It’s inevitable the Sustainable Trails Coalition will get a Member of Congress to sponsor their bill, maybe.

Recently, Ted Stroll published an opinion piece in the High Country News called “It’s Inevitable. There will be bikes in the Wilderness.”  The article glows about the possibilities of mountain biking in Federally Designated Wildernesses, which have been banned until now. But, the article is getting mixed reviews with some people who question Ted’s tactics and logic.

“It’s Inevitable,” said Captain Jean Luc Picard “that sounds like the Borg when they said “resistance is futile,” and look what happened the Borg, we put them to sleep.”  Picard was briefly assimilated by the Borg, but he was also key to the Federation’s victory over the Borg.  “Bikes WILL be in the Wilderness, it all sounds very ominous to me.  Even Number 1 is shaking his head in disapproval about it.”

Dr. Ian Malcolm

But, the prospects of getting the Sustainable Trails Coalition Bill sponsored by a member of Congress are bright.  According to Mathematician Dr. Ian Malcolm, the prospects are quite good.  “The Human-Powered Wildland Travel Act of 2015 will definitely get a sponsor in 2016, or if not, in 2017,” Dr Malcolm said.  Malcolm is best known for his eccentric observations about the Dinosaur themed Jurassic Park. “Life finds a way” Dr Malcolm said, “and just like life, the Sustainable Trails Coalition will find a political hack willing to take up their cause.”

Wedge Antilles

Wedge Antilles also thinks that the Sustainable Trails Coalition will ultimately succeed.  “It’s obvious that mountain bikes are not mechanical transport” he said “there is no way an Ion Drive could be mounted on a bike, so I doubt whether they even qualify as a mechanical object.”  Antilles is best known for being Luke Skywalker’s Wingman in several battles. “The old ways are already on their way out” he said.

Captain Jean Luc Picard

But Picard counters the “Inevitable” statement with this. “The Wilderness Act is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy ... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous.”  He also added “Congress wanted a place without the influence of mechanization and I say “make it so””

Mathesar of Thermia

Mathesar from the planet Thermia agrees.  “I have examined all the historical documents and there is no evidence to suggest mountain bikes should be allowed in Wilderness Areas.”    Mathesar also has examined all the Galaxy Quest historical documents and credits Captain Jason Nesmith and the Crew of the starship Protector for saving all the Thermians from the evil Sarris.  “What mountain bikers need is a leader, not someone who uses bits and pieces of historical documents to misinform people,” Mathesar said.

As a mathematician, Dr Malcolm wonders why more efforts aren’t being done to build mountain biking trails systems closer to where people actually live. “The people of the Sustainable Trails Coalition were so preoccupied with whether they could get bikes in the Wilderness, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” He says that finding a sponsor should be relatively easy, because over 7000 bills are sponsored every year.  But, only 5% of the bills ever get passed by Congress, and STC’s Bill will have every environmental group coming out against it. So, Malcolm challenges the logic behind the Sustainable Trails Coalition approach. “Gee, the lack of humility before nature being displayed here staggers me.”

A Response to John Fisch’s “Responses to the 10 most common arguments against mountain bikes in Wilderness Areas.”

I’d just like to take this opportunity to respond to the many misconceptions put forward by John Fisch in his article “Responses to the 10 most common arguments against mountain bikes in Wilderness Areas.” There has been considerable buzz about this topic ever since IMBA did a press conference saying they would not seek changes to the Wilderness Act. It seems that IMBA has seen through some of the false and misleading statements generated by people like John Fisch

John wrote in his opening statement “Bear in mind that nobody is seeking access to 100% of all Wilderness trails 100% of the time, only that the blanket ban be removed and trails be assessed for cycling suitability on a case-by-case basis.” Really. Having Wilderness Areas considering mountain biking on a case-by-case basis is an administrative nightmare. It will cost millions to do the Environmental Impact Statements for mountain biking in 765 Wilderness Areas. And those Statements may not allow mountain bikes into a specific Wilderness Area after everything is said and done. Mountain bikers will be constantly asking for more areas to be opened up and will be protesting if the land manager decides against mountain biking.

So here are my responses to John Fisch’s points.

