[pct-l] Fwd: Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
Timothy Nye
timpnye at gmail.com
Thu Nov 4 19:37:30 CDT 2010
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy Nye <timpnye at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
To: Jim Banks <jbanks4 at socal.rr.com>
Thanks, Jim. It wasn't my option, I always just sent in checks. Just a
screw up somewhere, I guess. I feel somewhat better about this now.
Nice trail name, by the way.
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Jim Banks <jbanks4 at socal.rr.com> wrote:
> It sounds like you are signed up for credit card monthly payments. There
> is a $5 per month minimum, so $60 for one year. All the information is
> clearly set out on the PCTA’s website.
>
>
>
>
>
> I-Beam
>
>
>
> *From:* Timothy Nye [mailto:timpnye at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:12 PM
> *To:* Jim Banks
> *Cc:* Donna Saufley; pct-l at backcountry.net
>
> *Subject:* Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
>
>
>
> Interesting. My membership notice was for $60.00. Last year I
> paid $50.00. Thre was no box to check for a check. The only option
> provided was to provide credit card information with monthly installments.
> Of course I have also provided additional contributions seperate from the
> membership in the past.
>
>
>
> Your situation may be different.
>
>
>
> My facts are straight. The information is not false. Now I'm wondering
> why my membership is roughly twice yours. There wasn't a lesser amount
> provided as an option. This was in June. The policy may have changed in
> the interim. Because my experience was different from yours I'm not
> suggesting that you get your facts straight or you stop giving out false
> information. I can't think of a possible motivation for posting, lets call
> it what is implied, a lie, on this site. I'm sensitive to the credit card
> information given my experience ast spring with Spot, where they continued
> to automatically renew my membership; with the explanation that I hadn't
> contacted to tell them not to and that they automatically renew as a service
> to me.
>
>
>
> Mr. Nye was my father.
>
>
>
> This is a lesser issue to me, although it may detract from the larger one.
> I don't want the PCTA to devolve into a fund raising operation as a senecure
> for those who run it. i do want it to be able to, and perform as, an
> effective voice for the trail community with the government entities with
> which it partners. Being able to take the lead and effectively deal with
> the mountaion biking issue wiould resolve a lot of my concerns and with my
> trepidation.
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Jim Banks <jbanks4 at socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Well Mr. Nye, I think you better get your facts straight before you start
> giving out false information. I just received my notice of annual
> membership renewal for the PCTA and the basic membership amount is $35, the
> same that it has been for several years at least, and they have the
> following boxes to check "My Check is enclosed" or "Please charge my
> credit
> card." So why would you broadcast to the list that the membership rates
> went up 20% and that they do not accept checks?
>
> I-Beam
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
> On Behalf Of Timothy Nye
>
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:13 PM
>
> To: Donna Saufley
> Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
>
> Thank you all for taking my comments in the spirit with which they were
> meant. I love the trail.
>
> I quit, rather sold, my practice in order to hike the trail.
>
> A couple of additional clarifications:
>
> My thought in so far as the PCTA is concerned is not that they have an
> actual existing authority of enforcdement, but they do possess moral
> suasion. They mount a lobbying effort on capitol hill that if the main
> focus one year was to preserve the trail from biking intrusion it could
> lead
> to congressional pressure that would lead to a political appointee
> bird-dogging this issue and having an impact. A political solution to move
> forward in creating an environment where enforcement will hopefully take
> place. No guarantee, but a good chance, I think. ( Absolutely right about
> the trail head being the enforcement point)
>
> At Castle Crags this summer the PCT Campsite was renamed by the Park
> Service
> the "PCT Hiker and PCT Biker Campsite" with campers urged to pay their
> three dollar fee in order to preserve " PCT hiking and PCT biking on the
> trail".
>
> My practice was in Sacramento. I negotiated plenty of leases for my
> business. I am familiar with the property involved. I also ( don't ask me
> how) know the particulars of the PCT lease in question, or at least had the
> details volunteered to me, although it was sometime ago and I didn't take
> especial note of them. A dollar eighty five per square foot for the
> first
> year is disproportionately in excess of what is available in the region and
> for waht is actually needed. The justification from the executive that it
> is safe to take a walk at lunchtime could have been met in virtually any
> other area of town at far less cost.
