[pct-l] Bikes on PCT- political statement

[Tortoise]

I am as concerned as most anyone about the future of the PCT. I look at 
bikes on the PCT, deteriorating California State Parks, and lots of other 
issues as all being the result of a much larger problem.

Starting with the election of Regan as US President, there is a political 
movement, sometimes dominant and sometimes not, to decrease the size and 
scope of the Federal Government. Along with this came Reaganomics and 
various tax cuts which were suppose to at least create jobs and a less 
obvious purpose of reducing the Federal government.

 From the first Regan tax cuts on, funding for federal agencies such as the 
Park Service and Forest Service have been cut. Result -- deteriorating 
lands and less enforcement of law and regulations. So those here who 
support Reagonomics and limited & reduced Federal government are getting 
what they asked for!

For the rest of us, I suggest you write or visit your local US 
Representative (Congress member) and state your concerns. Specific cases 
and pictures will help. Probably also good to copy to the PCTA (Reigional 
rep?) and the agency responsible for the area. Don't attack the agency, 
express your desire for enforcement and urge funding for PCT maintenance 
and enforcement.

As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, so it's time to 
start squeaking.

Tortoise

<> Because truth matters! <>

On 11/03/10 19:49, Timothy Nye wrote:
> I am a lawyer; or at least I was until I retired.  This really is political
> problem rather than a legal problem, in my opinion.  Even worse, it has it's
> antecedents with Mahatma Ghandi.  It's called civil disobediance.  This can
> allow the bikers, and possibly the general public, to discount and minimize
> our objections.  The bikers view the restrictions on mountain biking as
> unfair. Yes, it's illegal behavior, but it's illegal behavior that there is
> no practical effective way to counter other than to take the high ground, as
> we already have the law on our side. We are discovering, as the British did
> in pre-partition India, that there are very few other responses that can be
> effective.  We are caught in a posistion of weakness because of a lack of
> official enforcement.  The mountain biking community is creating a new
> reality on the ground, such that,an amendment to the law so that mountain
> biking is permitted will no longer be viewed as a change but merely bringing
> the law in conformity with reality.  In my opinion we are nearly at this
> point if not already there.
>
> Unfortunately, and I'm sure not all on the list will appreciate the analogy,
> we are in the same posistion as the state of Arizona with respect to illegal
> immigration.  The powers that be will not enforce the "border" for the PCT
> as to mountain bikers.  We really cannot do anything  officially as the
> legal right to enforcement is arguably limited to the federal government.
> For a variety of reasons they have abdicated this responsibility.  Some,
> such as the State of California Park Service at Castle Crags have adopted a
> policy welcoming and sanctioning mountain biking on the trail.
>
> Law enforcement would mean that the wilderness, that which we are seeking to
> maintain, would be that much less wild.  Even assuming, which I doubt, that
> we could have bounty hunters / rangers prowling the wilderness looking for
> mountain biking scofflaws, and even if they were effective, we would have
> rangers / bounty hunters in the wilderness, but not just in wilderness
> areas.  The trail could seem to get pretty crowded even if the bike
> suppression effort were successful; albeit the absence of bikers is clearly
> a net plus.
>
> What would it take to get to the point of enforcing the official
> prohibition?
>
> I see only two possibilities.  First, the federal appointment of someone who
> is commited, first and foremeost, to enforcement and is in a sufficiently
> important posistion that they can make it happen.  Think "tea party" for the
> PCT "Constitution"... a fanatic would be best absent the pejorative aspects
> of the term.  Second, the PCTA.  This would take political capital, and my
> impression is that they (not the Board, Donna!) are more concerned about
> fund raising.
>
> I've been waging an internal fight with myself about whether to post this
> next for the last six months as it may be viewed as a flame or
> inappropriate, but I really don't know what else I should do as I am
> concerned about the trail and this is the community.  I know somw will take
> issue with what I say, but I am really concerned about what it may heral for
> the trail. I have serious reservations about the the direction the PCTA has
> taken over the last year and a half, from the abolition of trail fest ( for
> financial reasons-at the same time the PCTA signed an exorbitant lease on a
> class A building on the Sacramento River-I used to negotiate leases in
> Sacramento and know the termo to the most recent change banning members of
> the Board of Directors to be nominated by anyone but the Board internally.
> The executive is increasingly insulated from outside control and the
> community as a whole while raising dues this year by 20% and soliciting
> inherientences. The thing about this latter aspect, is that such bequests in
> California are able to be spent independent from any attempted strings
> placed on them by the one making the bequest.   My gut feeling is that
> executive pay and benefits are likely to be the real goal here, but then who
> am I to say whether that is right or wrong and what is excessive and what is
> not excessive.  This requires a lot of trust.  I will say that I was going
> to make a large four figure donation to the PCTA this year, as it would be
> matched by my wife's employer.  Given the above, and my gut feeling which I
> just can't shake, we passed on the donation.
>
> I think that the Board could direct the PCTA in this matter.  I checked out
> the memebrship of the Board and was dissuaded from saying anything since the
> memebrship of the board is clearly impressive.  Then the resyriction on new
> board memebers was passed and now a long time member of the PCTA left for
> ADZPCTKO decrying corporatization of the PCTA.

>
>
>