1. Bikes are mechanical
Damn right they are mechanical. And no version of Mountain Bikes is not mechanical. Meanwhile, the other mechanical devices that John cites, XC skis and oarlocks, were originally made out of wood. In ancient times XC skis were a long piece of wood with leather straps to attach them to your boots. Oarlocks were originally two pieces of wood mounted on the side of a boat. John also states that backpackers are hauling into the wilderness higher technology than bikes. He says “nobody would complain about carrying a GPS into the Wilderness.” Well, John nailed it because nobody would complain about carrying a GPS into the Wilderness. That’s just it, people are carrying the GPS unit. The GPS units are not carrying the people. There is no “mechanical transport” involved with a GPS Unit.

2. The Wilderness Act prohibits bikes.
Yes it does. John quotes the Wilderness Act “... there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.” Just from that sentence alone you would have to say mountain bikes are banned. The sentence says “no use of motorized vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats,” then it goes on to say “no other form of mechanical transport.” It’s obvious from the sentence structure that “no other form of mechanical transport” can mean transport other than motorized transport. The mere fact that it says “no other form” emphasizes that. If “mechanical transport” is supposed to mean, “motorized transport,” well, they just could have used the word “motorized.” They used the word “motorized” or “motor” three other times in that sentence, why not use it again. And to that point, having the words “mechanical transport” mean “motorized transport” would have been redundant.

Also, John writes, “Knowing this, the USFS in implementing the Act defined mechanical as “powered by a non living source.”” Well, John, I’m sorry that a misguided Forest Service Rule doesn’t take priority over the Wilderness Act. You have to remember that the Forest Service was a hostile participant in the Wilderness Act. They actually testified against the Wilderness Act. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is just one of 4 agencies that manages Wilderness areas. The National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management all have a equal standing in managing Wilderness Areas and none of those agencies have the “non living power source” rule in regards to the Wilderness. And another thing John didn’t mention is that when the Forest Service finally got on board with the Wilderness Act, they did specifically ban mountain bikes in their Wilderness Areas.

Also, John writes “The Rattlesnake Wilderness Act of 1980 states…” which is totally wrong. That’s not the name of the Act. The actual name of the Act is “Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness Act of 1980.” So, basically the passage that John quoted was talking about a National Recreation Area, and not necessarily a Wilderness Area. Come on, John, changing the name of an Act of Congress. How low can you go? No wonder IMBA isn’t supporting your cause when you are spewing misinformation like that.



The actual name of the Act is "Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness Act of 1980"

3. Bikes are inconsistent with Wilderness Values
Let’s take a look at a section of the Wilderness Act that John quoted “An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence…” So, Wilderness Areas need to keep a “primeval character” about them. What does that mean? The word “primeval” means “of the first ages” or “from ancient times.” XC skis and Oarlocks, the devices that John is complaining about in item 1, date back to centuries before Christ. In fact, a fragment of a ski found in Russia dates back to 6000 BC. So, XC skis and oarlocks are primeval in character. Mountain bikes date back to 1981 when the first commercially made mountain bike was manufactured. Mountain bikes are not simple devices and they are not primeval in character.


An Ancient drawing of a Cross Country Skier

4. Environmental Impacts
John writes “However, independent scientific research has proven that given similar conditions, hiking and biking wear on the land is similar,” Well, John, have you ever looked at the studies you are talking about. Basically, the studies have mountain bikers and hikers travel through side-by-side test plots. In those plots mountain biking damage is no more severe than hiking damage. But here’s a quote from the article John listed as a reference: “While Taylor and Knight found no biological justification for managing mountain biking any differently than hiking, they note that bikers cover more ground in a given time period than hikers and thus can potentially disturb more wildlife per unit time.” So, after reading that, do mountain bikers do more damage than hikers? Yes, because mountain bikers travel twice or three times as far as hikers in a given time period.

5. Wilderness is a place for a slower pace, so we may properly enjoy it
John writes, “When I hike, my average speed is 2.5 – 3 mph. When I ride a challenging backcountry trail, my average speed is 4 – 6 mph.” John is right on about the hiker speed at 2.5 – 3 mph, but his mountain biking speed is questionable. He says he rides that pace on a “challenging backcountry trail.” What if the trail in the Wilderness is not all that challenging? Let’s take a look at a couple rules for mountain biking. Annadel State Park in California has a speed limit for mountain bikes at 15 mph. That’s 5 to 6 times faster than an average hiker. Mammoth Cave National Park also has a speed limit of 15 mph for mountain bikes on their trails. Mountain bikers are quite capable of achieving and sustaining much greater speeds than 4 -6 mph.