>
> Yes, I'm aware that the facility is dedicated to nonprofit organizations.
> Sutter Health, the lessor, is a non profit. I represented many nonprofits,
> including Sutter Health, during my career. The term, in my opinion, is a
> misnomer. High salaries seem to be the norm in my experience....a lavish
> facility creates a mind set in support of this. (Next time you need a
> lawyer and you're in an imposing office in a highrise with a lot of art on
> the walls, take a good look around. Remember, you, as the client, are
> paying extra for it)
>
> I didn't renew my PCTA membership this year. They won't take a check. In
> addition to raising the membership fee by 20%, they want a credit card
> number and will take monthly withdrawals...that seems to be a headed in a
> certain direction as far as renewals and future increases are concerned.
> Rather than paying full-time posistions the volunteer spirit should not be
> minimized. It just seems to me that a distancing is taking place.
>
> Donna, you always make a lot of sense. I just hope that the Board can get
> together and ask for this to become a priority issue when lobbying in the
> future.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Donna Saufley <dsaufley at sprynet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > AsABat, I completely agree with what you're saying. I've heard about
> the
> > Ridge Runners on the AT, though I am not at all certain how that program
> > works. There are the backcountry rangers in the Sierras as an example
> > closer to home (they get paid but it's mostly a labor of love). On the
> > other side of the argument, I've become aware of how much paid staff time
> > can go towards operating volunteer programs. There are dollars involved
> in
> > training volunteers and supervising them in the field, as well as
> providing
> > materials and uniforms. No doubt there has to be liability coverage,
> etc.
> > And, you can't fire them because they are volunteers! Devil's advocacy
> > aside, I personally believe there should be programs like you describe.
> > Though we as hikers tend to hate the reality, it all takes funding.
> >
> >
> >
> > I also agree with Tortoise, cuts in government spending has had a huge
> > effect on agency resources, and lack of law enforcement. This is one of
> the
> > threats to the PCT. Even though that is true, the PCTA has managed to
> lobby
> > Congress successfully for increased funding from the USFS for trail
> > maintenance (this is part of AHS' "Hike the Hill" event, and is entirely
> > volunteer self-funded). The PCTA has gained much respect on all levels
> for
> > their programs and contributions toward maintenance of the trail.
> They've
> > defied the odds and grown the budget number. But politics are fickle,
> who
> > knows where the economy is going, and the threat to funding remains.
> >
> >
> >
> > L-Rod
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* AsABat [mailto:asabat at 4jeffrey.net]
> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 04, 2010 10:32 AM
> > *To:* dsaufley at sprynet.com; 'Timothy Nye'; moodyjj at comcast.net
> >
> > *Cc:* pct-l at backcountry.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
> >
> >
> >
> > Donna et al,
> >
> > While the PCTA does not have enforcement authority, there are many cases
> > where the forest service uses volunteers to provide a public contact in
> the
> > field. Into and San Gorgonio both come to mind. A volunteer in uniform
> has
> > some power even if they can't write citations. A volunteer at a popular
> > trailhead can provide info and educate users about the rules. A radio can
> be
> > used to call LE when needed with description and license number. The
> > challenge as you notes is the many jurisdictions.
> >
> > AsABat
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> >
> > *From: *Donna Saufley <dsaufley at sprynet.com>*
> > To: *'Timothy Nye' <timpnye at gmail.com>, 'Jim & Jane
> > Moody' <moodyjj at comcast.net>*
> > Cc: *pct-l at backcountry.net*
> > Sent: *Thu, Nov 4, 2010 16:36:08 GMT+00:00*
> > Subject: *Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
> >
> > Timothy,
> >
> > I think that the PCTA as enforcer is a common misconception that people
> > have
> > about the organization's purpose and scope. The PCTA is not the
> "authority
> > having jurisdiction" over policing activities the trail. The organization
> > is a private partner to the public agencies that manage the trail. Their
> > mission is to protect, preserve, and promote the trail by education and
> > private support for the trails needs.
