View Full Version : "News" section
Jack Tarlin
07-05-2007, 01:03
When the "Appalachian Trail News Today" section was started, I had two reservations: I didn't like the fact that we couldn't comment on, respond to, or express approval or dis-agreement with the articles in question. Andmany of these articles would have provoked lively and hopefully thoughtful discussions.
And I was also concerned that sooner or later, an article would appear that probably wasn't so great for the website, but since it contained the words "Appalachian Trail" in its title or body, it'd appear anyway.
Well, case in point: Today, I see that we've been presented with an article asking people to get involved with an effort to keep the Continental Divide Trail accessible to mountain bikes.
Um, sorry, but I don't really think Mountain bikes belong on National Scenic Trails. And I don't think that a website devoted to one particular long-distance Trail should post stuff about another Trail that could both damage and degrade that Trail. I think the "Help Save Bike Access!" article is completely inappropriate for Whiteblaze.....what's next, an article urging the introduction or ATV's or snowmobiles to the A.T.? Um, I don't think so.
The "News" section needs to be checked regularly, and I think people should be allowed to post comments on the articles in question. I think it's unfortunate that stuff like this ends up on WB, and it's even more unfortunate that we can't discuss or debate this stuff when it does show up.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Jack you have brought out a very good point and this was also one of my concerns when I started the NEWS section. At the time I started it I was able to check it regularly and weed stuff out of it. Since then I have gotten overwhelmed with other things and I turned it over to someone else giving them moderating privileges to take care of it and weed all the non Appalachian Trail stuff out of it. The problem is that like every other moderator that is willing to volunteer to help us with the site this person either lost interest or stopped logging on to the web site on a regular basis. This is why is stopped getting weeded out.
If anyone else is interested in weeding out the News getting posted in this section please let me know.
Ron Haven
07-05-2007, 03:52
When the "Appalachian Trail News Today" section was started, I had two reservations: I didn't like the fact that we couldn't comment on, respond to, or express approval or dis-agreement with the articles in question. Andmany of these articles would have provoked lively and hopefully thoughtful discussions.
And I was also concerned that sooner or later, an article would appear that probably wasn't so great for the website, but since it contained the words "Appalachian Trail" in its title or body, it'd appear anyway.
Well, case in point: Today, I see that we've been presented with an article asking people to get involved with an effort to keep the Continental Divide Trail accessible to mountain bikes.
Um, sorry, but I don't really think Mountain bikes belong on National Scenic Trails. And I don't think that a website devoted to one particular long-distance Trail should post stuff about another Trail that could both damage and degrade that Trail. I think the "Help Save Bike Access!" article is completely inappropriate for Whiteblaze.....what's next, an article urging the introduction or ATV's or snowmobiles to the A.T.? Um, I don't think so.
The "News" section needs to be checked regularly, and I think people should be allowed to post comments on the articles in question. I think it's unfortunate that stuff like this ends up on WB, and it's even more unfortunate that we can't discuss or debate this stuff when it does show up.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?Hey good luck Jack.Where are you?
Alligator
07-05-2007, 08:00
I don't read every article that goes through the news section. However, I do check in daily and weed out the many duplicate, triplicate, etc. articles that get collected. Just keeping my eyes on those is a chore because often the article title is slightly different. I in fact do delete articles daily as a result of this.
Oftentimes, it's takes a bit of reading to determine the connection to the trail. Many times, it's simply that Joe or Jane Hiker hiked the trail. Now, I could just delete those, but a lot of times these articles are getting read. I prefer to go very light on deleting news as I do not wish to introduce my own biases into what you folks read.
However, I do delete articles that are very unrelated (provided I've read them:)) . For instance, there's a racehorse called Appalachian Trail that frequently pops up and I trash those as soon as I see them.
If there is an article that you feel is totally non AT related, all you have to do is flag it and I can have it gone fairly quickly. Better yet, just PM me and I will see the note immediately. If you flag it I won't see it until I check my email.
If you want to discuss the articles though no one is stopping you:-?. One could just start a thread about it in the appropriate forum, depending on topic
Alternatively, if admin wishes, they can add a subforum, maybe call it "In the news discussion". Posters could then start a thread and link to the post. Of course, it would be best if the thread starter copied in the article for reference, as many times the outside links start to die. I don't think this would violate copyright but it is something to consider. [Idea 2]
Opening up the news threads to immediate posting[Idea 3].
I don't like Idea 3 because it does not slow down the, shall we say, more visceral responses.
Idea 2 is OK IMO, but as the news is often somewhat [I]controversial, it will require moderation. Given the site dynamics, admin typically handles this type of moderation. I'll do it if you like admin, but it's my feeling that admin prefers to make the final calls on heavier moderation.
