[pct-l] Wall map
Chris Anderson
srhspaded at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 14 19:10:58 CDT 2012
when I joined the pcta I received a large map of the pct. I don't know how big you are looking for, but if you haven't joined yet, it is very worthwhile and the money goes towards a noble cause ;)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat!
________________________________
From: Jonathon Howry <jon.howry at gmail.com>
To: Janette Storer <janettestorer at yahoo.com>
Cc: "pct-l at backcountry.net" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 7:17 AM
Subject: [pct-l] Wall map
Me and 2 friends are planning for our thru hike next year. We would love to
have a map of the trail to put up in a wall and pin in different bits of
info. Anyone know where I could find something like that?
On Oct 11, 2012 3:13 PM, "Janette Storer" <janettestorer at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Screen print attached from Mountain Biker Forum from our PCT-L list.
>
>
> Janette Storer
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "pct-l-request at backcountry.net" <pct-l-request at backcountry.net>
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:06 PM
> Subject: Pct-L Digest, Vol 58, Issue 14
>
> 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. Facts matter (Bicycles on the PCT) (Paul Magnanti)
> 2. Re: bikes on the PCT (JPL)
> 3. Mountain Bikes and "Sharing" (Barry Teschlog)
> 4. Mountain bikes (Susan Alcorn)
> 5. Guns on the PCT? (Janette Storer)
> 6. Facts Matter, Part 2 (Dan Jacobs)
> 7. Wheeled Conveyances on the PCT (Robert E. Riess)
> 8. Re: Facts Matter, Part 2 (Timothy Nye)
> 9. Re: Facts Matter, Part 2 (Scott Bryce)
> 10. Re: Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative (Cat Nelson)
> 11. Re: Facts Matter, Part 2 (JPL)
> 12. Re: Facts Matter, Part 2 (Timothy Nye)
> 13. Re: Forest Service to consider allowing Mtn Bikes on the PCT
> (Fred Walters)
> 14. Re: Wheeled Conveyances on the PCT (Ryan Christensen)
> 15. Mobility Assistance Conveyance (Robert E. Riess)
> 16. bikes on the PCT & the PCTA (Maxine Weyant)
> 17. bikes on the PCT & the PCTA (Maxine Weyant)
> 18. Re: Mountain Bikes and "Sharing" (Cat Nelson)
> 19. "Save The PCT" Facebook Page (Ryan Christensen)
> 20. Re: "Save The PCT" Facebook Page (Scott "Squatch" Herriott)
> 21. A letter (JoAnn)
> 22. bike impacts on trails (Ken Murray)
> 23. Re: bikes on the PCT (Craig Giffen)
> 24. Re: Facts Matter, Part 2 (Jim & Jane Moody)
> 25. Wilderness Act and bicycles (jimniedbalski at aol.com)
> 26. Re: Wilderness Act and bicycles (Ryan Christensen)
> 27. Re: Wilderness Act and bicycles (Timothy Nye)
> 28. Illegal Mountain Biking on the PCT - Now in video form
> (Craig Giffen)
> 29. Re: Illegal Mountain Biking on the PCT - Now in video form
> (Timothy Nye)
> 30. Re: Wilderness Act and bicycles (ambery-80243 at mypacks.net)
> 31. Re: Illegal Mountain Biking on the PCT - Now in video form
> (Lindsey Sommer)
> 32. Re: Wilderness Act and bicycles (Timothy Nye)
> 33. Re: bikes on the PCT (David Thibault)
> 34. Re: Giving way to Mtn Bikes on the PCT (Cat Nelson)
> 35. Re: "Save The PCT" Facebook Page (Anony Muse)
> 36. Bikes on PCT - current information! (Edward Anderson)
> 37. QUOTE (Edward Anderson)
> 38. Mtn bikes- I don't get it (Jane Overton)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Paul Magnanti <pmags at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Facts matter (Bicycles on the PCT)
> To: PCT MailingList <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <1349888613.11218.YahooMailNeo at web112108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
>
> ?>>Now we are seeing the same thing here.?
> >>Hikers don't want a National Scenic Trail with mountain bikes on it.
>
>
> MTBikes are allowed on the CDT, Potomac Heritage Trail, ?Arizona Trail,
> PNT and the New England National Scenic Trail
> (outside of wilderness areas and/or places with other restrictions).
>
> I kinda like my time on the CDT and the Arizona Trails. ?:)
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------
> 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: 2
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:13:34 -0400
> From: "JPL" <jplynch at crosslink.net>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> To: "shon mcganty" <smcganty at yahoo.com>, "Bob Bankhead"
> <wandering_bob at comcast.net>, "PCT List Forum" <
> pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID: <BEBCF48583B441AB81469B5AD2D44366 at jpl3PC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Have you tried not stepping off the trail? Hikers are supposed to have the
> right away over bikes right? Make them go around you. I realize that
> logic
> and common sense have to come into play, but what we're learning through
> this thread is that its very difficult for bikes and hikers to co-exist.
> If
> for no other reason than the speed at which they travel. Where they do
> seem
> to play together nicely (e.g. the CT example below) it appears to take a
> lot
> of effort on the park of the bikers; which is a good thing. I still think
> that for the most part the solution is separate trails.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shon mcganty
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:16 PM
> To: Bob Bankhead ; PCT List Forum
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
>
> I disagree. Perhaps someplaces they can co-exist, but not on the PCT.
>
> This summer I spent a week hiking in Oregon near Bend, where Mtn bikes are
> nearly omnipresent. I could not enjoy my hike while stepping off the trail
> 5,000 times! I couldn't imagine doing this on the PCT too.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Bankhead <wandering_bob at comcast.net>
> To: PCT List Forum <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:12 PM
> Subject: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
>
> Mountain bikers and hikers can co-exist on the same trail. Look at the
> Colorado Trail. With the exception of a few wilderness areas, non-motorized
> bikes are allowed anywhere along its length. Parts of the trail are
> included
> in the routings of the Leadville and Breckenridge 100 mile races, and there
> is even an annual bike race from Denver to Durango on the CT. There are
> designated biker CT road routes around those sensitive wilderness areas.
>
> How do they do it? Respect for each other. Bikers put in hundreds of
> manhours each year maintaining the CT. I've never met a disrespectful biker
> on the CT. Quite the contrary, they are a great resource for hikers, often
> sharing water, trail condition, and providing rides to/from remote
> trailheads. Yes, the bikes do cut ruts into the trail tread, but fixing
> that
> is where a lot of their maintenance hours go.
>
> The rules of the road are everyone yields to stock, and bikes yield to
> hikers. Courtesy modifies that a bit such that descending hikers routinely
> step off the trail for bikes pedaling uphill. It's a lot easier to get
> going
> again for the hiker. Bikers are well aware of the presence of hikers and
> make a concerted effort to avoid collisions on blind corners and sweeping
> curves, even during the races.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Barry Teschlog <tokencivilian at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Mountain Bikes and "Sharing"
> To: PCTL <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <1349889332.96039.YahooMailNeo at web124504.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> It's not sharing when a potential new user method would displace the
> existing users.? That's a hostile take over.
>
> Wheels displace foot / hoof users, period.
>
> Any assertion to the contrary is either childish naivety or a filthy lie
> (a falsehood knowingly told with intent to deceive).
>
> MTBers (the people) are more than welcome on the PCT....so long as they
> leave their bikes at home and join us on the trail on foot or
> horseback.? No one says that people who also happen to MTB aren't welcome
> on the PCT....they are, under the conditions of use of the trail as it is.?
> Come and hike on the PCT, MTB elsewhere.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Susan Alcorn <backpack45 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Mountain bikes
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID:
> <1349889685.42909.YahooMailRC at web182205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Just putting in my .02 again in response to or to reiterate, some
> statements I
> have seen here.
> I/we are not "anti-mountain bike," I/we are against mountain bikes on the
> PCT.
> Most of us are looking for a wilderness experience at 2-3 miles per hour
> and
> don't want to have to be worried that a bicyclist is going to be
> approaching at
> a considerably faster speed.
> To echo another comment, even though horses may have a larger impact on the
> trail per mile traveled, the number of equestrians is far smaller than the
> potential number of bicyclists.
> Many/most mountain bikers are looking for some excitement while
> riding--they are
> not likely to be leisurely pedaling along the trail, they are more likely
> to be
> zipping along and enjoying the challenge of some rough terrain because it
> adds
> to the adrenaline rush.
> As a taxpayer, I pay for freeways that I can not hike on; bridges I am not
> allowed to either walk or bike across, and schools that I no longer
> attend. To
> me, this is part of being a citizen and I expect to do this within reason.
> One of my sons is an avid bicyclist and I definitely have a soft spot for
> bicyclists, but to me it is only common sense that sometimes the two
> activities
> do not mix.
> Happy trails,
> 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: 5
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Janette Storer <janettestorer at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Guns on the PCT?
> To: "pct-l at backcountry.net" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <1349890086.53179.YahooMailNeo at web160205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Not to start a riot, but it seems as though I missed out on a discussion
> thread here?
>
>
> Janette Storer
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:37:12 -0700
> From: Dan Jacobs <youroldpaldan at gmail.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Facts Matter, Part 2
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID:
> <CA+-77MW-W7_0OWST9o91SBey9b=DF_sXJFxcBDsuKZa3Bx6Vrw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Facts matter.
>
> In looking for more information, I discovered this language regarding
> national scenic trails (SEC. 7. [16USC1246])
>
> "(c) National scenic or national historic trails may contain
> campsites, shelters, and related-public-use facilities. Other uses
> along the trail, which will not substantially interfere with the
> nature and purposes of the trail, may be permitted by the Secretary
> charged with the administration of the trail. Reasonable efforts shall
> be made to provide sufficient access opportunities to such trails and,
> to the extent practicable, efforts shall be made to avoid activities
> incompatible with the purposes for which such trails were
> established."
