will absolutely NOT yield to a mountain biker, especially if they're not
allowed on the PCT, and even if they are allowed on the PCT.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Brick Robbins <brick at brickrobbins.com>wrote:
>
> http://forums.mtbr.com/passion/big-news-feds-consider-allowing-bikes-pct-816289.html
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
------------------------------
Message: 24
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:38:46 -0400
From: Austin Greavette <austin.greavette at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Giving way to Mtn Bikes on the PCT
To: Pct-l at backcountry.net
Message-ID:
<CABsPoViHPfzO7Oya5sP5Pzj66biqdNNjHs9yWSbaOf60zf3EyQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
After reading all the emails about this, I was thinking the same thing Sir
Mixalot.... Then I got to thinking, of all the challenges hikers face while
hiking and the dangers of getting hurt, wouldn't it absolutely blow to have
to end your hike with 1-3yrs of planning because a mtn biker refused to
yield or came crashing in to us silently over a hill.
I'd be beyond pissed.... thousands of dollars in the crapper.
Someone mentioned in an earlier email about needing to look behind us to
watch for mtn bikers.... Where I live I don't get the trail to myself and
hate having to watch behind me. But what I hate more is being in a zoned
out walk and having the shit scared out of me when they fly by and I was
unprepared.
The trails where I hike that allow mth bikes, has turned from a scenic
trail to a semi road with ruts. Not only are their ruts on the trail, but
off the trail to when they decide they want to avoid the water in their
existing trails.
As a non-us resident, I would re-consider my hike on the PCT if I had to
worry about bikes.
just my 2 cents (Canadian currency of course)
oz
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Sir Mixalot <atetuna at gmail.com> wrote:
> I will absolutely NOT yield to a mountain biker, especially if they're not
> allowed on the PCT, and even if they are allowed on the PCT.
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 25
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 11:48:14 -0400
From: Ken Murray <kmurray at pol.net>
Subject: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
To: "." <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID:
<1001424843.13571561349797694776.JavaMail.root at zmcs03l-pol-08.portal.webmd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
In contacting Liz Bergeron, Ex Dir of the PCTA about the issue, and giving her a head's up that bikers might be contacting their Board members to pursuade them, she informs me that Board members have already been contacted.
So, the bikers are taking this seriously, and already taking supportive action.
------------------------------
Message: 26
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:09:45 -0700
From: James Lott <socalbackpackers at outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Mountain Bikes and Trail Damage
Cc: PCTL <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID: <BLU002-W49F4C37DC508747840DB2AD88F0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Many of the trails the I ride on also have horses on them Contrary to popular belief on this site, most mountain bike riders are respectful to horses and hikers. We always stop and let the horse pass or ride slow past the horse so they are not spooked. As with any sport or activity, you will always find the idiots in the group. And those will be the people that are point to by the other side as the reason they should not be there or allowed to participate
> From: timpnye at gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:25:48 -0700
> To: tokencivilian at yahoo.com
> CC: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Mountain Bikes and Trail Damage
>
> Barry,
>
> Cogent.
>
> My thought with respect to Wilderness Act solution would be a strip of wilderness 50 yards wide or so on all public lands which are traversed by the trail. This would necessarily exclude existing road crossings.
>
> The danger, as I see it, is that we are looking at a possible regulatory fiat that disregards the legislative intent of the original legislation. Remember that the original Congressional enactment proceeded the development of the mountain bike. It would seem that that fact should preclude any regulatory action to execute the Act that would allow such a device The question should not be whether or not it is a specifically excluded activity, rather whether it is a specifically endorsed activity within the ambit the legislation.
>
> Realistically, it is clear to me that the executive branch does not feel it must so defer given the fact they even feel they have the right to even consider such an action.
>
> One of the pluses that horse traffic provides is that allows those with many types of disabilities that cannot either hike, or bike, access to the trail. It allows families access. If bikes are allowed, then access to the trail is actually restricted in terms of the proportion of the population having access to the extent equestrian usage is no longer safe. Thus, allowing bikes may be seen as discriminatory. It must be shown, however, that the MTB's disregard their obligation to yield to horses and hikers.
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 8, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Barry Teschlog <tokencivilian at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > To those that claim MTB's don't significantly damage trails, I call ignorance on that statement (and I use dictionary definition of ignorance - lack of knowledge).
> >
> > I base that statement as a trail maintainer (as a volunteer WTA assistant crew leader and volunteer PCTA crew leader), hiker and avid mountain biker. I've worked on both the PCT (hiker and stock), trails at Tiger Mountain (just east of Seattle) where trails are open to horse, hiker and MTBs and on the Grand Ridge Trail (just on the other side of I-90 from Tiger) to name a few. I also LOVE to ride my MTB on some fun, twisty, fast single track (a Trek hard tail) at Duthie Mountain Bike Park (at the north end of the Grand Ridge Trail). I also thru hiked in 2006.
