I saw this recently on MTBR and have been doing some reading. Here is the issue:

The Forest Service is updating its management plans for Sequioa, Inyo and Sierra National Forests. Part of this proposed revision is to create a PCT corridor around the PCT that will be managed to preserve the backcountry experience for hikers/equestrians on the PCT. This does not sound objectionable at first glance but upon closer look the wording is troubling:


There are suggestions that the PCTA is in backroom dealings with the Forest Service to gain control over what goes on within this proposed PCT corridor and that they would have the power to ban bikes on any trails in such a corridor. I don't know if it is true they could kick us off existing multi-use trails (no doubt they will try, they already are) but the bolded wording suggests at minimum they would have greater say in any new trails within the corridor. The document does not specify how wide this corridor will be. To give a private lobby control over public land like this is very objectionable, especially when it is well known they will use it to the detriment of other public user groups.

Description of this proposal is in the plan document on page 59, here: http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/ab ... 325964.pdf
The main USFS project page with more info is here: http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsint ... oject=3375
There is some background reading and more info from PCTRI here on MTBR, starting at post #192 http://forums.mtbr.com/california-norca ... 284-8.html
Comment form: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/P ... oject=3375

These three National Forests are considered "early adoptors" suggesting these proposals, if accepted, will spread to other forests. This is especially troubling in SD as we have many trails near PCT up on Mt Laguna. Same with the San Bernardino Mtns, Big Bear, San Gabriel Mtns, and Kernville area (motos).

If this concerns you please send in your comments here https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/P ... oject=3375. This is a 30 day scoping period designed to identify issues with the plan, so lets point them out!

#1 for me is that as a MTBer we are losing access to trails with each new Wilderness designation while hikers are gaining access - so we cannot accept losing access in non-wilderness areas just because a few hikers don't want to see other people on the trail (even trails that just cross the PCT). Trails are a travel corridor, nothing more - if you want solitude go off the trail 100ft and you will see no one!

It doesn't take long to post your comments at the link evdog provided (thanks). Here were mine:

As an avid mountain biker who enjoys getting out into remote areas to ride in a natural environment, I find the language in Guideline 1 within the Detailed Proposed Action document to be very troubling. Specifically, "new crossings of the PCT by trails for bicycles or other mechanized transport should be avoided except as mutually agreed on by the forest and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Association.". You must not give lobby and/or veto ability to a private group that will have power over a public resource. Doubly so when the agenda is to exclude a large user group (which uses human-powered locomotion), to the exclusive enjoyment of only hikers and equestrian riders.

The unavoidable truth of population growth dictates that MORE wilderness areas be opened up for the enjoyment of varied user groups. For those that can't tolerate sharing our God given natural resources with others, they can step 100 paces off the trail and be in total solitude. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Association does not represent my interest, nor that of a large number of other trail users.

_________________
_______________________________


"it can go full porno alley"

- Kimba - One love, many bikes - 2020

BUMP

Deadline has been extended to tomorrow, Oct. 3.

See IMBA alert for more info https://www.imba.com/alert/national-scenic-trails

In addition to the submission form above, comments can also be emailed to the following two addresses if the website is down Mike Dietl, Plan Revision Team Leader, michaeldietl@fs.fed.us and CC: r5planrevision@fs.fed.us

For anyone who wants to ride PCT legally it is important to get comments in.

"Bump" again. Thanks Evan. I generally avoid chiming in with a "me too!" every time I sign a petition or submit comments, but i agree that this PCT/PCTA thing is especially important. Still time tonight to comment, and the form is easy to use. I hope a lot of folks do it, whether they say "me too!" Or not.

_________________
Thus, if we are to understand the world, we should live somewhere between judgement and amazement — Alfredo Lopez Austin

Bump! Final day for comments.

Please send something in even if it is so simple as just saying "I object to giving the hateful PCTA decision making power which affects trail access for other users".

It will only take a moment, and in order to file an objection later on if you don't like the final plan you must have submitted comments previously.

Done. As always, thanks for your advocacy efforts.

Good website here:

http://www.sharingthepct.org/

_________________
Thus, if we are to understand the world, we should live somewhere between judgement and amazement — Alfredo Lopez Austin

It is still illegal but not impossible

Illegal for some...

_________________
Obama's America: Our enemies don't fear us; our allies don't trust us.

Are we referring to the Perfect Cycling Trail?

It's legal to ride for Senior Citizens who have a blue placard.

_________________
Scum on a Bike