So if we choose idea 1, members can simply start new threads in the appropriate forums and there is no need to worry about new moderating.
Alligator.
Jack Tarlin
07-05-2007, 08:16
1. Thanx Troll and Gator for the quick resposnses!
2. Ron, I'm in Harpers Ferry, heading up to Duncanon later today to help
TrailAngelMary get ready for our annual hiker event in Duncannon, which'll
start tomorrow. After that, will either be hiking in PA with the Dude and
some other friends, or will be heading up to Mass./Vermont to hike there.
Hope you and your family are well and having a great summer.
Hey Jack, I belive we met when you were through Damascus a while back, over at the Baja. In your post above the comment about "what's next......" sort of lumps bikes in with ATV's, etc. As a mountain biker, I hate to see generalizations like this b/c bikes cause basically the same impacts on trails as do hikers and are human powered. Bikes keep singletrack trail singletrack and only weigh rider plus 30 lbs, versus rider plus 350 lbs for ATV's or motorcycles. I know that trashing bikes was not the point of your post, but I have to speak up in defense of mountain biking.
Agreed - mountain bikes continue to get a bad rap despite the fact that they are a quiet, non-emmisions producing, human powered mode of transportation. And having hiked, backpacked AND mountain biked on several different sections of the CDT I can tell you that everyone gets along just fine. Multi-use trails are much more widely accepted out west, and much of the terrain on the CDT is very well suited for foot and knobby traffic.
There already is a way to restrict mountain bike use in sensitive areas - designate it as Wilderness. However, I have a problem with this since horses cause way more damage than bikes, but they are still allowed in wilderness... but I digress.
Mountain biking is not the gung-ho, tear up the trails sport that it used to be. Groups that I am a member of support conservation, built sustainable trails and educate others on when not to ride (mud season, right after a big rain, etc...), and the importance of sticking to the trail so not as to widen it or erode it. Lighter bikes, smaller tires and overall better education have changed the sport.
Hey Jack, I belive we met when you were through Damascus a while back, over at the Baja. In your post above the comment about "what's next......" sort of lumps bikes in with ATV's, etc. As a mountain biker, I hate to see generalizations like this b/c bikes cause basically the same impacts on trails as do hikers and are human powered. Bikes keep singletrack trail singletrack and only weigh rider plus 30 lbs, versus rider plus 350 lbs for ATV's or motorcycles. I know that trashing bikes was not the point of your post, but I have to speak up in defense of mountain biking.
Apparently you have never been a hiking trail maintainer. Bicycle-riding humans do cause a lot more damage to certain types of trail tread than do hikers alone. While the bike may only add 30 lbs. or so, all that weight of the rider + bike touches the trail in a very concentrated place--where the tires meet the dirt.
A single bicycle ridden on soft trail will cause a rut. This rut expands quickly due to:
1) Successive bicyclists seeing that it has been ridden on, they do likewise, and the rut gets deeper and wider.
2) Rain begins to flow down the rut, causing significant erosion in as short as one season.
Hiker-oriented trail maintaining clubs along the AT (or other trails) spend tens of thousands of hours each year constructing and maintaining trails. It is selfish and inconsiderate for bike riders (or others) to purposely destroy what they have created.
There are trails in many state parks, national forests, etc. that are set aside for bicyclists and other recreational users (those on horseback or on ATVs, for example) to enjoy. While hikers may also walk on some of these, their expectations (re: tread quality and solitude) are not as high, and typically these trails have not been as carefully manicured by hiking club volunteers whose work is undone by mixed use.
I won't quarrel with your assessment that ATVs are harder on hiking trails than bicycles. But bikes and their riders do cause considerable damage.
Jack Tarlin
07-05-2007, 09:29
I respect Casey and Chomp's comments and want to make it clear that I have nothing against Mountain bikes or mountain bike owners. I just don't think they belong on National Scenic Trails. And as for Chomp's comment suggesting that bike use be restricted in sensitive areas, I couldn't agree more.....I just happen to think the whole A.T. is "sensitive" as it is ALWAYS under some sort of threat. And maybe things are different as far as the far west, with everyone getting along. But I've had several encounters with mountain bikes and their riders on the A.T. and they were dickheads. I also dispute that bikes and bikers don't damage or threaten trails; I believe they have a negative impact on plant ond animal life, and most of all, they are intrusive when they appear on backcountry FOOTPATHS. There is certainly a time and place for Mountain biking, but I personally don't think that National Scenic HIKING Trails are the best place for them.
Lastly, in regards to damage to the Trail, negative impact, etc., I think that Trail maintainers would agree with me on this; it'd be very good to hear from them here.
