Forest Service Plan No. 3375 attracted an incredible 7,014 comments, even though the Forest Service gave people only five weeks to comment and provided hardly any notice of this radical plan, which would close off the PCT to mountain biking in part of California and possibly reduce access within a mile of the PCT corridor to everyone but hikers and pack trains and close road crossings of the PCT. You can find the comments in the Comment Room for the plan, which we link to below. Reading even a dozen comments shows the usual divide: hikers complaining about bicycle erosion and speed and wanting to keep the PCT to themselves, and mountain bikers pointing out the trail is underused and needs mountain bikers to help maintain it. Heres one comment letter, from a gentleman in Mansfield, Texas, that this moderator thought worth quoting in full: “BIKES BELONG! “As an avid outdoorsman and a lover of the gorgeous Sierras, I am pleased to see efforts to sustainably manage this magnificent natural resource. However, I must strenuously object to the codifying of the ill-advised ban on bicycle across these portions of the PCT (as well as non-Wilderness areas across the PCT as a whole). “The 1988 temporary Closure Order that initiated the bicycle ban is outdated; reflects an incomplete management practice, failed to include significant public input, and most importantly does not serve the longterm conservation goals for the PCT. Preserving a 2,650-mile public trail for the exclusive use of one or two user groups at the expense of an equally low-impact user group bad policy and it erodes public support for the trail. Until USFS agrees to a transparent, public review of the 1988 Closure Order, it is very difficult to support efforts that may perpetuate the plainly outdated ban on bicycle access. “I have hiked portions of the PCT and cycled adjacent trails which cross the PCT. The portions I hiked were perfectly suitable and sustainable as cycling routes. Moreover, the wording in the plan that implies the possible further removal of cycling access to key trails which cross the PCT is particularly disturbing. Hikers often cite bad behavior by cyclists as a reason to perpetuate the ban. However, hikers and backpackers are more likely to build illegal fire rings, smoke in high fire danger areas, relieve themselves within close proximity of water sources, and cut switchbacks, thus creating new avenues for erosion. “The point is that no one user group has exclusive claim to either vice or virtue and it makes no sense to ban one but not the other. Where trails are sustainably built, multiple studies, including those commissioned by the USFS, demonstrate the impact of cycling and hiking to be roughly equivalent and both to be far less impactful than equestrian use, which is given top billing in the plan. Cyclists impact hikers, but hikers also impact cyclists; there is no basis for placing one above the other. “If youre still concerned about protecting the hiking experience at the expense of cyclists, please consider that 1,000 miles of the PCTs 2,600 mile length passes through designated Wilderness, thus still providing hikers and equestrians with tremendous opportunity for a bike-free experience. “Bottom line: Cycling should be allowed where it can be done suitably and sustainably, which includes some portions of the PCT. There is simply no rational justification for a blanket exclusion on all portions of the PCT to preserve the elitist experiences of a highly vocal, but no more equally valid user group. Please reconsider the perpetuation of the unfair blanket ban against this low-impact, conservation minded user group.” https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?Project=3375&SearchResultsPerPage=25
Posted on: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:54:45 +0000