> >
> > The US Forest Service is the lead agency for the PCT, on point for the
> > myriad of other agencies that the trail passes through: Bureau of Land
> > Management, National Parks, state and county parks in three states,
> Bureau
> > of Indian Affairs, and privately held lands. Each agency the trail passes
> > through has different definitions of the "authority having jurisdiction"
> > for
> > that stretch. Some have law enforcement capabilities, others do not. They
> > all have different concepts of what "wilderness" is, and what you can do
> > within it. All of them, even within the different districts of the USFS,
> > have differing focus and priorities. Because of this it is a gargantuan
> > task
> > to maintain relationships with disparate group given agency staff changes
> > and have different mandates coming down from their leadership.
> >
> > The Memorandum of Understanding that prescribes the relationship between
> > the
> > agencies and the PCTA does not pass any enforcement authority to the
> PCTA,
> > only standards for trail maintenance and permission to affiliate the
> > organization with the trail (i.e., have membership, trail maintenance
> > projects, and solicit private funding in the name of the PCT). Therefore,
> > the PCTA cannot by itself change the purpose and uses of the PCT; that is
> > defined by law in the federal National Trails System Act of 1968. The
> PCTA
> > cannot unilaterally decide that it wants mountain bikers on the trail,
> nor
> > can they cite violators or enforce the law. My experience is that folks
> at
> > the PCTA VEHEMENTLY DO NOT want bikes on the PCT.
> >
> > The PCTA's regional representative role is our best resource. This
> position
> > was created in part to have a presence and relationship with all of the
> > agency offices to keep the trail on the agencies' radar. They are on the
> > ground and meeting face-to-face with the agencies, building
> relationships.
> > They coordinate and lead trail maintenance projects, train crew leaders
> and
> > volunteers, and are a presence at meetings where issues and threats in
> > their
> > area are being discussed (like transmission lines, high speed rail,
> mining,
> > logging, roads, etc.) They can also bring issues like mountain bike abuse
> > to
> > the attention of the agencies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
> > alone has created its own set of opportunities and challenges for our
> > regional reps. The ARRA funds created (fortunate) three times the number
> of
> > trail crew projects without a commensurate increase in administrative
> > dollars (not so fortunate). The regional reps all have very full plates
> but
> > are each inspiringly dedicated to protecting and preserving the trail.
> > Donations to the PCTA's general fund helps keeps these reps on the ground
> > with the tools that they need.
> >
> > When we began hosting hikers in 1997, the PCTA had two paid staff. Not
> much
> > they could do, no matter how much they cared. Just issuing permits and
> > answering the phone was a full plate. As the PCTA has grown, they have
> been
> > able to have a greater presence in all the places they need to be, on all
> > the issues they need to face. For example, until very recent history,
> there
> > was no inventory of the easements and legal holdings of the parcels of
> land
> > the trail passes through. Putting together this inventory was a major
> > accomplishment of the PCTA. Since that was created, the PCTA adopted an
> > ambitious land management plan that seeks to protect the more than 250
> > miles
> > of trail segments that have weak or non-existent legal easements, or are
> in
> > danger of having view shed destroyed by (you name the threat, there are
> so
> > many). Such a plan will take major dollars and big time donors to
> > implement.
> > The organization is committed to making it happen.
> >
> > If you care about protecting the trail, donate to the PCTA. They really
> > need
> > general funds to help run the organization and pay the staff including
> the
> > regional reps, but your donations can be specified for land protection or
> > trail maintenance projects. There will soon be a representative for every
> > section of the trail because of support from donors like you.