Also, John writes “While on my bike, I have been passed by trail runners in hardcore training or trying to set personal bests on backcountry routes.” Well, if mountain bikes are allowed in Wilderness Areas, won’t mountain bikers be doing the exact same thing? I’m sure there will be mountain bikers out there trying to set their personal best on a section of trail. Plus there will be mountain bikers using the Strava app to establish the fastest time on a section.

6. Bikes “shrink” the Wilderness
John writes “modern backpacking equipment makes multi-day trips easier, allowing hikers to penetrate deeply into the Wilderness as well.” The funny thing about that is mountain bikers can use the exact same equipment as a backpacker. Mountain bikers can use the exact same tent, backpacking stove, and a myriad of other equipment. But the main difference is that backpackers will be doing it on “multi-day trips” where mountain bikers can cover the same ground in just a day or two.


Bikepacking.com reviews the same tent a backpacker would use.

Plus there are many horseback riders who would disagree with John’s statement: “At least a bike requires fitness and skill on the part of its rider, while a horse does not.”

7. User Conflicts
There was a January 20, 2015 article in the Merced Sun Star called “Exchequer Mountain Bike Park on the trail to completion” It’s about a new mountain bike-only trail system in California. Here is a quote from the article: “When the network is complete, Exchequer will be the state’s largest bike-only park. Many of California’s most popular trails have conflicts among cyclists, hikers and equestrians. Making this area exclusive to bikes eliminates that problem.” So other mountain bikers are acknowledging that there are trail conflicts. Having separate trails for separate users is a way to resolve trail conflict. It has worked great in several places including the Southern Kettle Moraine State Forest in Wisconsin, where they have separate and very popular trail systems for hiking, mountain biking and horseback riding.

Plus the issue isn’t totally about User Conflict. It’s also about User Experience. If a hiker wants to go out hiking on a trail for some peace and solitude, having a mountain biker come barreling down a narrow trail at a hiker does not fit into that plan. It’s perfectly okay to have some trails that are shared by hikers and mountain bikes. But it’s also okay to have trails for just hikers.

8. Why can’t we have a place of our own?
Well, why can’t we? As stated in item #7, mountain bikers are creating their own trails for just mountain biking near Lake McClure in California. If that’s the case then why can’t hikers have their own trails, too?

9. You have plenty of other places to ride
No, there is not enough mountain biking trail access in the United States. But advocating mountain biking out in the middle of nowhere isn’t helping. Instead, mountain biking trails are needed where the people are, near the suburbs and the cities.

Also, John brings out the following statistic: “Colorado has 4,433,000 acres of roadless area. Of that roadless area, 3,735,000 acres is Designated Wilderness. This means bikes are banned from over 84% of the roadless areas in Colorado by Wilderness designation alone.” Well, mountain bikers like John say hikers shouldn’t mind mountain bikers speeding down the trail at the hikers. But all of a sudden, if there is a road within a mile of a mountain biking trail, then that totally freaks out John. John doesn’t mention that all told there are 14,509,000 acres of public land in Colorado. So, doing the math on that, there are over 10 million acres of land that potentially mountain bikers can build trails on. Surely there are some great places to go mountain biking in those 10 million acres.

10. So, today you want bikes. What’s next, Motorcycles? ATVs? Jeeps?

How about oilrigs, mining and logging. STC and their proponents act like their little bill will go through Congress and hardly nothing will change or be tacked onto it. Well, I have news for them. The North Country Trail had a bill they were trying to get through Congress a couple years ago. It was a simple bill, which allows the NCT to buy land from "willing sellers." Several other National Scenic Trails have this provision, but the NCT doesn't. Well, the Republicans tacked on so much stuff to the bill, including fracking near the trail in Pennsylvania, the NCTA didn't want the bill anymore.


