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
Ray, that's all fine and dandy, but I don't think that we live in the "world according to Ray Bane". I don't see how your carbon poles, North Face jacket and high end hiking boots are any less mechanized than a bike with 2 wheels. Furthermore, there is no rational justification for the government to decide how we're supposed to enjoy the parks, as long as we don't negatively impact them. Ray likes to stop and smell the flowers. I like to flow while smelling the flowers.
Zebulon -
It's true that everyone won't share the values of Ray, or Zebulon, or ... in terms of "how we're supposed to enjoy the parks." However, I'd suggest that there is a very rational justification for a government role in managing parks and other public outdoor space.
There should be places where users with differing preferences can enjoy parks, national forests, BLM lands, and similar sites - and many of those uses are not compatible. Although many of the mountain biking supporters who have made comments clearly don't accept the idea that their activities detract from the ability of other uses to safely enjoy trails, the point is that the hikers feel differently. I suspect (hope) that at least some mountain bikers would also feel negatively about motorized dirt bikes or 4-wheel drive vehicles using their same trails.
Without oversight by the managing agency, what we'd have on public lands is chaos and destruction of the resource, and even the mountain bikers would have a hard time finding places to enjoy their activity. The difficulty for both the agency and the public lies in finding acceptable compromises among conflicting users. From my perspective, parks can't be all things to all users, and some type of "zoning" of areas for different types of use is necessary. Attempts to accommodate every type of user dilutes the value of the experience for everyone.
In the not so distant past, in very general terms, most national parks were used primarily for more "passive" activities - such as those described by Ray Bane, and the vastly larger number of acres managed by the USFS and BLM were open to more active recreation - such as mountain biking, ATV's, snowmobiles, etc. That seemed to be both fair and workable. Unfortunately, that system is breaking down under the assault of users who insist on their "rights" to engage in their favorite activity. In the end, all users are the losers if that trend continues.
Seriously, Zeb, chill out and quit speaking in ultimatums. And no one ever said anything about North Face jackets and fancy boots. Myself, I prefer a flannel work shirt and shoes I've had for years. It does no good to paint everyone with one stereotypical brush. What if a hiker said you are just someone who blows hundreds of dollars on a bike because you're too lazy to walk?
Ray Bane, your message rings well and clear into my ears. I too, must surrender to the physical elements of old age with a bad back and neck. But, this doesn't stop me from hiking the the beautiful majestic trails of Yosemite National Park or Point Reyes National Seashore. What does disgust me, is the very idea of allowing mountain biking into the national parks. I cannot imagine and seeing something that is so awkward and out of place as mountain biking in the national parks. I do cycle and a lot, but in the most appropriated and designated parks where there is the least minimal harm to the environment. Good in put Ray!!
For the record, Point Reyes has some nice single track that flows really well with no hikers to be found.
Re. carbon poles, I was obviously stereotyping for good reason. I figured that I could use the tactics of the anti cyclists on this board. Apparently, it works just well. :)
I spent way more than a few hundred dollars on my bike, but that's completely irrelevant. I've tried hiking, it just bores me to tears.
Jim, you make some good points, but miss the obvious. If different uses are incompatible, then we can develop an alternate day approach. That way, we get to share the trails, something way fairer than keeping legitimate users out. How would you feel about it? I can guess the answer, but it's always worth asking. As for the chaos and destruction, that is pure conjecture on your part and certainly not supported by actual life experience.
Zeb,
A question about alternate days -- how does that work with backcountry travelers? Say a hiker, or a mountain biker, wants to head off on a multi-day trip. Under an alternate day program, would they have to coordinate so they exit the backcountry on their respective "day"?
Ray Bane mentioned a place where hikers don't compete with mtn bikers. That is called wilderness. Other trails can be used for mtn bikers, so we can all get along. He also talks of walking slowly and quietly. Thank goodness that people like him don't run parks, as I want to be able to make as much noise as I want, particularly in bear country! I also expect to be able to run if i had the ability, and no one is trying to regulate thpose activities yet i hope.
Richard,
How do you keep mountain bikes out of wilderness? There are many front-country trails that lead to wilderness areas, some officially designated, others managed as de facto wilderness and waiting for the day Congress officially designates them as such.
As a few others have mentioned, they don't really care about trail designations and where they're supposed to ride and where they're not supposed to ride. Who will manage/police these situations?