>
> This could be used in favor of hikers and equestrians on the PCT, as
> that was the purpose for the establishment of the PCT, and MTB'ers
> could be shown to "substantially interfere with the nature and
> purposes of the trail", especially it's history.
>
> Dan Jacobs
> Washougal
> --
> "Loud motorcycle stereos save lives"
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:07:27 -0700
> From: "Robert E. Riess" <robert.riess at cox.net>
> Subject: [pct-l] Wheeled Conveyances on the PCT
> To: <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID: <DFA01F9F5A084A78933F0275FE654C13 at RobertERiessPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Starting with the 2013 hiking season, all of the hikers I host in San
> Diego will be politely requested to send me photographs of trail damage
> caused by wheels, bike riders in violation of regulations, and incident
> reports of all encounters, good and bad. Of course, this invitation
> extends to all PCT day hikers, section hikers and thru hikers who want to
> share their hiker/biker experiences. Maybe somebody with more talent than
> I possess would produce a 2013 PCT video exclusively presenting a
> pictorial/video record of trail conditions as they presently exist. Video
> of hiker/biker confrontations would seem to me to be particularly
> convincing. 2 or 3 bikers whizzing by at 25 mph would convince me of the
> inherent danger of mixed use of the PCT.
>
> Data needed with each photo or incident report would be date, time,
> location, direction of travel, distance to trailhead, description (caption)
> for each photo, names, if available of bikers, and name of person
> submitting the data.
>
> Hike on!! Good Luck to the Class of 2013. Only a little over 6 months
> till ADZPCTKO 2013. Bob Riess, San Diego.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:30:18 -0700
> From: Timothy Nye <timpnye at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Facts Matter, Part 2
> To: Dan Jacobs <youroldpaldan at gmail.com>
> Cc: "pct-l at backcountry.net" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID: <1FB4E644-EB68-426D-81D5-44309811288D at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Again:
>
> To the extent mountain bikers would disrupt equestrian use of the trail,
> and the danger to horses and their riders is manifestly greater than to
> hikers, then the vast majority of the population who are not physically fit
> to the degree of distance hikers and mountain bikers, will be excluded.
> This may well constitute a violation of the ADA. The disabled, the very
> young, the very old, etc...will suffer a disparate impact from such a
> policy change. The commercial outfitters and their insurers will be unable
> to continue under such a scenario. To benefit a much smaller proportion of
> the population, mountain bikers would exclude the opportunities now
> available to the citizenry as a whole to enjoy those portions they wish to
> "share" in the name of "fairness".
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Dan Jacobs <youroldpaldan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Facts matter.
> >
> > In looking for more information, I discovered this language regarding
> > national scenic trails (SEC. 7. [16USC1246])
> >
> > "(c) National scenic or national historic trails may contain
> > campsites, shelters, and related-public-use facilities. Other uses
> > along the trail, which will not substantially interfere with the
> > nature and purposes of the trail, may be permitted by the Secretary
> > charged with the administration of the trail. Reasonable efforts shall
> > be made to provide sufficient access opportunities to such trails and,
> > to the extent practicable, efforts shall be made to avoid activities
> > incompatible with the purposes for which such trails were
> > established."
> >
> > This could be used in favor of hikers and equestrians on the PCT, as
> > that was the purpose for the establishment of the PCT, and MTB'ers
> > could be shown to "substantially interfere with the nature and
> > purposes of the trail", especially it's history.
> >
> > Dan Jacobs
> > Washougal
> > --
> > "Loud motorcycle stereos save lives"
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 9
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:53:33 -0600
> From: Scott Bryce <sbryce at scottbryce.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Facts Matter, Part 2
> To: "pct-l at backcountry.net" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID: <5075C42D.60506 at scottbryce.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 10/10/2012 12:30 PM, Timothy Nye wrote:
> > This may well constitute a violation of the ADA. The disabled, the
> > very young, the very old, etc...will suffer a disparate impact from
> > such a policy change.
>
> Does this mean that the PCT needs to be made wheel chair accessible?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:54:53 -0700
> From: Cat Nelson <sagegirl51 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative
> To: Brick Robbins <brick at brickrobbins.com>
> Cc: PCT <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <CAH9fG23JodXYBMxXFanjYEEpWe7MjgCf6L6uO4AZ48e-vEhWMA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> This is not good and it will not just go away, it will be an on going
> issue.
> On Oct 10, 2012 2:31 AM, "Brick Robbins" <brick at brickrobbins.com> wrote:
>
> > They exist, they are organized.
> > People who love the PCT as a hiker/equestrian trail better be too
> >
> > They call it "sharing"
> >
> > https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct
> >
> >
> http://forums.mtbr.com/washington/big-news-feds-consider-allowing-bikes-pct-816288.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 11
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:01:30 -0400
> From: "JPL" <jplynch at crosslink.net>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Facts Matter, Part 2
> To: "Scott Bryce" <sbryce at scottbryce.com>, <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID: <BCF9F88B826841D1801BFD268823B2B8 at jpl3PC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> No, but my understanding of what that means is that you can't prohibit
> mobility assist conveyances from trails that are there.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Bryce
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:53 PM
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Facts Matter, Part 2
>
> On 10/10/2012 12:30 PM, Timothy Nye wrote:
> > This may well constitute a violation of the ADA. The disabled, the
> > very young, the very old, etc...will suffer a disparate impact from
> > such a policy change.
>
> Does this mean that the PCT needs to be made wheel chair accessible?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:13:18 -0700
> From: Timothy Nye <timpnye at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Facts Matter, Part 2
> To: JPL <jplynch at crosslink.net>
> Cc: "<pct-l at backcountry.net>" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID: <703D13BF-62D3-4775-ABD6-86EAC5D71D44 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Read horses.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 12:01 PM, "JPL" <jplynch at crosslink.net> wrote:
>
> > No, but my understanding of what that means is that you can't prohibit
> > mobility assist conveyances from trails that are there.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Bryce
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:53 PM
> > To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Facts Matter, Part 2
> >
> > On 10/10/2012 12:30 PM, Timothy Nye wrote:
> >> This may well constitute a violation of the ADA. The disabled, the
> >> very young, the very old, etc...will suffer a disparate impact from
> >> such a policy change.
> >
> > Does this mean that the PCT needs to be made wheel chair accessible?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 13
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:10:59 +0100
> From: Fred Walters <fredwalters2 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest Service to consider allowing Mtn Bikes on
> the PCT
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID:
> <CAOMa4nC6v9ZDOx=-E9WQPU7A4yg-Ca2RsvehSOHufzuWqH4LuQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Presumably there would be a formal consultation, inviting submissions from
> all interested parties, etc., after which there would be a review, etc. (at
> least that is UK type of thing). All submissions being published and open
> to public scrutiny.
>
> Loads and loads of excellent points being made. I thought the "question"
> was not really starting until spring. If correct, everybody needs to make
> sure they don't "run out of steam" and feels just as strongly when it is
> time for the formal submissions. Not saying do nothing now but don't do
> something now and think you've had your say if there is a formal procedure
> later. But I am not familiar with US procedures here - in the UK letters
> received before a formal proposal has been opened to public consultation
> are NOT included in that consultation.
>
> I don't know people here but, often when something angers you you let of
> steam and the strong feeling then subside over time. And you can bet that
> the mountain bikers will only be getting every stronger momentum.
>
> Fred
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Ken Murray <kmurray at pol.net> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know the best person/department within the FS to write a
> > letter to?
> > ========================
> >
> > Beth Boyst is the person designated as responsible for the PCT:
> >
> > USDA-FS Pacific Southwest Regional Office (Region 5)
> > Beth Boyst, Trail Manager
> > 1323 Club Dr.
> > Vallejo, CA 94592
> > 707-562-8881
> > 707-562-9055 (FAX)
> > E-mail: (first intial)(last name)@fs.fed.us
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 14
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ryan Christensen <yosemiteryan at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Wheeled Conveyances on the PCT
> To: "Robert E. Riess" <robert.riess at cox.net>, "pct-l at backcountry.net"
> <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <1349896277.32980.YahooMailNeo at web111413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Bob,
>
>
> I think a video is in order! It is a powerful way to educate, motivate and
> show vs. tell. My 'wheels' are turning, and I have some video ideas that I
> would like develop further.
>
>
> ProDeal
>
> ?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert E. Riess <robert.riess at cox.net>
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:07 AM
> Subject: [pct-l] Wheeled Conveyances on the PCT
>
> Starting with the 2013 hiking season, all of the hikers I host in San
> Diego will be politely requested to send me photographs of trail damage
> caused by wheels, bike riders in violation of regulations, and incident
> reports of all encounters, good and bad.? Of course, this invitation
> extends to all PCT day hikers, section hikers and thru hikers who want to
> share their hiker/biker experiences.? Maybe somebody with more talent than
> I possess would produce a 2013 PCT video exclusively presenting a
> pictorial/video record of trail conditions as they presently exist.? Video
> of hiker/biker confrontations would seem to me to be particularly
> convincing.? 2 or 3 bikers whizzing by at 25 mph would convince me of the
> inherent danger of mixed use of the PCT.?
>
> Data needed with each photo or incident report would be date, time,
> location, direction of travel, distance to trailhead, description (caption)
> for each photo, names, if available of bikers, and name of person
> submitting the data.?
>
> Hike on!! Good Luck to the Class of 2013.? Only a little over 6 months
> till ADZPCTKO 2013.? Bob Riess, San Diego.?