A Fracking Operation in Pennslyvania. The North Country Trail goes through western Pennsylvania 

Even Vernon Felton, the mountain biking writer has said, "Our public lands are under increasing attack from people who want to clear cut, mine and frack the living hell out of it." Vernon is right. In my state, Wisconsin, the Republican Legislature and Governor let a mining company write an environmental law. Now, the Sustainable Trails Coalition wants the Republicans to take up their cause. Sounds like a recipe for disaster

So, that brings us to another common argument against mountain biking in the Wilderness. This one John missed in his article. In Congress everything has been on the table from gutting environmental laws to selling off public lands. The Sierra Club and Wilderness Society are not going to want the Wilderness Act to be opened up now in this political environment. Those two groups have more clout in Washington than any other group besides the NRA. So, we’ll see how the Sustainable Trails Coalition efforts work out. My guess is that they will get a Republican Congressman to sponsor their bill, but then the opposition will come out in full force. Only 5% of the Bills before Congress ever become law. So, the “Human-Powered Wildlands Travel Management Act of 2015” will just end up like the other 95% of the Bills that never go anywhere. STC says they have collected over $90,000 for lobbying. It will be sad to see all of that money wasted on this issue when it could have been used to build new mountain biking trails. But, on the bright side, after they’ve wasted all of that money and gotten nowhere, this issue will finally be over.






You can discuss this blog at the "Preserving the PCT" Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/preservingthepct/      That facebook page and this blog are not affiliated with the Pacific Crest Trail Association

Taking a look at the Mountain Bikes in the Wilderness issue

Back in August of 2015 the Congress of the United States voted unanimously to make Boulders/White Clouds a designated Wilderness. Actually, they divided the original Boulders/White Clouds proposal into three different Wildernesses: White Clouds Wilderness, Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness and Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness. Ever since then, Mountain bikers have been lamenting the fact that they have lost access to these areas.

But if you take a close look at Boulders/White Cloud, I'd say Mountain Biking did well. First of all, the Bowery Loop, which looks like a carrot, both north and south of the loop are now protected Wilderness. That means that the views and the wilderness quality of that loop, which is about 30 miles long, are forever protected. Secondly, the lawmakers cut 23,000 acres from the Wilderness so the 4th of July Trail could be out of the Wilderness. That allows for the whole loop with the Washington Basin Trail continue to have mountain biking.

The Bowery Loop remains out of the Wilderness as well as the 4th of July Trail

All told, mountain bikers have lost access to 295,000 acres because of Boulders/White Clouds. So how many miles of trail did they lose access to? Well, I asked that question in an email to the Sawtooth National Forest. Julie Thomas, Public Information Officer wrote me back. She writes:

“Warm Springs Creek/ Antz Basin and Castle Divide were the only trails that received a lot of mountain bike use in recent years, prior to designation within the White Clouds and Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness areas. Chamberlain Creek was getting some use as an alternate route on the Hot Springs Tour Map. These areas are also very popular with hikers and horse users.”

Here is the list of the mileages

Ants Basin, 3 miles/1.9 now in wilderness
Warm Springs Creek, 20.7 miles
Livingston Mill-Castle Divide, 9 miles inside wilderness
Chamberlain Creek, 7 miles
Also according to Julie Thomas:

“All other trails in the new wildernesses were open to bicycle use but most received very little if any bike use.”

So, basically, mountain bikers are complaining about losing about 40 miles of trail. Don’t get me wrong. It is a great loss. But, the rest of the trails in the 295,000 acres mountain bikers didn’t even use. Perhaps that’s because there are 100s of miles of other mountain biking trails already in the Sun Valley, Idaho area.

Every time a Wilderness Area is designated there are groups that are affected. Back when the Boundary Waters was protected as a Wilderness, logging businesses said it would really hurt them. But in reality, there are plenty of places for logging in the Superior National Forest outside of the Boundary Waters Wilderness. I did a hike up near the Boundary Waters in October, and I saw plenty of Logging Trucks hauling logs. Likewise, there are still hundreds of miles of trail in the Sun Valley, Idaho area for mountain bikers to enjoy.

And now, thanks to the Boulders/White Clouds, 155,000 acres will potentially be opened to multi-use, so more trails can be built. That’s right, the big news is that 4 Wilderness Study Areas will no longer be WSAs. According to Julie Thomas:

“The legislation released Wilderness Study Areas from the BLM but all recommended wilderness on Forest Service lands remain in place until future Forest Plan revision.” 
 
