[pct-l] PCTRI response to the Forest Service upholding PCT mountain biking closure

[Dan Welch]

<<  I see it as a 70/30 chance in our favor...again, I do not say this
lightly  >>

Keep dreamin' Nick.  Have a nice New Year.  May you find some new lists to
troll on soon. (and hopefully stop being a PITA in ours) 



-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
On Behalf Of Nick Thelen
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:18 PM
To: pct-l at backcountry.net
Subject: [pct-l] PCTRI response to the Forest Service upholding PCT mountain
biking closure

Mr Murray wrote n response:
[Nick wrote] I'm confused Mr. Murray....what "ruling" are you talking about?
And what "resources" and "money" is being spent?
=====================================================

The "ruling" that you want to change, that Congress meant what it said when
it created the PCT.Resources? How about attorney's to give opinions on the
legality of USFS positions? How about time spent writing letters by all
these bikers? How about the paid people in biker organizations spending
their time on the issue. How about YOU spending your time writing on
blogs?The fact of the matter is that you wanted a reconsideration, and you
GOT a reconsideration. But now, only a few months later, you are not happy
that you got your reconsideration, because YOU LOST. And your biker pals are
pissed at you for misleading them.You say it is tenuous, but you get no
traction, you get no results.

====================
[Nick wrote] There is no "ruling"
====================

Right. The decision by the USFS does not exist. It is legal to ride on the
PCT.
Any other "truths" you want to pass onto your buddies????

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------

I'll make this easy for you Mr. Murray as it is clear you do not understand
the basis of our argument.

Prior to this past year most people took for granted that mountain biking on
the PCT was illegal. This belief stems from the 1988 closure order, which
was typed up by three Forest Service employees about a year after the Forest
Service headquarters in Washington, D.C., refused a plea by PCT advocates to
issue a regulation forbidding bicycles.

The point is that we have an extremely strong argument that the closure
order violated a law requiring that the public be invited to comment before
the closure took place. 

We also believe that the Forest Service's own lawyers in Washington have
told the Forest Service that the closure order is legally invalid...I do not
say this lightly.

Basically, the current situation has moved to the middlegame (if you play
chess you will understand). As you have read from the Forest Service's
letter from several weeks ago, it is not going to budge  on its view that
the order is legal and bicycling on the PCT is illegal. 

We at PCTRI remain convinced that we have a strong legal argument that the
closure is not legal.

Agencies almost always defend their rules. However, courts often tell them
that they are incorrect. Someday this dispute may get to court and we'll
find out who's right. 

I see it as a 70/30 chance in our favor...again, I do not say this lightly

It's not wise to assume that the closure order is legal and mountain bikers
are violating the law. It seems to lead to the desire to confront mountain
bikers as scofflaws...

Let the Forest Service and the courts figure this out. Taking matters into
your own hands, beyond having a conversation, is legally risky...catch my
drift y0...

Have a wonderful New Year - I, myself, am about to crack a lovely bottle of
Black Tuesday RIS...

Love,
Nick
_______________________________________________
Pct-L mailing list
Pct-L at backcountry.net
To unsubscribe, 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.