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 15
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:20:48 -0700
> From: "Robert E. Riess" <robert.riess at cox.net>
> Subject: [pct-l] Mobility Assistance Conveyance
> To: <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID: <21F7F1F9E77F4C2D8B3AB8D280606BE6 at RobertERiessPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> When you buy a Segway, you are given a laminated card quoting the federal
> law which designates the Segway as a Mobility Assistance Conveyance. To
> prohibit the use of a Segway anywhere a wheelchair is allowed is a
> violation of federal law, whether the user is disabled or not. Regulatory
> personnel are prohibited from inquiring about disability status of the
> user. This takes precedence in all states. Prohibiting a Segway user from
> any facility is a violation of federal law. Asking about their disability
> status is a separate violation. Setting a reasonable speed limit is
> allowed. BR
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:03:21 -0700
> From: Maxine Weyant <weyantm at msn.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT & the PCTA
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP417F1C5C8AD67CBBA760456B88E0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> you forgot giardia, and water treatment. ;)
>
> Dys-feng shui-nal
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:19:41 -0700
> From: Maxine Weyant <weyantm at msn.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT & the PCTA
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP2690A7DCFB26AD241B84483B88E0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Whoops, I was responding to this post when I mentioned giardia and water
> treatment. My bad.
>
> Dys-feng shui-nal
>
> WOW!
>
> Looks like we have a new addition to the short list of the most hotly
> debated "___ on the trail" topics.
>
>
> Mountain bikes
> Guns
> Dogs
>
> What's next?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:27:26 -0700
> From: Cat Nelson <sagegirl51 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Mountain Bikes and "Sharing"
> To: Barry Teschlog <tokencivilian at yahoo.com>
> Cc: PCTL <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <CAH9fG23o_pbs8HuFQ2S=wrkc6eKy_pKQ34Y7TepwUAwsnjUSyQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> It seem to me to be a quality of life issue. Not the selfish quality of my
> hiking experience but the quality of life of all of the PCT. It is a unique
> living habitat with a delicate fragile living ecosystem, not a dirt path or
> a 2.5" tread.
> On Oct 10, 2012 10:15 AM, "Barry Teschlog" <tokencivilian at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > It's not sharing when a potential new user method would displace the
> existing users. That's a hostile take over.
> >
> > Wheels displace foot / hoof users, period.
> >
> > Any assertion to the contrary is either childish naivety or a filthy lie
> (a falsehood knowingly told with intent to deceive).
> >
> > MTBers (the people) are more than welcome on the PCT....so long as they
> leave their bikes at home and join us on the trail on foot or
> > horseback. No one says that people who also happen to MTB aren't welcome
> on the PCT....they are, under the conditions of use of the trail as it is.
> Come and hike on the PCT, MTB elsewhere.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 19
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ryan Christensen <yosemiteryan at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] "Save The PCT" Facebook Page
> To: "pct-l at backcountry net" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <1349905563.50979.YahooMailNeo at web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hello PCT'ers,
>
>
> I started a Facebook page dedicated to helping to combat the effort to
> open the PCT to bikes. It is there to help facilitate communication and
> collaboration amongst us PCT'ers.?
>
> We are going to need to be organized, focused and smart if we want to save
> the PCT from bikes.?
>
> Feel free to join.
>
>
> http://www.facebook.com/SavethePCT
>
> ProDeal
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:29:55 -0700
> From: "Scott \"Squatch\" Herriott" <yetifan7 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] "Save The PCT" Facebook Page
> To: Ryan Christensen <yosemiteryan at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "pct-l at backcountry net" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <CAE+nFzJEvs_6TFre-Ec3WX3izx1_nWp5iCXubfjAHaONjSWMCQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I would suggest that anyone who's had a close encounter with a speeding
> mountain biker should, if possible, testify when the time comes.
>
> Also, anyone know of any erosion studies done pertaining to mountain bikes
> and trails?
>
>
>
> Squatch
> squatchfilms.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> > 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: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:57:44 -0700
> From: "JoAnn" <jomike at cot.net>
> Subject: [pct-l] A letter
> To: <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID: <D83D0A167A66465DA67C6F6332E89EB7 at JoAnnPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I wrote an e-mail to the PCTA; always a good way to go and I encourage
> EVERY single person on the list who is against bikes on the PCT, write them
> and say so. My letter was forwarded to Liz and she personally answered. I
> plan to write a real letter, not e-mail, to the Board also. They will be
> more willing to listen if there are a ton of us for keeping bikes off the
> trail. PLEASE do not make assumption about the Association. They are more
> of a bureaucracy than you think. In do not know to what pressure they might
> falter to.
>
> are we there yet
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:15:42 -0400
> From: Ken Murray <kmurray at pol.net>
> Subject: [pct-l] bike impacts on trails
> To: "." <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <
> 1907272011.13960701349910942025.JavaMail.root at zmcs03l-pol-08.portal.webmd.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
> http://www.uvm.edu/~snrvtdc/trails/ComparingHikingMtnBikingHorseRidingImpacts.pdf
>
> Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on vegetation
> and soils in Australia and the United States of America
> ==========================
> http://www.culturechange.org/mountain_biking_impacts.htm
>
> The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People
> A Review of the Literature
> ========================
>
> http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/openspace/pdf_gis/IndependentResearchReports/238_Carter_Anna_Relative.pdf
>
> RELATIVE IMPACT OF OFF-ROAD BICYCLE
> AND HIKER TRAFFIC ON TRAIL SOILS:
> AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY, BOULDER, COLORADO
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 23
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:29:16 -1000
> From: Craig Giffen <cg at lunky.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID: <3A20B8C3-EF9D-43BC-BEC5-A149E5AA8794 at lunky.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> > From: Zorglub <azorglub at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > The whole OHV argument is a slippery slope that I don't buy and is a
> distraction from the main issue that one historical group is trying to keep
> another human powered group of recreationists out.
>
> Of course you don't buy it because it negates your whole argument for
> mountain bikes on the PCT.
>
> Hikers/Equestrians are at the bottom of the safety+trail damage chain so
> to speak, above them are mountain bikers, and above that are motocross/ATV
> riders. Mountain bikers asking ATV riders to "share" their trail is a lot
> different than mountain bikers asking hikers to "share" their trail.
> Asking to move up the chain generally only presents a greater risk to
> yourself rather than the existing users of said trail. However, asking to
> move down the chain gives you the safety advantage and puts the existing
> trail users at a greater risk.
>
> If you were wanting the PCT open to human-powered mechanical things like
> mountain unicycles (or pogo sticks for that matter) there would be a lot
> less opposition to "sharing" the PCT since you are not a safety threat.
> Perhaps you should go that route?
>
> This whole notion of allowing mountain bikers on the trail in order to
> have more maintenance crews is nonsense. Think of all the trail
> maintenance we could get if we renamed Forrester Pass to something like
> GlaxoSmithKline Pass. Heck, if things were dire enough for the trail, I
> would be happier to tell people I hiked the Campmor Trail (formerly the
> Pacific Crest Trail) over having to deal with mountain bikes.
>
> Regardless, I really think you need to be spending your energy into
> creating mountain bike only trails rather than piggybacking off other
> people's hard work. Give up the notion of having mountain bikes on the
> PCT. The Forest Service/BLM is already aware of the safety conflicts
> between hikers and mountain bikers. If they allow mountain bikes on the
> PCT, they know they are just one lawsuit away from a hiker with a GoPro
> camera who happened to be on the wrong blind corner at the wrong time.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:59:41 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Jim & Jane Moody <moodyjj at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Facts Matter, Part 2
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID:
> <
> 346031337.323189.1349913581196.JavaMail.root at sz0094a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> Believe it or not, a privy at an AT shelter just south of the Shenandoah
> NP is wheelchair accessible, complete with ramp.? However, the side trail
> down to that shelter is steep and rocky.? We discussed this and came up
> with 2 possible explanations.? Either some bureaucrat insited on following
> the letter of the law in the face of logic, or somebody got a hold of a
> surplus hdcp privy and had it airlifted into the shelter.? This isn't as
> strange as it sounds.? Often Reserve or Natinal Guard units are looking for
> exercises that serve the public good and provide training / practice.
>
>
>
> Mango
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> From: "Scott Bryce" <sbryce at scottbryce.com>
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:53:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Facts Matter, Part 2
>
> On 10/10/2012 12:30 PM, Timothy Nye wrote:
> > This may well constitute a violation of the ADA. ?The disabled, the
> > very young, the very old, etc...will suffer a disparate impact from
> > such a policy change.
>
> Does this mean that the PCT needs to be made wheel chair accessible?
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 25
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:21:04 -0400 (EDT)
> From: jimniedbalski at aol.com
> Subject: [pct-l] Wilderness Act and bicycles
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID: <8CF755D6F8A4ECE-F68-2E810 at webmail-m057.sysops.aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I won't get into all the arguments of the potential troll as identified by
> Brick, but the statement below (bikes should be allowed in WIlderness as
> Congress intended) is interesting. Short of reading the full text of the
> Wilderness Act, does anyone know if bicycles are specifically banned from
> Wilderness areas? Certainly motorized vehicles are, as we know, but does it
> ban self-propelled wheeled vehicles? I want to say they are banned, but in
> thinking about it I'm not 100 percent sure. Naturally, what Congress
> intended, as opposed to what it actually passed, are two different things.
>
>
>
>
> ?- cyclists will use the PCT to go into Wilderness. ?Let me say that bikes
> hould be allowed into Wilderness (as Congress intended), but that's beyond
> the
> oint. ?Frankly, if a cyclist wants to go ride in Wilderness, that same
> person
> ill ride the PCT whether it's legal or not. ?So, legalizing the PCT will
> not
> hange whether cyclists go ride in the Wilderness.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 26
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ryan Christensen <yosemiteryan at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Wilderness Act and bicycles
> To: "jimniedbalski at aol.com" <jimniedbalski at aol.com>,
> "pct-l at backcountry.net" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <1349915454.49506.YahooMailNeo at web111408.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Yes- the Wilderness Act bans all mechanical transport in the Wilderness:
>
> "...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."?