That's a total of 155,000 acres that mountain biking can potentially thrive on. You would be better off sending money to build new trails in those areas than sending money to STC.

You also have to remember that Mountain Bikers were not shut out of the process. Mountain Bikers knew that Boulder/White Cloud could have become a National Monument. It was known that mountain bikers should contact their members of Congress in support of the National Monument designation. So, mountain bikers had input on this, but in the end because of a Republican tactic, it became a Wilderness Area. The Republicans didn't want Obama to get credit for designating a National Monument. So, basically, the Republicans are playing games with our wild areas. Remember that these are the same Republican members of Congress that Ted Stoll and the Sustainable Trails Coalition want to sponsor their bill.

Plus the National Monument designation is not as permanent as a Wilderness designation. If you go to google and search for “former National Monuments” you will find a list of almost 60 areas that used to be National Monuments. If you search for “former Wilderness Areas” you won’t find a list.

A list of around 60 former National Monuments appears on Wikipedia

Meanwhile, Wilderness areas are only 2.5% of the Land Area in the Lower 48 States, and even Ted Stroll says that it will only ever be 3% of the land area. There are not that many areas left that qualify for being a Wilderness Area. Meanwhile, according to the Outdoor Foundation, only 3% of the population goes mountain biking.

Also, while STC is promoting mountain biking out in the middle of nowhere they are ignoring mountain biking where it is really needed. Again, take a look at the statistics from the Outdoor Foundation. Skateboarding is kicking mountain biking's ass in the youth 6 to 17 age group. 3.7% of youth participate in Mountain Biking and 6.9% participate in Skateboarding. And why is skateboarding doing so well against mountain biking? It's because there is a skateboard park in almost every little town of 10,000 people. That's what mountain biking needs to do to get youth interested in the sport. Sure, Mountain Biking needs more land than a Skateboarding Park, but Skateboarding Parks need massive amounts of concrete so they are expensive to build. 

One of the things that the Sustainable Trails Coalition is pushing for is to have local land managers decide if mountain biking will be allowed in each of the Wilderness Areas. Having local land managers decide is an Administrative Nightmare and Financial Boongdoogle. Each one of the 765 Wilderness Areas would have to go through an Environmental Review if they were to allow mountain bikes. I sent an email to Aspen-Sopris District Ranger Karen Schoyer, the Forest Ranger who manages the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness. I asked her how much would a typical Environmental Review for a Wilderness Area would cost. She wrote back to me:

“I can tell you that an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) can cost tens of thousands of dollars and several years to complete currently and they are often completed by 3rd party contractors, under Forest Service specialist review, because we do not have the staffing to complete the work in a timely manner.” 
 
So, let’s do the math on that. There are 765 Wilderness Areas and if each of them cost on average $10,000 to complete the Environmental Review, well that’s 7.65 million dollars. And even after all that money is spent, there is no guarantee that mountain biking will be allowed in a Wilderness Area. Many Wilderness Areas like Maroon Bells/Snowmass are already overused by hikers and horseback riders. Adding mountain bikers would not be an option.

Ted Stroll is hoping one of the Republican Congressmen will take up his cause. But I come from a state where the Republican Legislature and Governor let a Mining Company write an environmental law. The Wilderness Society and Sierra Club are not going to want the Wilderness Act to be opened up now after stuff like that has been happening. And those two organizations have more clout in Washington than any other organization other than the NRA. I contend that the only member of Congress that will sponsor Ted's bill is one that is in the pocket of Logging, Mining or Oil. So, when you finally get to ride your bike in the Wilderness, you will be riding next to clear-cut areas, open pit mines and oil rigs

Feel free to discuss this blog on the "Preserving the PCT" Facebook page located here:
http://www.facebook.com/preservingthepct

An in depth look at the Mountain Biking on the PCT issue

Reposted from one of my other blogs. I'll be having a follow up to this in the next few weeks.

Some interesting things came out of a recent story call “The Daily Bike: A Look at the Ban on Wilderness Mountain Biking” in the Adventure Journal Newsletter. First of all Mike Van Abel, the International Mountain Biking Association’s President gave this quote regarding Mountain Bikes in the Wilderness:

“So if we, as a society see that as unjust, then we should change the law, but the political reality is that most people—including a lot of IMBA members—do not see the law as unjust.”