> >
> >
> > My first hand observations: The trails at Duthie are maintained constantly by the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance. They're also in poor condition due to the heavy MTB traffic. There are ruts and mud holes all over the place. Drainage structures are constantly destroyed as the bikers ride in a narrow (preferred) line, causing deep cuts in the ground that throw up a berm, blocking the drainage's. Skidding in turns and high pressure tires (relative to the ground pressure of hiker feet) cause linear ruts to form in all but the most hardened tread (read that as armored with gravel), causing water to channel ALONG the tread, instead of the proper drainage ACROSS the tread, promoting erosion. Feet and hooves, when they make impressions in soft tread make point impressions, not channel features like wheels.
> >
> >
> > The same observed damage applies on the Grand Ridge trail - this trail would be a model of what would happen to the PCT here in Washington were bikes to be allowed. This trail is a multi use trail - I love to ride it from Tiger to Duthie, do some laps there and return - it's a great work out. The trouble is that the tread on the Grand Ridge trail shows the wear and tear of the bikers - again, mud holes caused by narrow lines that the MTBers take, or tread that widens out where they can go around their mud holes they cause. Drainage is blocked by the deep cuts from MTB tracks throwing up berms. Linear cuts in the trail that channel water along the trail, promoting erosion. Also, the MTB focused members on the WTA and Evergreen crews have built up the turns to be MTB friendly, NOT hiker and horse friendly - super elevation on a switch back is nice when you're bombing down a hill on the bike - it sucks when you're on foot (not to mention that it
> > causes drainage problems). Care to guess how long it would take the PCT to look like a MTB race track instead of a hiker trail were they to get their claws into it?
> >
> >
> > Most of the trails at Tiger mountain have to be closed to bikes from
> > October to April else the erosion problems would be far worse than they
> > already are. Also, very few people hike on the open to MTB trails - they suck to hike on with the bikes coming by - the bikes drive away the other users.
> >
> >
> > Here in Washington, the non wet season that the PCT isn't
> > under snow is......well, if you're lucky, August to early September. Open the PCT here to bikes and it'll be rutted mess in no time flat.
> >
> >
> > As to Wilderness: If the PCT is open, bikes WILL intrude into the Wilderness, period. Statements to the contrary are either pure naivety or lies (deliberate falsehoods with the intent to deceive). I saw the tracks of a flipping MTBer in Oregon on my thru hike - up the PCT for several miles then blow right on by the sign and on into the Wilderness where I followed them for miles more. MTB organizations advocate for the opening of Wilderness to bikes - I'll leave it to the readers to find their position statements attesting to this fact themselves.
> >
> > As to comparative statements of horse damage and bike damage: So what? Bikes bring zero TO the trail, unlike horses. Do hooves do more damage than feet? Yup. Do hooves ENABLE the trail to stay open and maintained in the back country? Absolutely. Bikes can't pack in the gear to support a trail crew dozens of miles deep into the Wilderness. Horses can and do. Just based on utility alone - lets see....bikes do damage and don't bring any particular help (as a machine) in maintaining the trail....hooves do damage, yet are critical assets to maintaining the trail, hence are a net positive....hmmmm....yup, hooves win, bikes loose that argument.
> >
> >
> > MTB's on the PCT? Over my dead body. It's an incompatible use with hikers and equestrians plus I've worked too many hours on the trail these last several years to see it destroyed.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
------------------------------
Message: 27
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:36:47 -0700
From: James Lott <socalbackpackers at outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
To: Ed Jarrett <edjarrett at msn.com>, PCT List <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID: <BLU002-W18C0174755539C06A414C3D88F0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I could not agree more. As I said, when riding, I would prefer not to have people walking the trail if possible. After I have busted a hump to get up a hill, I want to enjoy the thrill of flying down the hill. If I see someone is on the trail, I will wait until they are out of my way.
> From: edjarrett at msn.com
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:15:46 -0700
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
>
>
> I believe there is a perfect solution. Have the mountain bike community build and maintain their own trail. Then there is no conflict between hikers and bikers. And each community can build a trail that is best suited to their needs..