>
> http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct
>
>
> This has since been specifically interpreted to extend to bikes.
>
>
> The issue is not sections of the PCT inside designated Wilderness.
> Fortunately, they are permanently protected from the destruction bikes
> cause. The issue is the portions of the PCT outside of Wilderness.
>
>
> ProDeal
>
> ?
> http://www.facebook.com/SavethePCT
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "jimniedbalski at aol.com" <jimniedbalski at aol.com>
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:21 PM
> Subject: [pct-l] Wilderness Act and bicycles
>
> I
> won't get into all the arguments of the potential troll as identified
> by Brick, but the statement below (bikes should be allowed in WIlderness
> as Congress intended) is interesting. Short of reading the full text of
> the Wilderness Act, does anyone know if bicycles are specifically
> banned from Wilderness areas? Certainly motorized vehicles are, as we
> know, but does it ban self-propelled wheeled vehicles? I want to say
> they are banned, but in thinking about it I'm not 100 percent sure.
> Naturally, what Congress
> intended, as opposed to what it actually passed, are two different
> things.
>
>
>
>
> ?- cyclists will use the PCT to go into Wilderness. ?Let me say that bikes
> hould be allowed into Wilderness (as Congress intended), but that's beyond
> the
> oint. ?Frankly, if a cyclist wants to go ride in Wilderness, that same
> person
> ill ride the PCT whether it's legal or not. ?So, legalizing the PCT will
> not
> hange whether cyclists go ride in the Wilderness.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 27
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:26:49 -0700
> From: Timothy Nye <timpnye at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Wilderness Act and bicycles
> To: "jimniedbalski at aol.com" <jimniedbalski at aol.com>
> Cc: "pct-l at backcountry.net" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID: <B7072BE5-1D69-42FA-8867-8F31974B9D4E at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I'll make this point again for the third time today. The Wilderness Act
> was passed and signed into law in 1964. The first mountain bike was cobbled
> together in Northern California in the late 1970's. It is disingenuous to
> claim mountain bikes were intended to be included within the ambit of the
> Act before they were invented, became popular and entered popular
> consciousness and mass production. Up until 15 years after the Act
> bicycles were conceived as being limited to paved surfaces. How is it that
> Congress intended mountain bikes be included in the Act? Wait! I know! Time
> travel!! (Head slap)
>
> It should be obvious to all here that the disregard for any legal
> restriction by the mountain bike lobby should mean that legalization isn't
> necessary because they don't feel restricted regardless of the outcome.
> Similarly, of course, anyone who has encountered them on the trail knows
> that they don't adhere to any obligation involving other users with whom
> the wish to 'share'.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:21 PM, jimniedbalski at aol.com wrote:
>
> > I won't get into all the arguments of the potential troll as identified
> by Brick, but the statement below (bikes should be allowed in WIlderness as
> Congress intended) is interesting. Short of reading the full text of the
> Wilderness Act, does anyone know if bicycles are specifically banned from
> Wilderness areas? Certainly motorized vehicles are, as we know, but does it
> ban self-propelled wheeled vehicles? I want to say they are banned, but in
> thinking about it I'm not 100 percent sure. Naturally, what Congress
> intended, as opposed to what it actually passed, are two different things.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ?- cyclists will use the PCT to go into Wilderness. ?Let me say that
> bikes
> > hould be allowed into Wilderness (as Congress intended), but that's
> beyond the
> > oint. ?Frankly, if a cyclist wants to go ride in Wilderness, that same
> person
> > ill ride the PCT whether it's legal or not. ?So, legalizing the PCT will
> not
> > hange whether cyclists go ride in the Wilderness.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:56:59 -1000
> From: Craig Giffen <cg at lunky.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Illegal Mountain Biking on the PCT - Now in video
> form
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID: <B133EE5B-464C-46A7-B0AA-96EB97D377DB at lunky.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> A few MTB riders have recorded their illegal PCT rides and put them on
> YouTube. Especially with the first two videos, they know what they are
> doing is illegal. If anyone contacting the authorites needs videos and
> finds the videos deleted, I have screenshots and hi-res downloads of each
> video too.
>
> BLT to Pioneer Mail (this one is blatant)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQWe3NcmplE
>
> PCT Riding near Ashland:
> "A quick Sunday poach of the PCT"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILEhluMbhPE
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujTVanzKrWg
>
> PCT Riding near Hesperia, CA:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpTt0Ij3c9A
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCmtJEG2Am4
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3SOSdD5T6I
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z0YIWyjohE
>
> PCT Between highway 173 and Silverwood:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUcdEee_70g
>
> Furthermore, although these are not on the PCT, you can see how ridiculous
> the notion of "multi-use" trails are:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhuhodTbUds
>
> (Although this one isn't the rider's fault obviously, this collision could
> have just as easily been a hiker on a blind corner or bottom of an incline)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTHUQlZrxBI
>
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 29
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:19:06 -0700
> From: Timothy Nye <timpnye at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Illegal Mountain Biking on the PCT - Now in video
> form
> To: Craig Giffen <cg at lunky.com>
> Cc: "pct-l at backcountry.net" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID: <6F5A7240-658D-46A5-91DF-4CF9B205A9F7 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Scout was very happy share with me a conviction that was obtained through
> the PCTA of a dirt bike rider who posed for pictures on the PCT for a
> magazine article. The pictures led to his conviction.
>
> I've worked on numerous criminal referrals to local District Attorney
> offices here in California that led to convictions when I had my own
> practice here. My license is still current. Provided they identify
> themselves, or their club if they belong to one may alone be sufficient to
> track them down, then we may be able to do something with this. They'll
> want it put together with a bow on it. You would likely have to be at least
> available to testify n order to establish the chain for custody of the
> evidence. This really like a stupid crook joke.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Craig Giffen <cg at lunky.com> wrote:
>
> > A few MTB riders have recorded their illegal PCT rides and put them on
> YouTube. Especially with the first two videos, they know what they are
> doing is illegal. If anyone contacting the authorites needs videos and
> finds the videos deleted, I have screenshots and hi-res downloads of each
> video too.
> >
> > BLT to Pioneer Mail (this one is blatant)
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQWe3NcmplE
> >
> > PCT Riding near Ashland:
> > "A quick Sunday poach of the PCT"
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILEhluMbhPE
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujTVanzKrWg
> >
> > PCT Riding near Hesperia, CA:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpTt0Ij3c9A
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCmtJEG2Am4
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3SOSdD5T6I
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z0YIWyjohE
> >
> > PCT Between highway 173 and Silverwood:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUcdEee_70g
> >
> > Furthermore, although these are not on the PCT, you can see how
> ridiculous the notion of "multi-use" trails are:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhuhodTbUds
> >
> > (Although this one isn't the rider's fault obviously, this collision
> could have just as easily been a hiker on a blind corner or bottom of an
> incline)
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTHUQlZrxBI
> >
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 30
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:04:21 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
> From: ambery-80243 at mypacks.net
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Wilderness Act and bicycles
> To: pct-l <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <
> 8897952.1349924661847.JavaMail.root at elwamui-hybrid.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Timothy Nye wrote:
> >
> >
> "I'll make this point again for the third time today. The Wilderness Act
> was passed and signed into law in 1964. The first mountain bike was cobbled
> together in Northern California in the late 1970's. It is disingenuous to
> claim mountain bikes were intended to be included within the ambit of the
> Act before they were invented, became popular and entered popular
> consciousness and mass production. Up until 15 years after the Act
> bicycles were conceived as being limited to paved surfaces. How is it that
> Congress intended mountain bikes be included in the Act? Wait! I know! Time
> travel!! (Head slap)"
> >
>
> The Code of Federal Regulations regarding wilderness was amended in 2000,
> and one of the amendments was to define the term "mechanical transport":
>
> CFR 6301.5 Definitions
> states:
>
> Mechanical transport means any vehicle, device, or contrivance for moving
> people or material in or over land, water, snow, or air that has moving
> parts. This includes, but is not limited to, sailboats, sailboards, hang
> gliders, parachutes, bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons. The term
> does not include wheelchairs, nor does it include horses or other pack
> stock, skis, snowshoes, non-motorized river craft including, but not
> limited to, drift boats, rafts, and canoes, or sleds, travois, or similar
> devices without moving parts.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 31
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:12:30 -0700
> From: Lindsey Sommer <lgsommer at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Illegal Mountain Biking on the PCT - Now in video
> form
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID:
> <CAJmjT_kbH5xQ7SihDgysCHmsuHEHwuRrvvN1yYeYmR_sMPqM6Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Eek, some of these are freaky. I used to mountain bike, but came to the
> conclusion that flying down a rock covered dirt trail WHERE I MIGHT HIT
> PEOPLE went against my own logic. Plus, I like my collar bones to be
> intact.
>
> Good call on finding them! I'm all for mountain bikers enjoying themselves,
> just not where they can run me over.
>
> Cheers,
> Lindsey
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Craig Giffen <cg at lunky.com> wrote:
>
> > A few MTB riders have recorded their illegal PCT rides and put them on
> > YouTube. Especially with the first two videos, they know what they are
> > doing is illegal. If anyone contacting the authorites needs videos and
> > finds the videos deleted, I have screenshots and hi-res downloads of each
> > video too.