This plays right into what I’ve been saying about the “Bikes on the Pacific Crest Trail” issue. I feel that the majority of mountain bikers are happy to have the PCT be a hiking and horseback riding trail as it was intended.

Further down in the comments for the article, Mark Eller, IMBA’s Communication Director writes

“IMBA has lawyers on staff and has consulted with top-tier law firms that specialize in land use. Their recommendation has been, and continues to be, that a lawsuit designed to end the ban on bikes in federal wilderness would be unwise.

Why? Because we could, and probably would, lose the suit—there is no law the federal agencies are breaking when they decide to restrict bike access on lands they manage. A defeat in federal court would establish legal precedent and pretty much seal the deal.

That does not mean that IMBA has given up on this issue. The key, we believe, is to focus on a political and social remedy, not a legal one.”

To me it would seem to be really hard to find a “political and social remedy” if as Mike Van Abel suggested that a lot of IMBA’s own members do not find the law as unjust.

IMBA has basically admitted that they are on the wrong side of the law.

So, why is IMBA doing this. Well, it seems that they are just using the “Bikes in the Wilderness” issue as a ploy to get other projects approved. Here is another comment from Mark Eller:

"Obviously this has not changed their minds on bikes and wilderness, but it continues to yield good results in other areas, like an increasing number of federal properties that are managed with mountain biking in mind.”

And officially, IMBA doesn’t support Bikes in the Wilderness, which makes it even more odd that they support bikes on the Pacific Crest Trail. Mark Eller recently wrote the following in a email to me:

“We will continue to work with our agency partners on the PCT issue, with the viewpoint that their are non-wilderness segments of the trail that are suitable for shared-use including bicycling. Mountain bikers successfully share trail systems with hikers and equestrians across the nation and around the globe. There is no reason why this could not be the case for segments of the PCT.”

I wrote back to Mark


"How about the law, isn't that a reason. The law clearly indicates that the PCT is a hiking and horseback riding trail. And according to the forest service who researched it, Bikes have never been allowed on the PCT."

Here is the the Federal Code (36 CFR 212.21) governing the PCT:

"The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail as defined by the National Trails Systems Act, 82 Stat. 919, shall be administered primarily as a footpath and horseback riding trail by the Forest Service in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. The use of motorized vehicles may be authorized by the Federal Agency administering the segment of trail involved when use of such vehicles is necessary to meet emergencies or to enable landowners or land users to have reasonable access to their lands or timber rights."

As you can see from the Federal Code, it specifically mentions the PCT being a footpath and horseback riding trail. It doesn’t mention anything about mountain bikes. So, just from the fact of exclusion, you’d have to say mountain bikes were never intended to be on the PCT. But Mountain bikers say that the word “primarily” means that mountain bikes can be on the trail. But, I read the law as saying the exceptions meant by the word “primarily” are that Motorized Vehicles can use the trail in cases of emergency and to access land for timber harvest, etc. Again, mountain bikes are not mentioned.

Mountain Bikers point out that the Continental Divide Trail has the same language in its Federal Code and it allows mountain biking. Well, that’s because the CDT’s Advisory Council had changes made to the CDT’s Comprehensive Plan that is more friendly to Mountain Biking. The Pacific Crest Trail didn’t include any language like that in its Comprehensive Plan.

In 2009, the following change to the CDT’s Comprehensive Plan was approved by Congress.

"Bicycle use may be allowed on the CDNST (16 U.S.C. 1246(c)) if the use is consistent with the applicable land and resource management plan and will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST"

The Pacific Crest Trail does not have that language in its Comprehensive Plan. But even if it did, I still believe Mountain Bikes should not be allowed on the PCT. If you read it, it says mountain biking could occur where it “will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST.” Mountain biking would more likely interfere with the purposes of the Pacific Crest Trail than the Continental Divide Trail. That’s mainly because of the population of the States involved with each trail. If you add up the population of the CDT States, (New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana) it adds up to around 8 million people. If you add up the population of the PCT States, (California, Oregon and Washington) it adds up to 48 million people. To further that idea, the Continental Divide Trail is 700 miles longer than the Pacific Crest Trail. So you have 8 million people for 3300 miles of the CDT and have 48 million people for 2600 miles of the PCT. So given the shear number of people involved it would be more likely that Mountain Biking would interfere with the PCT intended uses more than it would for the CDT. But again, the PCT does not have that language in its Comprehensive Plan. Instead it says

"The Pacific Crest Trail traditionally has served horseback and foot travelers. This use pattern, accepted by most visitors to the trail, should be continued."