>
> Ed Jarretthttp://aclayjar.blogspot.com/
>
> > From: socalbackpackers at outlook.com
> > To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> > Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:20:32 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
> >
> > I am both a backpacker and a mountain bike rider. While I prefer not to have people on the same trail I am riding on, you can co-exist on the same trails. I find it funny that some of the complaints are that mountain bikers do more damage to the trail than do horses or hikers. My tires are only 2.25 inches wide. How wide are your feet?? I find more damage to a trail by the horses than I do mountain bike and we could go back to the tread about all the horse and cow poop that is left on the trail and about all of the TP the hikers leave behind?
> >
> > There is no perfect solution, but I don't think that hikers have the sole right to the wilderness.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:49:25 -0700
> > > From: backpack45 at yahoo.com
> > > To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> > > Subject: [pct-l] Forest service reconsidering mountain bikes?
> > >
> > > I looked at the site that had arguments for allowing mountain bikes and had
> > > these thoughts: Anyone saying that the impact of bikes and horses would be
> > > similar is poorly informed and incorrect. Yes, both do damage--as do hikers--but
> > > there are potentially many more mountain bike riders than there are
> > > equestrians. Secondly, horses travel at a much slower speed than do most
> > > bicyclists; they don't come around corners unexpectedly with the potential of
> > > running you down. For the record, I don't hate either mountain bikes (or horses)
> > > and I don't see why bike-riders assume anyone hates them just because someone
> > > sees flaws in their arguments.
> > >
> > > I also assume that most hikers (in particular long-distance hikers) want a
> > > wilderness experience away from the hustle and bustle of city life. I assume
> > > that some mountain bikers are also interested in their surroundings, but that in
> > > large part they want the thrills of new trails where they can zip along
> > > navigating around the challenging terrain. There is no way that these two uses
> > > are compatible on the PCT.
> > >
> > > Where do we file our protests?
> > > Susan Alcorn
> > >
> > > Shepherd Canyon Books, Oakland, CA
> > > www.backpack45.com and backpack45.blogspot.com
> > > http://www.examiner.com/hiking-in-san-francisco/susan-alcorn
> > > Publishers of two award-winning books: Camino Chronicle: Walking to Santiago and
> > > We're in the Mountains Not over the Hill: Tales and Tips from Seasoned Women
> > > Backpackers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ********************
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
------------------------------
Message: 28
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:43:34 -0700
From: Stephen Clark <rowriver at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Mountain Bikes and Trail Damage
To: James Lott <socalbackpackers at outlook.com>
Cc: PCTL <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Message-ID:
<CABAzAtE=CZCDmWf1Vxpmvp9nb=BKU8XsbZe2q9+KAycuU4BvEg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I have yet to come across (or have them come across me) a biker on the PCT
or any trail (I do about 300 to 400 miles a year besides my PCT miles) that
stops for or is courteous to hikers... Mostly it's "On your left" as they
scream by, if I even get anything other than the sound of tires coming up
behind... I would therefor have to assume that there are more 'idiots'
among mountain bikers than those that are 'respectful.'
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:09 AM, James Lott <socalbackpackers at outlook.com>wrote:
> Many of the trails the I ride on also have horses on them Contrary to
> popular belief on this site, most mountain bike riders are respectful to
> horses and hikers. We always stop and let the horse pass or ride slow
> past the horse so they are not spooked. As with any sport or activity, you
> will always find the idiots in the group. And those will be the people
> that are point to by the other side as the reason they should not be there
> or allowed to participate
>
>
>
> > From: timpnye at gmail.com
> > Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:25:48 -0700
> > To: tokencivilian at yahoo.com
> > CC: pct-l at backcountry.net
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Mountain Bikes and Trail Damage
> >
> > Barry,
> >
> > Cogent.
> >
> > My thought with respect to Wilderness Act solution would be a strip of
> wilderness 50 yards wide or so on all public lands which are traversed by
> the trail. This would necessarily exclude existing road crossings.
> >
> > The danger, as I see it, is that we are looking at a possible regulatory
> fiat that disregards the legislative intent of the original legislation.
> Remember that the original Congressional enactment proceeded the
> development of the mountain bike. It would seem that that fact should
> preclude any regulatory action to execute the Act that would allow such a
> device The question should not be whether or not it is a specifically
> excluded activity, rather whether it is a specifically endorsed activity
> within the ambit the legislation.
> >
> > Realistically, it is clear to me that the executive branch does not feel
> it must so defer given the fact they even feel they have the right to even
> consider such an action.
> >
> > One of the pluses that horse traffic provides is that allows those with
> many types of disabilities that cannot either hike, or bike, access to the
> trail. It allows families access. If bikes are allowed, then access to the
> trail is actually restricted in terms of the proportion of the population
> having access to the extent equestrian usage is no longer safe. Thus,
> allowing bikes may be seen as discriminatory. It must be shown, however,
> that the MTB's disregard their obligation to yield to horses and hikers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Oct 8, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Barry Teschlog <tokencivilian at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > To those that claim MTB's don't significantly damage trails, I call
> ignorance on that statement (and I use dictionary definition of ignorance -
> lack of knowledge).