> >
> > L-Rod
> >
> > p.s. the new office space the PCTA was lucky to move into does not
> > represent a big increase in rent from what they were paying for a
> > depressing
> > hovel where there was simply not enough room for staff. The rent may be
> > somewhat higher, but many costs like internet access, meeting rooms, and
> > utilities are now included, in addition to the larger space that was
> > inarguably needed. More importantly, their new location is in the
> > Non-Profit
> > Resource Center www.nprcenter.org. The NPR Center's site states
> "offering
> > comprehensive resources, from a professionally-staffed library, access to
> a
> > grant funder database, from fundraising workshops to management
> networking,
> > the Center enables new and existing nonprofits to improve management,
> > operations, fund development, marketing & public relations, board
> > development and more." The NPR Center is brilliant concept and the
> > opportunity to move there a truly valuable resource and location for the
> > PCTA. And, it just happens to be located in the most beautiful place I've
> > seen in Sacramento.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:
> pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
> > On Behalf Of Timothy Nye
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:49 PM
> > To: Jim & Jane Moody
> > Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > We don't need trail police. We need this to made a priority with the
> > existing enforcement mechanisms available with feedback so that we know
> > that
> > directives to enforce the ban are actually being implemented. This could
> > validate the PCTA and enlarge it's role, while at the same time ridding
> the
> > trail of the biker problem. ( I noted in an earlier post that I was
> afraid
> > that the PCTA might view bikers as another source of dues...Donna assured
> > that this would not be the case, but this is the source of my concern)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Jim & Jane Moody wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not a lawyer, but I used to play one on TV (live City Council
> > meetings,
> > > actually). What you are referring to is "adverse possession", wherein
> > > someone gains a right to land based on the unchallenged use of it for a
> > long
> > > time. A typical situation might be a driveway across someone else's
> > > property that non-owners use to gain access to someplace else (say a
> lake
> > or
> > > park) for many years, and where the property is not posted as "private
> -
> > no
> > > trespassing". Since riding bikes on the PCT is illegal and signed
> thusly,
> > I
> > > can't imagine that simply violating a law without being caught somehow
> > would
> > > cause that law to become void. If I drive faster than the speed limit
> for
> > a
> > > year then get caught, I won't get far with the defense that "I've done
> it
> > > for a full year and nobody made me stop."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Grandfather clause" describes an activity that was legal and ongoing,
> > then
> > > became nonconforming after passage of an amendment to a law or
> > regulation.
> > > Here's an example - your house is 10 ft from the rear property line,
> > which
> > > was the requirement when it was built. Years later the City Council
> > decides
> > > that the rear yard setback should be 20 ft and passes a zoning
> ordinance
> > > amendment to that effect. Your house now does not conform to the Zoning
> > > Code, but you are protected against having to tear down and rebuild.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > By the way, if anybody needs an overpriced planning & zoning consultant
> > > before hiking starts back, let me know.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mango
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Edward Anderson"
> > > To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 5:30:38 PM
> > > Subject: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT- enforcement NEEDED
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > We all agree that mountain bikes on the PCT are a serious safety hazard
> > for
> > > other users, that their wheel tracks create channels for water to run
> > down
> > > causing deepening ruts and erosion, and that, by law, they are not
> > allowed
> > > either on the PCT or in wilderness areas. We who use the PCT, even
> though
> > > wheeled vehicles are unlawful, often meet them on the trail. There are
> > > more of
> > > these confrontations every year. Since there is no enforcement of the
> > ban,
> > > and
> > > the word is getting out among mountain bikers (and motorcycle users)
> that
> > > they
> > > can go ahead and ride on the trail without consequence, we can expect
> > that
> > > this
> > > problem will become greater each year. And, as we have now become
> aware,
> > > they
> > > will be pushing to see the law changed so that the PCT and wilderness
> > areas
> > > be
> > > open to wheeled vehicles. So long as there is no enforcement, and all
> we
> > > do is
> > > deprecate their sometimes very rude, unsafe, and destructive behavior,
> > > their
> > > numbers will increase. Here is a question for the lawyers on this
> > > forum: If
> > > illegal trespassing on the PCT is tolerated and it goes on for long
> > enough,
> > > is
> > > there a time when the "grandfather clause" might apply?
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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/
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
More information about the Pct-L
mailing list