The other key difference between the PCT and CDT is that the PCT is a mostly completed trail, whereas the CDT is far from complete. In fact, up until about 20 years ago when you hiked the CDT there was no designated route, you simply hiked along the Continental Divide using whatever route you liked. Now, there is more of a designated route for the CDT, but much of it is on 2 track forest roads, not a real trail through the forest. Whereas, the PCT is a completed trail that was designed and built for hikers and horseback riders. The fact that it wasn’t built for mountain biking is another clue that mountain biking doesn’t belong on the PCT.



One of several photos of 2 track roads being used for the Route of the CDT from Dan Susman's Hiking Blog


In the PCT Comprehensive Plan there are drawings and trail designs showing hikers and horseback riders on the trail. There are no drawings and trail designs showing mountain bikers on the trail. Remember, this is the “Comprehensive Plan” so they would not intentionally leave something out that belonged on the trail.


The PCT Comprehensive Plan has drawings illustrating how the trail should be cleared for Hikers and Horseback Riders. There are no illustrations of bikes in the Comprehensive Plan.

Now, let’s take a look at what the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Intiative (PCTRI) has been doing. PCTRI's big deal is disputing a 1988 Forest Service Order that bans Mountain Biking on PCT. They claim the order is illegal or no longer valid because the Forest Service didn’t follow correct procedures with the order. They claim the Forest Service didn’t follow the rules of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). But here’s the deal. Not all rules are required to go through the APA process. Rules that interpret or clarify the Federal Code do not need to follow the APA process. Obviously, the order clarifies that the PCT is a footpath and horseback riding trail as the Federal Code states.

PCTRI has sent several letters to the Forest Service and the Forest Service responded to them twice. In the two letters the Forest Service stated that the 1988 ban of Mountain Bikes on is perfectly valid. Forester Randy Moore writes

"The continuation of Regional Order 88-4, which prohibits using or possessing bicycles on the PCT, is consistent with legislation, regulations, directives, the recommendations of the PCT Advisory Council, and the PCT Comprehensive Management Plan. These authorities demonstrate that the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail was intended to be administered as a footpath and horseback riding trail. The PCT was not planned or designed for bicycle use, which has been prohibited since 1971 (National Parks) and 1988 (BLM and U.S. Forest Service)."

Also, it appears that the Forest Service has researched the issue very in depth. Forester Randy Moore Writes:

"The primary uses for the PCT were determined by the PCT Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) and are also found in 36 C.F.R. § 212.21, which states that the PCT is to be used “primarily as a footpath and horseback riding trail.” Since your initial inquiry, a complete review of the National Trails System Act legislation, legislative history, regulations and policies, PCT CMP, PCT Advisory Council Minutes, and agency correspondence records has occurred. Our research documents a legislative and administrative intent that only hiking and equestrian use were to be permitted on the PCT. There is no evidence that bicycle use has ever been allowed on the PCT."

PCTRI continues to rehash the same old misleading statements. On their “Sharing the PCT” Facebook page the have the following statement in their “About” section:

“It's time to bring cyclists back into the PCT community by reopening the PCT to all quiet human-powered uses.”

That’s a totally misleading statement given the fact that Mountain Bikes have never been allowed on the trail. How can you bring something back if it never was supposed to be on the trail in the first place? Plus the law never says anything about having “all quiet human- powered uses.” It says the trail is a “a footpath and horseback riding trail.”

So, how did the Pacific Crest Trail become a hiking and horseback riding trail? Well, Congress established an Advisory Council to figure out the details of the trail when the PCT was authorized as a National Scenic Trail. The Advisory Council decided that Hiking and Horseback Riding was to be the approved uses of the trail. The Advisory Council consisted of representatives from the 3 States the PCT goes through, land agencies, and other interested groups. You have to remember that this was back in the late 60’s and 70’s when Mountain Biking as a sport didn’t even exist. The first commercially made mountain bike didn’t happen until the late 1970’s or early 1980’s. The Advisory Council did its job and disbanded. Then the Pacific Crest Trail Association was created to be the volunteer partner for the trail.

