You are here

Sections of Pacific Crest Trail Poached by Mountain Bikers; Could Problems Arise in National Parks?

Share

Mountain bikers have been poaching sections of the Pacific Crest Trail in California. USFS photo.

The Pacific Crest Trail ranges from Canada to Mexico, running through Washington, Oregon, and California along the way, traversing not one but seven units of the National Park System in the process.

On its way north and south portions of the trail touch or run through parts of Yosemite National Park, Sequoia National Park, Devils Postpile National Monument, Crater Lake National Park, Mount Rainier National Park, Lassen Volcanic National Park, and North Cascades National Park.

While mountain bikers are not supposed to use the Pacific Crest Trail, recently some have been poaching sections in California. While the poaching did not occur in any national park sections, some have concerns that a rule currently pending in the Interior Department could open more national park trails to mountain bikes and, in the process, lead to the following scenario.

In its February issue, the PCT Communicator, the magazine of the Pacific Crest Trail Association, reported on trail damage committed by mountain bikes near the Parks Creek Trailhead in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California.

From Big Bear to the Tehachapi Mountains in southern California, to Donner Summit and the Sierra Buttes north of Lake Tahoe, to Castle Crags and beyond, mountain bikes on the trail are causing damage and creating a number of "PCT Places in Need."

According to the trail association, "under U.S. Government regulation, bikes are prohibited in the PCT. The rationale for the prohibition of bicycles is based on the "nature and purpose" of the PCT, as dictated by the intent of Congress with the National Trails System Act and subsequent regulations designed to protect the experience of the primary users. The Code of Federal Regulations (36 CRF 212) directs that "The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail as defined by the National Trails Systems Act, 82 Stat. 919, shall be administered primarily as a footpath and horseback riding trail."

"Unfortunately, however, U.S. regulations and regulators have not, thus far, been able to fully curb the illegal use of the PCT by mountain bikers," adds the article. "The resulting trail damage and user conflicts can't be taken lightly. To complicate matters, bikes are permitted on many trails that lead to the PCT, resulting in bikers reaching the PCT on such trails and then proceeding along the PCT to pick up another feeder trail. Given land management agency staffing and budget issues, policing and enforcement is sorely lacking."

The article goes on to point out the problems associated with mountain bikes on the Pacific Crest Trail: the trail was not engineered to handle mountain bike traffic, it can be easily and quickly ripped up by bikes riding in wet and muddy conditions, erosion problems can arise.

"I can't stress enough the importance of responsible trail users reporting illegal uses of the PCT," says Ian Nelson, the trail association's regional representative for northern California and southern Oregon. "It is crucial that we hear from concerned users so that we and our agency partners can strategize as to how to curb the illegal use."

Comments

As usual, people are rationalizing their greed and desire not to share our taxpayer funded trails. Greedy hikers...

The irony of it all is that people are arguing over miles and miles of trails that see nary a soul most of the time. It's not like mountain bikers cross your path every 2mns. Most people are too busy staying home on the couch watching TV.

Funny anecdote. On this forum, most of the comments portray the bikers as the evil trail users ("tearing around a corner", "speeding down", etc.). This morning, as I was climbing (because we need to go up to come back down) a local park in the SF bay area, I saw a hiker climbing the hill off trail. Apparently, going up the trail was not thrilling enough for him, so he apparently decided to blaze his own trail. Not the first time I've seen this kind of behavior either. I wonder what the park lovers on this site think of this. :)


Zeb, can't argue with you over the behavior of some hikers. I've seen my share of those who try to cut the switchbacks in half.


Olallie, excellent comment. I'm referring to this part of your message:

I do wish that more folks in the MTB fraternity would recognize that some of us hikers treasure the stillness and slow pace of travel that comes with our activity, and we don't enjoy jumping off a narrow mountain trail every time a cyclist comes rushing along. (Believe me, it's not the cyclists who make way for hikers, at least not around here.) The level of alertness that is required on "shared use" trails compromises the very feeling I am out there to experience.

Some mountain bikers do recognize that we run the potential to compromise others' desire for solitude, absence of hypervigilance, and stillness in the wild. There's a lot of dogma on all sides on this emotional issue, and I refuse to be dogmatic. I just read a fine article in the current Skeptical Inquirer magazine on the importance and significance of open-mindedness. The author reinforced my view that being open to criticism, different points of view, and well-reasoned new ideas is vastly important. I know it is to me. I have been condemned often enough by other mountain bikers for departing from the orthodoxy that everything will be fine as long as we ride responsibly, and for embracing the heresy that our mode of travel may impair the qualities you're speaking of, depending on time and place.

That said, though, I favor allowing mountain biking on almost all trails where it has become prohibited simply because of one-size-fits-all government regulations that have proven to be unworkable, unfair, counterproductive (look at all of the Wilderness that was not created in the last 20 years), and conducive to contempt for the law. Just as you say, reasonable people can work out a mechanism that will give mountain bikers access at times and still give you the experiences of slowness, grandness of scale, stillness, and relaxation (i.e., the lack of a need to be alert to an oncoming bicycle) that you want. It can be done and many mountain bikers are prepared to help do it. Frankly, it's what most municipal swimming pools do when they divide the day up into fast-swimming and recreational-swimming hours. It's hardly rocket science.