> >
> > BLT to Pioneer Mail (this one is blatant)
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQWe3NcmplE
> >
> > PCT Riding near Ashland:
> > "A quick Sunday poach of the PCT"
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILEhluMbhPE
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujTVanzKrWg
> >
> > PCT Riding near Hesperia, CA:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpTt0Ij3c9A
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCmtJEG2Am4
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3SOSdD5T6I
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z0YIWyjohE
> >
> > PCT Between highway 173 and Silverwood:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUcdEee_70g
> >
> > Furthermore, although these are not on the PCT, you can see how
> ridiculous
> > the notion of "multi-use" trails are:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhuhodTbUds
> >
> > (Although this one isn't the rider's fault obviously, this collision
> could
> > have just as easily been a hiker on a blind corner or bottom of an
> incline)
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTHUQlZrxBI
> >
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 32
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:21:35 -0700
> From: Timothy Nye <timpnye at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Wilderness Act and bicycles
> To: "ambery-80243 at mypacks.net" <ambery-80243 at mypacks.net>
> Cc: pct-l <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID: <65484C76-E368-4980-87AC-330208D97591 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Equally, any regulation is a creature of the statute which it seeks to
> implement. If the regulation is contradicted and or inconsistent with the
> plain language of the statute, in this case the Act, then it is invalid and
> must be struck down. The signing statutes or other evidence of legislative
> intent may be examined in case of any ambiguity in the statute to ensure
> proper regulatory compliance is achieved.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:04 PM, ambery-80243 at mypacks.net wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Timothy Nye wrote:
> >>
> >>
> > "I'll make this point again for the third time today. The Wilderness Act
> was passed and signed into law in 1964. The first mountain bike was cobbled
> together in Northern California in the late 1970's. It is disingenuous to
> claim mountain bikes were intended to be included within the ambit of the
> Act before they were invented, became popular and entered popular
> consciousness and mass production. Up until 15 years after the Act
> bicycles were conceived as being limited to paved surfaces. How is it that
> Congress intended mountain bikes be included in the Act? Wait! I know! Time
> travel!! (Head slap)"
> >>
> >
> > The Code of Federal Regulations regarding wilderness was amended in
> 2000, and one of the amendments was to define the term "mechanical
> transport":
> >
> > CFR 6301.5 Definitions
> > states:
> >
> > Mechanical transport means any vehicle, device, or contrivance for
> moving people or material in or over land, water, snow, or air that has
> moving parts. This includes, but is not limited to, sailboats, sailboards,
> hang gliders, parachutes, bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons. The
> term does not include wheelchairs, nor does it include horses or other pack
> stock, skis, snowshoes, non-motorized river craft including, but not
> limited to, drift boats, rafts, and canoes, or sleds, travois, or similar
> devices without moving parts.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 33
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:29:49 -0700
> From: David Thibault <dthibaul07 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID:
> <CAD-wsevwhZ0jegyHwe2zh920ejYKr-2eU+h-D4jxGs+ppmx2Aw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> yeah it's a shame, i've hiked tons of the A.T. but as a biker who get
> pissed about motocycles and ATVs on our designated trails. i have to
> respect the rules of the backpackers who fought long and hard to have their
> special places too. NBB
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > The last comment here sums it all up for me that I wish a lot of other
> > fellow mountain bikers shared:
> >
> >
> http://forums.mtbr.com/pennsylvania/appalachian-trail-can-i-ride-291174.html
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
> >
> For those that didn't click the link this comment is pretty poignant --
> >From a MTB'er discussing riding on the AT:
>
>
> "yeah it's a shame, i've hiked tons of the A.T. but as a biker who get
> pissed about motorcycles and ATVs on our designated trails. i have to
> respect the rules of the backpackers who fought long and hard to have their
> special places too."
>
> Kind of sums it up for me. I would like to keep our special places too.
>
> Day-Late
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 34
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:45:56 -0700
> From: Cat Nelson <sagegirl51 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Giving way to Mtn Bikes on the PCT
> To: Dennis Phelan <dennis.phelan at gmail.com>
> Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net, Fred Walters <fredwalters2 at gmail.com>
> Message-ID:
> <CAH9fG21OXGH5xN=2nkNxMath8Zr3aFYXsR+uAS6X0aW3Q3=PsA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> The pedestrian will be on the bottom of the pile, or on their bottom, one
> way or the other.
> On Oct 10, 2012 2:04 AM, "Dennis Phelan" <dennis.phelan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Regardless of who has the right away, the laws of physics still apply: a
> > person traveling 25 mph with helmet and pads hits another (unprotected)
> > person moving 3 mph - who's coming out on top?
> >
> > Dennis
> > On Oct 9, 2012 6:16 PM, "JPL" <jplynch at crosslink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Every multi-use trail I've been on hikers have the right of way over
> > bikes.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Eric Lee
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:52 PM
> > > To: 'Fred Walters' ; pct-l at backcountry.net
> > > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Giving way to Mtn Bikes on the PCT
> > >
> > > Fred wrote:
> > > >
> > > Which does raise the question, is the trail wide enough for walkers and
> > > bikers to share ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Absolutely not. In most places the trail tread is single-track only
> and
> > > there's no room for a biker to pass a walker without the biker going
> off
> > > the
> > > trail or having the walker step aside.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: 35
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:49:50 -0600
> From: Anony Muse <anonymuse1966 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] "Save The PCT" Facebook Page
> To: Ryan Christensen <yosemiteryan at yahoo.com>, pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID:
> <CAAydoTDmYHt5AMLtK24L1qPx+nJP26y+770fv3VEk9=LfZTiQA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Smart man Ryan!
>
> -Chuckie
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Ryan Christensen <yosemiteryan at yahoo.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hello PCT'ers,
> >
> > I started a Facebook page dedicated to helping to combat the effort to
> > open the PCT to bikes. It is there to help facilitate communication and
> > collaboration amongst us PCT'ers.
> >
> > We are going to need to be organized, focused and smart if we want to
> save
> > the PCT from bikes.
> >
> > Feel free to join.
> >
> > http://www.facebook.com/SavethePCT
> >
> > ProDeal
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 36
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Edward Anderson <mendoridered at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Bikes on PCT - current information!
> To: "pct-l at backcountry.net" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <1349897656.99189.YahooMailNeo at web111612.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> This morning I had a long telephone conversation with Jerry Stone. He is a
> Back Country Horseman in my Unit (Antelope Valley) and is also the liaison
> between the BCH and the PCTA. Jerry and I have worked as volunteers on
> several PCT trail maintenance projects. This summer he spent about a month
> with BCH Bill Carter and about 20 others clearing thousands of down trees
> in the Mammoth area.
> ?
> We discussed the current "hot topic" of?Mountain Bikes?being allowed on
> the PCT.? Yesterday, Jerry had a?phone conversation with Liz Bergeron
> (Executive Director of the PCTA). They discussed the bike controversy at
> length. As I understand, the U.S. Forest Service had originally placed a
> "temporary ban" on bicycle use of the PCT as it passes through the lands
> under their jurisdiction.
> ?
> "Temporary" - having?agreed to review that ban once every two years -
> which they have done - always rejecting bicycle use. What is new, and
> current,?is that the Mountain Bikers are now DEMANDING that the next review
> should be a?PUBLIC review. Liz mentioned to Jerry that the Mountain Bikers
> will be present in force, with their lawyers.?She will need the support of
> Back Country Horsemen, other equestrians,?and hikers to make our case and
> keep the PCT free from?legal use by bikes.?
> ?
> This will be the time for all of us who use and love the PCT, and?the
> very?special and unique experience that it offers,?to give our much-needed
> support - and try to also be present at the proposed public review.
> ?
> I would like to mention that the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail was
> dedicated by the National Trails System Act of 1968. It is for foot traffic
> - reserved for hikers and equestrians. In those days, there were NO
> Mountain Bikes at all - they came much later.
> I, personally,?have no problem with the legal use by Mountain Bikers of
> the tens of thousands of miles of trails and dirt roads that they now use.?
> I just want to protect the precious?treasures that we still have, those few
> that still survive, - including the PCT and the Wilderness Areas. I welcome
> the Mountain Bikers to come and enjoy those areas - but either on foot or
> while riding a horse, as some of them already do.?
> ?
> MendoRider-Hiker
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 37
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Edward Anderson <mendoridered at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] QUOTE
> To: "pct-l at backcountry.net" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Message-ID:
> <1349898123.54178.YahooMailNeo at web111619.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> >From the U.S. Department of Agriculture:? " The trail (referring to the
> PCT) is open for foot and equestrian travel only; bicycles and motorized
> vehicles are not permitted".
> ?
> MendoRider-Hiker
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 38
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:00:53 -0700
> From: Jane Overton <neoaflander at gmail.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Mtn bikes- I don't get it
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID:
> <CAH5oN+tBb-0r_=TsBj7gv-3E38SmLML9Qnb8c7cNUF7B6Yc9rQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Mtn bike trails require a different sort of hardening off than hiking
> trails. Bikes make continuous ruts in soft wet soils. Water bars need to be
> built differently. Basically, the engineering requirements and maintenance
> for hiking vs biking are different. What would mtn bikers say to re
> engineering the parts if the pct that that want full access to?
