Forest Service Issues Decision on Continental Divide Trail

[mnmtb]

Yipeeee


After delaying its decision for more than a year, the U.S. Forest Service unveiled its approach to managing the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) this fall. The plan states that mountain biking is an acceptable use of the trail, and emphasizes that forest service offices should formulate strategies appropriate for their districts.

http://imba.com/news/news_releases/11_09/11_19_USFS_CDT_decision.html

[sherpaxc]

VERY  COOL!

Now we need someone to map the legal sections (ALA Adventure Cycling and the GDMBR). 

[Marshal]

Well I guess it’s better than the alternative, but this Forest Service decision sets a potentially nasty precedent in that it makes mountain bikers permanent 2nd class citizens in our own forest. 

[Chad B]

Sweet....anyone want to ride it this summer? I have to months to kill.

VERY  COOL!

Now we need someone to map the legal sections (ALA Adventure Cycling and the GDMBR). 

Hmmmmmm......Scott and I have tossed around this for next summer. I figure two months would be enough.

[ScottM]

I was happy to see they aren't recommending wholesale closure of the CDT to bikes.

And, a true "divide" bikepacking trip (or race) has yet to be done.  2 months might not be enough, even at a pretty aggressive tour pace...

[Chad B]

And, a true "divide" bikepacking trip (or race) has yet to be done.  2 months might not be enough, even at a pretty aggressive tour pace...

Don't worry, I will push us along.

[dream4est]

Sweet....anyone want to ride it this summer? 

I would be down for some kind of ride/race/whatever. Is north to south the direction you are planning to take? All the legal singletrack plus wilderness detours? If so it I have been thinking about it for at least a year now. July 1st was my idea of a start date for north to south.

It would be nice to have someone/ a group come up with a route with detour description like the CTR.

Mark C.

[stevage]

>The directive charges the local land managers with making the decision on which uses will be allowed based on an analysis of the local conditions.

This obviously doesn't concern me, but I note that when decisions like that are made locally, they're usually based on prejudice rather than information about actual impacts of mountain biking. Haven't studies shown that mountain biking does less damage than walking, and far less than horses?

>However, it also states that hiking and equestrian uses are the original intention for creating the trail, so mountain bikers are going to have to continue making a case for shared-use arrangements that allow citizens to get the maximum recreation value out of this wonderful national resource.

Here, we have a trail (the "Great Dividing Trail" - not to be confused!) that was created 10 or so years ago for hikers. Mountain bikers started progressively using it even though it wasn't designed for it. At the last survey, mountain bikers significantly outnumbered hikers, so they've started focusing more on facilities for bikes, recognising the tourism dollar value.

(Of course, it may be the exception - that trail is not remote at all, and not scenic - its main interest is historical ruins. And it has just the kind of terrain that appeals to bikers, with lots of undulating singletrack. So if ever there was going to be a trail more popular with cyclists than hikers, it would be that sort of thing...)

See http://gdt.org.au/ (note the "GDTmtb" link at top)

[ericfoltz]

I wonder if this will set a precedent for all the NSTs such as Pacific Crest, Appalachia, etc... in non-wilderness and National Park areas?

[AZTtripper]

I wouldn't count on it at least not on the PCT or the AT. I recall hearing that the Sierra Club and equestrian groups made sure from the start that we were banned on the PCT. It would be sweet though "the perfect cycling trail" the PCT was built on low grades and would be very rideable or so I have heard. I can't see any of the AT organizations going for it, sounds like there would be lots of hiking ups might be fun on the downs though.

We already have some riding in National Parks, though only two in AZ that I know of, Saguaro East here in Tucson has a little bit 3 miles and I hear they are talking about more. And bikes are allowed on the AZT above the rim in Grand Canyon, it's not much but it's something. The newly signed route to the south rim is cool first it uses the old historic entrance road then a short stretch on the rim trail right on the edge of the canyon. The north starts out good but then they dump us onto utility line road straight and a little boring through the trees, still better then pavement though.      

[bmike-vt]

no way on the AT, and most of it would be unrideable...

[willapajames]

no way on the AT, and most of it would be unrideable...

Absolutely true.  Having hiked the whole thing, very little of it is rideable, especially in the parts that are most interesting (New England).  The AT has been around so long and has such a culture around it, it'll never allow bikes.  I really wish they'd get rid of the horses in some sections (e.g. the Smokies).

[stevage]

Tracks that allow horses but not bikes? That's crazy. It's pretty hard to compete with a horse in terms of environmental and trail destruction.

[willapajames]

Yeah, there's only a few sections where horses are allowed (the Smokies is the only one I can remember, and that was 10 years ago).  It's like walking in a knee deep ditch filled with horse shit.  Wait, it's not like that, that's what it is.  I really never understood why horses are allowed in wilderness areas and bikes aren't.  A thousand pound animal is clearly does more damage than a 30 pound bike...

[daveB]

There are places on the PCT that have suffered similar horse impact.  But because equestrian groups have been so instrumental in the creation and maintenance of large sections of trail, they're not going anywhere.  On the trail south of Mojave there was a considerable area pretty heavily torn up by dirt bikes/motorcycles, and its pretty obvious that a mtb couldn't possibly have contributed one bit.  In any case, the PCTA and partnering fed agencies remain firm in their "no bikes" policy.  I wouldn't plan on that changing any time soon.

[AZTtripper]

Moto's are certainly high on the list of most damaging to the environment IMO.

Equestrians have their shit together as a group you have to give them that. They were way ahead of the game in getting us banned from the PCT even before there were a lot of MTBs on the market.

At least they didn't take away the whole CDT as well. From what I have heard IMBA is not interested in trying to change Wilderness policy, feeling it is better to choose their battles more to save what we have, or gain ground in other areas, rather then spend time trying to gain something that is most likely unattainable any way. Just my .02

[bmike-vt]

[snark]
horses = cowboys and cowboys carry guns = red blooded amerikans
mtb = pansy assed hippies in spandex = socialist commies that want hand outs from the guvmint and to take away my land and my guns
[/snark]


i'm not surprised on the moto damage out west... one of the first things we did when we got to the moon was drive all over it...