Anonymous (not verified)
"On March 20th, 2009
There's not enuf rangers to enforce the stupid rule...so do as I do...keep on bikin'!
I've been bikin in national parks on trails for 3 years and have never been caught!"

Interesting attitude. I wonder how you might feel if you found that dirt bikers where cutting trails across a piece of property that you happened to own. Just fair warning, if I see you illegally on a park trail I will tell you so. If I have a camera, be sure that you will be reported. I figure that it's my park you are damaging.


Personally I am against mountain bikes on any trail in designated Wilderness and National Parks.
Here in my neck of the woods, on federal lands only 45% of the trails are machine free, this by being in National Parks and Wildernesses.
In all of the surveys I read the (overwhelmingly) most preferred activity on federal lands is camping/sightseeing and walking/hiking by large percentages.
I despise MTB's corporate industrial lobbyists forcing their commercialism into Our National Parks and Wildernesses, tritely thinking that the $'s they have will give them a guaranteed contract legitimizing their illegitimate abuse.

"We revere the trail for what it does, not for what it is. We honor the volunteer weed-whackers, but not to the point of wishing to "promote" them to professionals; trail work can be a form of privatization, as it most surely is when undertaken by those who do it to facilitate their wreckreation.” ~Harvey Manning~


Random Walker: your argumentation is rather pathetic and illogical. Let me explain why:
- Based on your argumentation, hikers are the majority of park users and therefore should have unrivaled access.
1) horse riders are a very tiny minority of the park users. So, should we kick them out as well?
2) this implies that a majority has a right to discriminate against the minority. Wow. What a modern way of thinking!!
3) the majority of users are not hikers, the overwhelming majority are Sunday strollers. They come in, walk for a couple miles and go back to their cars. By default these people would not be affected much by a bunch of cyclists going out for a 20 miles ride far from the trailhead.

As for for your comment about money. This makes no sense, the Sierra Club, and its ilk, spends way more money on lobbying its "preservationist" agenda than any other industry I know.

The good news: the kids are not hiking, they're riding their bikes. Years from now, we'll be the majority and we'll get access to wilderness whether you like it or not.


man, this is totally flogging a dead horse with the same people commenting the same gripes and no one is giving an inch.

zeb, your comments are as inwardly focused as those "greedy" hikers you talk about. i'd say mtn bikers are just, if not more, greedy than those hikers... as such...

1) discriminated? how!?
there is no federal legislation defining any sort of rights when it comes to recreation, so you mtn bikers aren't being "discriminated" against. look it up... that's why the alta ski area can deny snowboarders on federal property, albeit USFS. so discrimination? on what existing legal grounds?

2) as one myself, mtn bikers only really care about the "flow" of the ride and aren't typically out to enjoy nature or show up to repair trail. i've said it again, i'll say it before, they don't show up to volunteer trail repair days... too busy riding, i guess? you don't ever really see them checking out the spring wildflowers or stopping to admire a rattlesnake...

3) in terms of trail impact?
mtn bikers reek havoc on trails... mind you, not as bad as horses, but they have far greater impact than hikers. especially in mud. AND, the new type of bikers, the downhillers go beyond creating new illegal trails, they even build structures with local materials! scant use or not, zebby, this goes much farther impact wise than hikers... additionally, having created illegal trails (not downhill) while mountain biking in the past, it's just so much easier and such a greater reward to do so on a bike, at least until the trails get ruined and you have to find another adventurous route to create.

4) share the trail?
that's a novel idea, if the bikers would ever slow down, like they are supposed to, and not push the hikers/trail runners/flower sniffers off the trail... not being the fastest of riders i've been damn near pushed off the trail myself from more aggressive (i do have a better word but this is a family site) riders. so share the trail? you mean completely yield it to mt. bikers when they want to pass, right? that or you mean ME FIRST, right? i have a bell on my rig and slow down and often let those on foot pass, but i have plenty of friends who won't and don't. they can, but please. now, you can judge this and come back and say "all of my friends" blah blah blah but honestly you'd be lying if you did. period. it sucks to slow down on your bike and i'd say most people won't for walkers/hikers/etc. admit it. that, or if you disagree, you aren't a solid mountain biker and are a tortoise on your bike, pushing on the uphills and walking the downhills because yer scared.

it's time all trail users realized that they have an impact, but mountain bikers especially. i've been mountain biking for at least 20 years, depending on how pre suspension mountain bikes really qualify in that definition, so it's not like this doesn't come from some sort of rounded perspective. while they are relative newcomers (again, which i am one) they don't see their impact, but in terms of user experience and impact on the trails. maybe because they are moving too fast?


Zeb,

First you condemn the "majority" of hikers, then you proclaim that once bikers are the "majority" they'll call the shots. So are you condemning the mountain bikers of the future? You're starting to sound like one of those "law-abiding" types who picks and chooses which laws they believe is worth following;-)


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.