> Cheers
> Jane
> On Oct 10, 2012 10:00 AM, <pct-l-request at backcountry.net> wrote:
>
> > 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. Re: bikes on the PCT (Craig Giffen)
> > 2. Re: bikes on the PCT (Fred Walters)
> > 3. Re: Forest Service to consider allowing Mtn bikes on the PCT
> > (randall welch)
> > 4. Re: Giving way to Mtn Bikes on the PCT (Dennis Phelan)
> > 5. Re: bikes on the PCT (Zorglub)
> > 6. Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative (Brick Robbins)
> > 7. Re: Important Message Re: bikes on the PCT
> > (Diane Soini of Santa Barbara Hikes)
> > 8. Bikes on the PCT (Paul Magnanti)
> > 9. Re: bikes on the PCT (A.C. Scott)
> > 10. Mountain Bikes on the PCT? (lorna at ptera.net)
> > 11. Re: bikes on the PCT (ambery-80243 at mypacks.net)
> > 12. Re: bikes on the PCT & the PCTA (ambery-80243 at mypacks.net)
> > 13. Facts matter (Bicycles on the PCT) (Dan Jacobs)
> > 14. Re: Important Message Re: bikes on the PCT (Dan Jacobs)
> > 15. Re: bikes on the PCT & the PCTA (Dan Jacobs)
> > 16. Re: Important Message Re: bikes on the PCT (Austin Greavette)
> > 17. Bikes on the PCT (Ken Murray)
> > 18. Bikes on the PCT (Ken Murray)
> > 19. Re: Facts matter (Bicycles on the PCT) (Timothy Nye)
> > 20. Bikes on the PCT (Ken Murray)
> > 21. Re: bikes on the PCT & the PCTA (Bob Bankhead)
> > 22. Re: bikes on the PCT (shon mcganty)
> > 23. Bikes on the PCT (Ken Murray)
> > 24. Re: Facts matter (Bicycles on the PCT) (Dan Jacobs)
> > 25. Re: Facts matter (Bicycles on the PCT) (James Vesely)
> > 26. Re: Forest Service to consider allowing Mtn Bikes on the PCT
> > (shon mcganty)
> > 27. Facts matter (Bicycles on the PCT) (CJ & Cristy Miller)
> > 28. Forest Service to consider allowing Mtn Bikes on the PCT
> > (Ken Murray)
> > 29. Re: Facts matter (Bicycles on the PCT) (Scott Bryce)
> > 30. Re: Bikes on the PCT (Ken Powers)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:44:56 -1000
> > From: Craig Giffen <cg at lunky.com>
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> > Message-ID: <7E9D51A2-8EC7-41D0-8A8A-8B48F40B0542 at lunky.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > um, I have been mountain biking since the late 1980's. I've ridden all
> > over Washington and Oregon, but never once have I ridden on a trail that
> > was closed to mountain bikes. I have no anti mountain bike bias...I own
> a
> > few 2.35in tires myself. Riding downhill on singletrack through the
> woods
> > is incredibly fun. I just think the mountain bike lobby needs to focus
> > their energy on getting their own trails built rather than leeching off
> the
> > decades of hard work that hikers and equestrians have done.
> >
> > Rather than complaining on message boards about the lack of mountain bike
> > only trails, there are actually people out there in the mountain bike
> > community who "do the work" to make them happen:
> >
> >
> http://www.oregonlive.com/north-of-26/index.ssf/2012/06/stub_stewart_state_park_opens.html
> >
> >
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576469960615061074.html
> >
> > The last comment here sums it all up for me that I wish a lot of other
> > fellow mountain bikers shared:
> >
> >
> http://forums.mtbr.com/pennsylvania/appalachian-trail-can-i-ride-291174.html
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Commuting by bike is great, but that does not really address the anti
> > mountain bike bias I see on this board. ?It seems to me, and I'm sure all
> > will disagree here, that the issue has to do with sharing more than
> > anything else. ?Hikers, and the few horse riders left over (from what I
> > read earlier on another post) are used now to have the PCT to themselves
> > and are not interesting in sharing.
> > >
> > > I'd like to remind everyone that the PCT is funded by the taxpayer and
> > should be therefore not meant to be the exclusive use of any given group.
> > ?I don't see the USFS creating new trails exclusively for mountain
> bikers,
> > so I really don't see why the PCT should be the exclusive use of hikers.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:41:57 +0100
> > From: Fred Walters <fredwalters2 at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > CAOMa4nBis0LMwi8wECF47OmAUdnzrbgSV89eBziqEBKkBB+c2A at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Maybe a poll across existing trail volunteers. Question would have to be
> > sensible so, "Would you be prepared to spend your time repairing all the
> > trail damage from mountain bike use ?" would probably not help. But a
> > balanced question passed round each trail volunteer group the results
> then
> > submitted to PCTA (and Forrest Service) so those with significant input
> to
> > any decision can gauge the impact on the trail (i.e. will it still exist
> in
> > 5 years with no maintenance).
> >
> > I don't know if relevant to US decision making but in the UK with e.g.
> > planning and development the authorities cannot really consider what
> might
> > happen outside the scope of their decision. i.e. were they to allow
> > non-wilderness trail access then considerations about bikes also using
> > wilderness sections cannot be considered. Their regulations would ban
> > wilderness bike access and that people might break those rules are not
> > relevant to the non-wilderness decision. That is UK, I don't know about
> > US.
> >
> > That mountain bikes already use sections illegally might actually help
> the
> > Mountain Bikers case. Because they can respond that "OK, we should not
> be
> > using it but, without any guidelines there have been no accidents so
> there
> > is clearly no danger ... and existing use shows we can happily coexist".
> > It sounds to me like the danger and potential injury aspect is something
> > that would concern the authorities. A few years ago the Forrest Service
> > were found largely liable when a child was killed by a bear (there were
> > points both sides and I understand child had food in his tent). If the
> > authorities take inadequate steps to protect other users I would expect
> > they may also liable for legal damages. So who is going to post the vast
> > numbers of "Warning Fast Moving Mountain Bikes" signs along the trail -
> > trail volunteers who it would seem are anti the bike use ? How are the
> > authorities going to protect other users (to avoid legal liability) ?
> >
> > I've not yet hiked the PCT. I plan to when a few current
> responsibilities
> > allow (maybe a few years time). I watch the list to gain knowledge of
> the
> > trail. If mountain bikes are allowed I will not be making a thru hike
> > (I'll find another trail - Te Araoa [sic] also appeals). Not a threat
> > (because most people here are against the bike use anyway), just that it
> > would be such a shame were this change of use to be allowed (and I
> believe
> > it would be a change as hikers would quickly fade to a few section/day
> > hikers).
> >
> > Fred
> > (Sorry, I always go on and on writing long messages)
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Jim Banks <jbanks4 at socal.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The PCTA does receive some taxpayer money from the Forest Service and
> BLM
> > > for maintenance of the trail, but it is a very, very small part of the
> > > overall cost of maintaining the trail. The vast majority of the
> expense
> > of
> > > maintaining the PCT is the sweat equity put in by the hikers and
> > > equestrians
> > > that volunteer to do the trail work. If there were no volunteers, the
> > > taxpayer money would not be enough to maintain 100 miles of the trail.
> > As
> > > one of those volunteers, I can tell you that if mountain bikes are ever
> > > allowed on the PCT, a majority (maybe a super majority) of the people
> > > willing to give up their time and put in the hard work maintaining the
> > > trail
> > > will quit.
> > >
> > > The trails that allow mountain bikes are also partially funded by the
> > > taxpayer. Following your line of thinking, motorcycles, quads, and
> jeeps
> > > should be allowed on those trails as well since those trails "are not
> > meant
> > > to be for the exclusive use of any group." You see it cuts both ways.
> > >
> > > I-Beam
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:
> > pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
> > > On Behalf Of Zorglub
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:42 PM
> > > To: PCT
> > > Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > >
> > > Commuting by bike is great, but that does not really address the anti
> > > mountain bike bias I see on this board. It seems to me, and I'm sure
> all
> > > will disagree here, that the issue has to do with sharing more than
> > > anything
> > > else. Hikers, and the few horse riders left over (from what I read
> > earlier
> > > on another post) are used now to have the PCT to themselves and are not
> > > interesting in sharing.
> > >
> > > I'd like to remind everyone that the PCT is funded by the taxpayer and
> > > should be therefore not meant to be the exclusive use of any given
> group.
> > > I
> > > don't see the USFS creating new trails exclusively for mountain bikers,
> > so
> > > I
> > > really don't see why the PCT should be the exclusive use of hikers.
> > >
> > > In 12 + years of riding all over, I've never had one bad encounter with
> > > anybody.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Brick Robbins <brick at brickrobbins.com>
> > > To: PCT <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 5:13 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Craig Giffen <cg at lunky.com> wrote:
> > > >During my hike of the PCT in the mid 90's, I saw more illegal mountain
> > > >bikes on the trail than I did horses...and no, they did not yield.
> One
> > > >came around a blind corner so fast he nearly hit me head on. He
> > > >apologized but I told him other hikers might not be as nice as I was.<
> > >
> > > And FWIW, I would like to point out that Craig exclusivity commutes by
> > > bicycle and does not own a car. I own a car, but only drive 1 day a
> week.
> > >
> > > If you look at Craigs website www.lunky.com you will see his "ride
> > around
> > > Australia"
> > >
> > > Both of us are fiercely pro-bicycle, just not on the PCT
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: 3
> > Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: randall welch <rwelch5 at att.net>
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest Service to consider allowing Mtn bikes on
> > the PCT
> > To: Marion Davison <mardav at charter.net>
> > Cc: Pct-L at backcountry.net
> > Message-ID:
> > <1349839407.73847.YahooMailRC at web180903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > I was hit by a mtb'er in this section. It happened along Holcomb Creek
> > between
> > the 3N16 crossing and Deep Creek. I didn't even know?what hit me until
> the
> > dust
> > cleared. I played football in high school and can tell you I have NEVER
> > suffered
> > an impact like I did that day. I had huge a impact crater/divot in my
> shin
> > and a
> > deep laceration in the pulp of?my thumb. My two-month old ULA Catalyst
> > suffered
> > a torn waist belt and the initial impact completely blew my right foot
> > through
> > the side of my Cascadias. The entire heel cup was severed from the rest
> of
> > the
> > shoes uppers. That foot was in tons o' pain but somehow avoided?permanent
> > damage/sprain. There were three riders in this group and?as soon as I had
> > taken
> > a personal inventory of the damage and determined I was "OK", one of the
> > riders
> > who was obviously tense nodded for the others to?run for it......and they
> > did.
> > Essentially, a hit and run. Did they run because they were illegally
> using
> > the
> > trail? Would they have stopped if they were legal users?