> > >
> > > I base that statement as a trail maintainer (as a volunteer WTA
> assistant crew leader and volunteer PCTA crew leader), hiker and avid
> mountain biker. I've worked on both the PCT (hiker and stock), trails at
> Tiger Mountain (just east of Seattle) where trails are open to horse, hiker
> and MTBs and on the Grand Ridge Trail (just on the other side of I-90 from
> Tiger) to name a few. I also LOVE to ride my MTB on some fun, twisty, fast
> single track (a Trek hard tail) at Duthie Mountain Bike Park (at the north
> end of the Grand Ridge Trail). I also thru hiked in 2006.
> > >
> > >
> > > My first hand observations: The trails at Duthie are maintained
> constantly by the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance. They're also in poor
> condition due to the heavy MTB traffic. There are ruts and mud holes all
> over the place. Drainage structures are constantly destroyed as the bikers
> ride in a narrow (preferred) line, causing deep cuts in the ground that
> throw up a berm, blocking the drainage's. Skidding in turns and high
> pressure tires (relative to the ground pressure of hiker feet) cause linear
> ruts to form in all but the most hardened tread (read that as armored with
> gravel), causing water to channel ALONG the tread, instead of the proper
> drainage ACROSS the tread, promoting erosion. Feet and hooves, when they
> make impressions in soft tread make point impressions, not channel features
> like wheels.
> > >
> > >
> > > The same observed damage applies on the Grand Ridge trail - this trail
> would be a model of what would happen to the PCT here in Washington were
> bikes to be allowed. This trail is a multi use trail - I love to ride it
> from Tiger to Duthie, do some laps there and return - it's a great work
> out. The trouble is that the tread on the Grand Ridge trail shows the wear
> and tear of the bikers - again, mud holes caused by narrow lines that the
> MTBers take, or tread that widens out where they can go around their mud
> holes they cause. Drainage is blocked by the deep cuts from MTB tracks
> throwing up berms. Linear cuts in the trail that channel water along the
> trail, promoting erosion. Also, the MTB focused members on the WTA and
> Evergreen crews have built up the turns to be MTB friendly, NOT hiker and
> horse friendly - super elevation on a switch back is nice when you're
> bombing down a hill on the bike - it sucks when you're on foot (not to
> mention that it
> > > causes drainage problems). Care to guess how long it would take the
> PCT to look like a MTB race track instead of a hiker trail were they to get
> their claws into it?
> > >
> > >
> > > Most of the trails at Tiger mountain have to be closed to bikes from
> > > October to April else the erosion problems would be far worse than they
> > > already are. Also, very few people hike on the open to MTB trails -
> they suck to hike on with the bikes coming by - the bikes drive away the
> other users.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here in Washington, the non wet season that the PCT isn't
> > > under snow is......well, if you're lucky, August to early September.
> Open the PCT here to bikes and it'll be rutted mess in no time flat.
> > >
> > >
> > > As to Wilderness: If the PCT is open, bikes WILL intrude into the
> Wilderness, period. Statements to the contrary are either pure naivety or
> lies (deliberate falsehoods with the intent to deceive). I saw the tracks
> of a flipping MTBer in Oregon on my thru hike - up the PCT for several
> miles then blow right on by the sign and on into the Wilderness where I
> followed them for miles more. MTB organizations advocate for the opening of
> Wilderness to bikes - I'll leave it to the readers to find their position
> statements attesting to this fact themselves.
> > >
> > > As to comparative statements of horse damage and bike damage: So what?
> Bikes bring zero TO the trail, unlike horses. Do hooves do more damage than
> feet? Yup. Do hooves ENABLE the trail to stay open and maintained in the
> back country? Absolutely. Bikes can't pack in the gear to support a trail
> crew dozens of miles deep into the Wilderness. Horses can and do. Just
> based on utility alone - lets see....bikes do damage and don't bring any
> particular help (as a machine) in maintaining the trail....hooves do
> damage, yet are critical assets to maintaining the trail, hence are a net
> positive....hmmmm....yup, hooves win, bikes loose that argument.
> > >
> > >
> > > MTB's on the PCT? Over my dead body. It's an incompatible use with
> hikers and equestrians plus I've worked too many hours on the trail these
> last several years to see it destroyed.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
End of Pct-L Digest, Vol 58, Issue 10
*************************************
More information about the Pct-L
mailing list