One of the other points PCTRI often seems to make is that the PCT is overgrown in places, so adding mountain bikers will add more maintainers for the trail. Well, the PCT is a 2600 mile trail, and try as hard as they can, the Pacific Crest Trail Association cannot insure that every inch of the trail is cleared. It is really unknown whether adding mountain bikers will help keep the trail clear. Many volunteers that the PCTA already has are dedicated to having the trail be a hiking and horseback riding trail. Adding mountain bikes might discourage these volunteers. Mountain Bikers already complain that hikers don’t help maintain current “multi-use trails.” Perhaps hikers feel disenfranchised by multi-use trails and would rather help maintain trails just for hiking, etc. The PCTA organizes over 50 work crews during the summer, and they also have local chapters that help maintain the trail.

Meanwhile, the Forest Service has reported that 3 out of 4 trails within the Forest Service Lands are not up to standards. Let’s see, Forester Randy Moore mentioned in his letter to PCTRI that over 123,000 miles of trail within the Forest Service are open to Mountain Bicycle riding. Now, if you do the math on that, it means that over 90,000 miles of trail that allow mountain biking are not up to standards. Mountain Bikers would be better off helping maintain trails that they are already allowed on. Otherwise, some of the unmaintained trails will just fade back into the forest and will be taken off the maps. The Pacific Crest Trail has a volunteer group (PCTA) that helps clear and maintain the trail. Some of these other trails have nobody.

Furthermore, Mountain bikers don’t seem to like it when somebody else takes over one of their trails. In 2013, a new ATV route was constructed over the Missing Link Mountain Biking Trail in Montana. Here is an excerpt from the Montana Mountain Bike Alliance Facebook Page.

“It's a SAD day in the Gallatin. The beloved non-system singletrack trail between Lick Creek and Moser Creek known as The Missing Link is being replaced by an ATV troad as per the direction of the Final Decision from 2007 Gallatin N.F. Travel Plan. This corridor was identified by the Forest Service as THE route for the expansion of the ATV system in Hyalite and a groom-able ski route in the winter. Sadly there was no obvious effort to retain the trail and find a separate route for ATVs. The trail contractor was instructed to use the trail as the 'flag line' for the ATV route so The Missing Link will be gone in a matter of weeks. In the 15+ years of use, the trail has never ridden better than it is right now - If you can stomach it, go give it a final farewell ride - for its days are numbered. R.I.P The Missing Link...”

So, Mountain Bikers are saddened when one of their trails is taken over by a different user. What’s the difference between ATV’s taking over a Mountain Biking Trail, and Mountain bikers taking over a hiking and horseback riding trail? Very little.

The bottom line with the argument of PCTRI is just wrong. Is there anything wrong with a trail just for mountain biking? I personally think there is nothing wrong with building a trail just for mountain biking. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with having a trail just for hiking, or just for hiking and horseback riding. Mountain Biking is fundamentally different from either hiking or horseback riding. It’s okay to have some trails where all the users can share a trail. It’s also okay to have some trails where only one use or a couple uses are allowed. Now PCTRI is trying to raise $120,000 to $180,000 to change the laws to allow mountain biking in the Wilderness and on the PCT. With that much money they could be on their way to building a great trail system just for Mountain Bikes. But, No, they’re proposing to waste the money trying to take over a hiking and horseback riding trail. What a shame. Hikers and horseback riders should be allowed to enjoy a trail in peace.


Feel free to discuss this blog on the "Preserving the PCT" Facebook page located here:
http://www.facebook.com/preservingthepct

Articles mentioned
The Daily Bike: A Look at the Ban on Wilderness Mountain Biking:
http://www.adventure-journal.com/2015/05/the-daily-bike-a-look-at-the-ban-on-wilderness-mountain-biking/#comment-1949059

Here’s an article about the Forest Service’s Report on Trails being up to standards: http://missoulian.com/news/local/report-of-u-s-forest-service-trails-fail-to-meet/article_b7a267de-e77a-11e2-8e64-001a4bcf887a.html

All other documents mentioned in this article can be seen here: https://sites.google.com/site/preservethepct/