> >
> > Most of these MTB'ers are weekend warriors. They'll be section-impactors.
> > In
> > most cases their impact will be localised in short sections. These
> > sections will
> > experience very heavy/concentrated impact and the resultant damages. The
> > MTB'ers?have NO CONCEPT of thru-hiking or thru-travel on this trail. So
> it
> > would
> > stand to reason they would have little respect for the fact that
> > indidviduals
> > might have planned for years, sacrificed years of work/income and
> > committed to
> > months away from family in order to fulfill a dream. To this point, I'm
> > just a
> > section hiker...but, if I had been a thru-hiker that day...an MTB'er
> > would've
> > ended my hike.
> > Can you guess my position on this issue?
> > Randy (Sage)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Marion Davison <mardav at charter.net>
> > To: Pct-L at backcountry.net
> > Sent: Tue, October 9, 2012 7:41:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Forest Service to consider allowing Mtn bikes on the
> > PCT
> >
> > Do horses really think we (bicycle riders)want to eat them?
> > Yes, horses are complete ninnies.? They also think llamas want to eat
> > them.? The truth is that any horse could kill a llama with one swift
> > kick.? But the horses don't know that.
> >
> > I also don't want to see Mt. bikes on the PCT.? I agree that it is a
> > sacred place that should be reserved for foot travel.? We do a lot of
> > maintenance in Section C and have encountered bike wheel marks on every
> > inch of that section over the years.? We have met bicycles head on, on
> > many occasions (also motorcycles).? We refuse to yield to bikes.? I
> > stand in front of my llamas with poles planted firmly in front of me and
> > refuse to move.? I tell them firmly that they are breaking the law and
> > need to turn around and exit the trail at the first opportunity.? I have
> > been cursed at and threatened with physical harm.? I have taken
> > pictures.? Some bikers have simply moved into the woods, waited for us
> > to pass, and ridden on.? Others have apologized and turned back.? One
> > memorable encounter was with a doctor I had seen recently.? We
> > recognized each other.? I told him he was breaking the law.? He said,
> > the trail should be open to bikes, so I am going to ride it.? He went
> > around us and kept going.? Section C is riddled with trails and fire
> > roads and dirt roads that are open to Mt. bikes and motorcycles so I see
> > no reason why they must have the PCT as well.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 4
> > Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 21:28:48 -0700
> > From: Dennis Phelan <dennis.phelan at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Giving way to Mtn Bikes on the PCT
> > To: JPL <jplynch at crosslink.net>
> > Cc: Fred Walters <fredwalters2 at gmail.com>, pct-l at backcountry.net
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > CAE1UnwTY2cfo0gKStocko-BtpLCFXbUuaMPYC+WhKmam27oJPQ at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Regardless of who has the right away, the laws of physics still apply: a
> > person traveling 25 mph with helmet and pads hits another (unprotected)
> > person moving 3 mph - who's coming out on top?
> >
> > Dennis
> > On Oct 9, 2012 6:16 PM, "JPL" <jplynch at crosslink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Every multi-use trail I've been on hikers have the right of way over
> > bikes.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Eric Lee
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:52 PM
> > > To: 'Fred Walters' ; pct-l at backcountry.net
> > > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Giving way to Mtn Bikes on the PCT
> > >
> > > Fred wrote:
> > > >
> > > Which does raise the question, is the trail wide enough for walkers and
> > > bikers to share ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Absolutely not. In most places the trail tread is single-track only
> and
> > > there's no room for a biker to pass a walker without the biker going
> off
> > > the
> > > trail or having the walker step aside.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: 5
> > Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Zorglub <azorglub at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > To: 'PCT' <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> > Message-ID:
> > <1349838893.51972.YahooMailNeo at web39402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > The whole OHV argument is a slippery slope that I don't buy and is a
> > distraction from the main issue that one historical group is trying to
> keep
> > another human powered group of recreationists out.
> >
> > Again, nobody's asking access to 100% of the PCT, but being kept out
> > completely is unfair. ?That might be why so many cyclists are not obeying
> > the current rules. ?Rules that are blatantly unfair are rarely followed.
> ?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jim Banks <jbanks4 at socal.rr.com>
> > To: 'PCT' <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 8:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> >
> > The PCTA does receive some taxpayer money from the Forest Service and BLM
> > for maintenance of the trail, but it is a very, very small part of the
> > overall cost of maintaining the trail.? The vast majority of the expense
> of
> > maintaining the PCT is the sweat equity put in by the hikers and
> > equestrians
> > that volunteer to do the trail work.? If there were no volunteers, the
> > taxpayer money would not be enough to maintain 100 miles of the trail.?
> As
> > one of those volunteers, I can tell you that if mountain bikes are ever
> > allowed on the PCT, a majority (maybe a super majority) of the people
> > willing to give up their time and put in the hard work maintaining the
> > trail
> > will quit.
> >
> > The trails that allow mountain bikes are also partially funded by the
> > taxpayer.? Following your line of thinking, motorcycles, quads, and jeeps
> > should be allowed on those trails as well since those trails "are not
> meant
> > to be for the exclusive use of any group."? You see it cuts both ways.
> >
> > I-Beam
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:
> pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
> > On Behalf Of Zorglub
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:42 PM
> > To: PCT
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> >
> > Commuting by bike is great, but that does not really address the anti
> > mountain bike bias I see on this board. ?It seems to me, and I'm sure all
> > will disagree here, that the issue has to do with sharing more than
> > anything
> > else. ?Hikers, and the few horse riders left over (from what I read
> earlier
> > on another post) are used now to have the PCT to themselves and are not
> > interesting in sharing.
> >
> > I'd like to remind everyone that the PCT is funded by the taxpayer and
> > should be therefore not meant to be the exclusive use of any given group.
> > ?I
> > don't see the USFS creating new trails exclusively for mountain bikers,
> so
> > I
> > really don't see why the PCT should be the exclusive use of hikers.
> >
> > In 12 + years of riding all over, I've never had one bad encounter with
> > anybody. ?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Brick Robbins <brick at brickrobbins.com>
> > To: PCT <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 5:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Craig Giffen <cg at lunky.com> wrote:
> > >During my hike of the PCT in the mid 90's, I saw more illegal mountain
> > >bikes on the trail than I did horses...and no, they did not yield.? One
> > >came around a blind corner so fast he nearly hit me head on.? He
> > >apologized but I told him other hikers might not be as nice as I was.<
> >
> > And FWIW, I would like to point out that Craig exclusivity commutes by
> > bicycle and does not own a car. I own a car, but only drive 1 day a week.
> >
> > If you look at Craigs website www.lunky.com you will see his "ride
> around
> > Australia"
> >
> > Both of us are fiercely pro-bicycle, just not on the PCT
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 6
> > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 02:31:13 -0700
> > From: Brick Robbins <brick at brickrobbins.com>
> > Subject: [pct-l] Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative
> > To: PCT <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> > Message-ID:
> > <CALV1Nzm4u_gzdAU6DZ97fC3D=+
> > Hz_cs7+bU+0E2ccEEX9EO42A at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > They exist, they are organized.
> > People who love the PCT as a hiker/equestrian trail better be too
> >
> > They call it "sharing"
> >
> > https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct
> >
> >
> http://forums.mtbr.com/washington/big-news-feds-consider-allowing-bikes-pct-816288.html
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:47:15 -0700
> > From: Diane Soini of Santa Barbara Hikes <diane at santabarbarahikes.com>
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Important Message Re: bikes on the PCT
> > To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> > Message-ID:
> > <7C0D00F7-400E-4D05-BCF1-06B164957B4C at santabarbarahikes.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
> >
> >
> > On Oct 9, 2012, at 9:43 PM, pct-l-request at backcountry.net wrote:
> >
> > > From: Zorglub <azorglub at yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [pct-l] Important Message Re: bikes on the PCT
> > >
> > > This is taking paranoia to a whole new level. ?:)
> >
> > Do you really think that we were born yesterday? We don't only hike
> > on the PCT. Many of us hike where we live as well. We've already seen
> > all this before where we live. We know exactly what you are doing.
> > We've seen the entire process start to finish and know the entire
> > play by heart. We could recite all the lines.
> >
> > My suggestion would be to drop all new memberships to this list that
> > happened since the original mountain bike email was published. Don't
> > allow any new memberships for a while.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Paul Magnanti <pmags at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: [pct-l] Bikes on the PCT
> > To: PCT MailingList <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> > Message-ID:
> > <1349877802.29724.YahooMailNeo at web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > As with Bob, I've had a different experience than what you all have had.
> >
> > Perhaps because Colorado has a mountain bike culture, think there is more
> > education of the users.
> >
> > On the CT and other areas, I've only encountered polite mtbikers who were
> > courteous.?
> >
> > Furthermore, I've done trailwork with mountain bikers. Not just people
> who
> > happen to mountain bike, but actual mountain bike
> > org who have adopted a trail or even have built the entire open space
> > trail over several seasons. ?One memorable trailwork project
> > was sponsored by a mountain bike group for their section, had the tools
> > carted in by horses and was worked on by people who
> > hiked OR biked in to the worksite. ?Multi-trail use at its finest! :)
> >
> >
> > I don't doubt you've all encountered less-than-stellar ?mtn bikers on the
> > PCT because anyone who would break the rules to begin
> > is probably not exactly a good trail steward. ;)
> >
> > Personally, I think limited sections of the PCT can be open to mtbikers
> > esp ones outside of wilderness areas that get limited use and are
> > not overly erosion prone (I saw much flatish single track when I did the
> > PCT for example.
> >
> > As human-powered outdoor recreation users, I think we should try to fight
> > for the common good and not divide ourselves.?
> >
> > Lastly, and I know this will be shocking, but it is possible to be a
> > Mountain Biker AND a backpacker (and a backcountry skier?
> > and a climber). Many people do more than one activity.?
> >
> > Mind you, I don't mtn bike at all. Haven't tried mtn biking since
> > 1999...nor do I tend to. :)
> >
> > Guess if sharing the trail can work in Colorado most of the time, think
> it
> > is possible in other areas too.
> > ?
> > ----------------------------
> > 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: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:29:37 -0700
> > From: "A.C. Scott" <acscottthefirst at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > To: kathi at pctwalker.com, pct-l at backcountry.net
> > Message-ID: <n1chhd2gx9edb3d3cyjevwnq.1349879377382 at email.android.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> >
> > While I know it is true that mountain bikers and. Hikers. Can coexist on
> > the same trail.bikes are not allowed on the pct and. That's the way I
> like
> > IR.
> >
> > Sent from Samsung Mobile
> >
> > Kathi <pogo at pctwalker.com> wrote:
> >
> > >DITTO!
> > >
> > >On 10/9/12 6:02 PM, Diane Soini of Santa Barbara Hikes wrote:
> > >> Well, if the PCT becomes a mountain biking trail, I won't be renewing
> > >> my membership with the PCTA or donating any money. The mountain
> > >> bikers took over our local trails and turned them into war zones and
> > >> annoying places to be, cut down all the shade and made the trails
> > >> flat, smooth and boring. I'm sure the PCTA wouldn't care if all the
> > >> hikers left since there are way more mountain bikers, or at least it
> > >> seems like there are. Plus think of all that money they can get from
> > >> IMBA and from the motorcycle manufacturers that are really who
> > >> supports all this mountain biking stuff. Since everybody hates
> > >> mountain bikers, they have to make themselves look like stellar trail
> > >> workers with tons of phony photo-ops of fake trail maintenance and
> > >> lots of logged hours that count for nothing in reality. Fortunately,
> > >> despite all their noise, there do seem to be a lot fewer of them than
> > >> in the past, at least locally.
> > >>
> > >> On Oct 9, 2012, at 10:00 AM, pct-l-request at backcountry.net wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> From: Ken Murray <kmurray at pol.net>
> > >>> Subject: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > >>>
> > >>> 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.
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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: 10
> > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:43:25 -0700
> > From: <lorna at ptera.net>
> > Subject: [pct-l] Mountain Bikes on the PCT?
> > To: <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> > Message-ID: <9BE32A9FB772473D82B75A63D870C0E8 at LornaHP>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> > reply-type=original
> >
> >
> >
> > I hiked the CT this summer. Mountain biking is allowed on that trail,
> > except for in the wilderness sections. (There are designated mountain
> bike
> > routes around the Wilderness Areas.) Some parts were very popular with
> the
> > mountain bikers, and it was NOT a relaxing hike. Only one couple
> stopped,
> > and yielded to me, the hiker, as the signs said they should. All of the
> > rest did not. They really did act like they ruled the trail. I might be
> > getting old and cranky, but I was starting to be really irritated by
> having
> > to step off the trail all of the time. I KNOW it was easier for me to
> step
> > off, but still! Plus, I was surprised, and the adrenaline shot through
> me,
> > several times by bicycles sneaking up from behind. I was a mountain
> biker
> > for a few years. It's a blast. However, you constantly have to pay
> > attention to the trail and you're whizzing by so fast and you don't see
> > much
> > scenery until you stop. I know without a doubt that they DO erode the
> > trail, and make it dustier, especially around the corners. The tires
> > create
> > gullies so much faster than feet do. If I was doing more trail work, I
> > would be discouraged if I knew mountain bikers would soon be ruining the
> > trail that we just fixed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 11
> > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:13:01 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
> > From: ambery-80243 at mypacks.net
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > To: pct-l <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > 1671357.1349881982083.JavaMail.root at elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >
> >
> > If you are going to bring up the historical group, I think you have
> > overlooked the historical facts: this trail was set up and designated as
> a
> > footpath for the use of hikers and equestrians.
> >
> > I get the appeal of mountain biking. But it still doesn't justify to me
> > why we can't have this one long distance trail experience without the
> > distractions and issues involved with allowing bikes.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >From: Zorglub <azorglub at yahoo.com>
> > >Sent: Oct 9, 2012 8:14 PM
> > >To: 'PCT' <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> > >Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > >
> > >The whole OHV argument is a slippery slope that I don't buy and is a
> > distraction from the main issue that one historical group is trying to
> keep
> > another human powered group of recreationists out.
> > >
> > >Again, nobody's asking access to 100% of the PCT, but being kept out
> > completely is unfair. ?That might be why so many cyclists are not obeying
> > the current rules. ?Rules that are blatantly unfair are rarely followed.
> ?
> > >
> > >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: Jim Banks <jbanks4 at socal.rr.com>
> > >To: 'PCT' <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 8:09 PM
> > >Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > >
> > >The PCTA does receive some taxpayer money from the Forest Service and
> BLM
> > >for maintenance of the trail, but it is a very, very small part of the
> > >overall cost of maintaining the trail.? The vast majority of the expense
> > of
> > >maintaining the PCT is the sweat equity put in by the hikers and
> > equestrians
> > >that volunteer to do the trail work.? If there were no volunteers, the
> > >taxpayer money would not be enough to maintain 100 miles of the trail.?
> As
> > >one of those volunteers, I can tell you that if mountain bikes are ever
> > >allowed on the PCT, a majority (maybe a super majority) of the people
> > >willing to give up their time and put in the hard work maintaining the
> > trail
> > >will quit.
> > >
> > >The trails that allow mountain bikes are also partially funded by the
> > >taxpayer.? Following your line of thinking, motorcycles, quads, and
> jeeps
> > >should be allowed on those trails as well since those trails "are not
> > meant
> > >to be for the exclusive use of any group."? You see it cuts both ways.
> > >
> > >I-Beam
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:
> pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net
> > ]
> > >On Behalf Of Zorglub
> > >Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:42 PM
> > >To: PCT
> > >Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > >
> > >Commuting by bike is great, but that does not really address the anti
> > >mountain bike bias I see on this board. ?It seems to me, and I'm sure
> all
> > >will disagree here, that the issue has to do with sharing more than
> > anything
> > >else. ?Hikers, and the few horse riders left over (from what I read
> > earlier
> > >on another post) are used now to have the PCT to themselves and are not
> > >interesting in sharing.
> > >
> > >I'd like to remind everyone that the PCT is funded by the taxpayer and
> > >should be therefore not meant to be the exclusive use of any given
> group.
> > ?I
> > >don't see the USFS creating new trails exclusively for mountain bikers,
> > so I
> > >really don't see why the PCT should be the exclusive use of hikers.
> > >
> > >In 12 + years of riding all over, I've never had one bad encounter with
> > >anybody. ?
> > >
> > >
> > >________________________________
> > >From: Brick Robbins <brick at brickrobbins.com>
> > >To: PCT <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 5:13 PM
> > >Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > >
> > >On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Craig Giffen <cg at lunky.com> wrote:
> > >>During my hike of the PCT in the mid 90's, I saw more illegal mountain
> > >>bikes on the trail than I did horses...and no, they did not yield.? One
> > >>came around a blind corner so fast he nearly hit me head on.? He
> > >>apologized but I told him other hikers might not be as nice as I was.<
> > >
> > >And FWIW, I would like to point out that Craig exclusivity commutes by
> > >bicycle and does not own a car. I own a car, but only drive 1 day a
> week.
> > >
> > >If you look at Craigs website www.lunky.com you will see his "ride
> around
> > >Australia"
> > >
> > >Both of us are fiercely pro-bicycle, just not on the PCT
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 12
> > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:23:45 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
> > From: ambery-80243 at mypacks.net
> > Subject: Re: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT & the PCTA
> > To: pct-l <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > 24366244.1349882625902.JavaMail.root at elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >
> >
> > I assume based upon their own mission statement, that the PCTA should be
> > standing against this. There mission is to "preserve and promote the
> > Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail as an internationally significant
> > resource for the enjoyment of hikers and equestrians."
> >
> > Their 2010 to 2013 Strategic Plan has a Vision Statement for the PCT's
> > future, which includes:
> > "The entire Pacific Crest Trail corridor is permanently protected, well
> > maintained and
> > managed. It is well known both nationally and internationally, and is
> > treasured by hikers
> > and equestrians who appreciate its remote natural character"
> >
> > I agree that if this doesn't remain the focus, I will reconsider my
> > donations.
> > >
> > >>On 10/9/12 6:02 PM, Diane Soini of Santa Barbara Hikes wrote:
> > >>> Well, if the PCT becomes a mountain biking trail, I won't be renewing
> > >>> my membership with the PCTA or donating any money. The mountain
> > >>> bikers took over our local trails and turned them into war zones and
> > >>> annoying places to be, cut down all the shade and made the trails
> > >>> flat, smooth and boring. I'm sure the PCTA wouldn't care if all the
> > >>> hikers left since there are way more mountain bikers, or at least it
> > >>> seems like there are. Plus think of all that money they can get from
> > >>> IMBA and from the motorcycle manufacturers that are really who
> > >>> supports all this mountain biking stuff. Since everybody hates
> > >>> mountain bikers, they have to make themselves look like stellar trail
> > >>> workers with tons of phony photo-ops of fake trail maintenance and
> > >>> lots of logged hours that count for nothing in reality. Fortunately,
> > >>> despite all their noise, there do seem to be a lot fewer of them than
> > >>> in the past, at least locally.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Oct 9, 2012, at 10:00 AM, pct-l-request at backcountry.net wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> From: Ken Murray <kmurray at pol.net>
> > >>>> Subject: [pct-l] bikes on the PCT
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 13
> > Date: Wed, 10 Oc
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
More information about the Pct-L
mailing list