Jack Tarlin
07-05-2007, 09:31
My above post obviously crossed with Skyline's. His comments and perspective are EXACTLY what I was hoping to see.....this is PRECISELY why I don't want to see....or encourage.....more bikes on Trails that were designed and built as FOOT paths. There are more appropriate places for their use.
Mountain biking is not the gung-ho, tear up the trails sport that it used to be. Groups that I am a member of support conservation, built sustainable trails and educate others on when not to ride (mud season, right after a big rain, etc...), and the importance of sticking to the trail so not as to widen it or erode it. Lighter bikes, smaller tires and overall better education have changed the sport.
But it only takes a few of your bike-riding buds to really mess up a beautiful hiking trail. You must know that not all bike riders adhere to the code of ethics you cite. The AT would suffer greatly if bikes (or horses, or ATVs) were permitted on many parts of it. So would a lot of other hiking-only trails, especially the softer parts.
Unfortunately, official enforcement of the "no bikes" rule is spotty at best. When a hiker points at the no-bike signage so as to inform an intruder that he or she should not be there, it is likely to evoke a response involving the middle finger or just be ignored. And the penalty for getting caught is rarely even a slap on the wrist. Maybe the guilty part(ies) should be sentenced to repair the miles of trail he or she just vandalized.
Lone Wolf
07-05-2007, 09:39
The AT is for foot travel only. Period. The Iron Mtn. trail (old AT) north out of Damascus allows motorcycles, bicycles and horses.
Alligator
07-05-2007, 09:43
I think that the article Jack referred to in his initial post was deleted by Attroll, but this article references this subject
http://www.imba.com/news/action_alerts/07_07/07_03_divide_trail.html
I recommend that this topic be moved to the CDT forum considering that was its initial focus, or possibly Trail Concerns if the wish is to address the impact of bicycles on the AT. Probably won't be moved though until ATtroll wakes up, so don't let that dampen your discussion.
As as a trail maintainer, hiker and, to a lesser degree, biker. I couldn't agree more with Skyline. Bikes DO damage hiking trails in many areas.
They also degrade the hiking experience tremendously in popular areas. I have had to jump out of the way numerous times when a biker comes around a bend at a high rate of speed. I have also had to try to stabilize sidehill trail in sandy soil that bikers constantly are churning up. Yes, bikers cause less damage than horses or ATV's, but that doesn't mean that they don't cause more damage, and different types of damage than hikers.
If bikers want national trails, maybe they should organize and build some "bike" trails instead of relying on the bicycle manufactures to lobby for access to the trails that hikers sweat over building and maintaining. There are horse trails here in Michigan that the horse people lobbied for, built, and maintain - more power to them, they should have every right to do that. Same with bikers.
Lone Wolf
07-05-2007, 09:59
I have had to jump out of the way numerous times when a biker comes around a bend at a high rate of speed.
I've had to do that too,quite a few times on the Iron Mtn. trail BUT I chose to be there. I don't want to be dodging them on the AT. Footpath ONLY.
My intention here was not to start a bikes vs. hikers debate but to point out that bikes are much kinder to trails that ATV's, etc. The article referenced is not talking about opening foot trails to bikes, it is about having bikes excluded from a trail on which they are currently allowed. According to the CDNST society's website:
The Society agrees with the American Hiking Society that "the experience of a hiking trail is fundamentally altered by the presence of bicycles and other mechanical conveyances." This is particularly likely to be true in backcountry areas, where bicycles intrude upon a sense of solitude and enjoyment of nature, especially if the tread permits riders to travel at high speed.
So the argument for "tearing up the trails" seems to have been abandoned for "fundamentally altering my experience"
Jack Tarlin
07-05-2007, 10:21
Gee, Case.......a ripped up, rutted-out Trail would sure alter MY Trail experience, as well as altering the Trail.
So I don't think the CDNST's comments can be so quickly ignored or made light of.
The fact that Mountain Bikes do lots less damage than ATV's is not in dispute here, and never was. It's like saying that horses on the Trail would do less damage and have less impact than elephants. It doesn't alter the fact that horses have the potential to do a lot of damage. The fact the bikes have the potential to do great damage....and frequently do so.....is also not something open to dispute,as the comments above from long-time maintainers indicates.
And merely because bikes are "currently allowed " on certain Trails doesn't mean this should stay that way indefinitely. I mean, once upon atime, it was perfectly legal to drink and drive in all 50 states. Then people came to the realization that this probably wasn't such a hot idea, despite the fact that it was an old practice that had existed for years.
Just cuz something is "currently allowed" doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good thing, and certainly doesn't mean that it it is protected forever.
The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Society (who you yourself quoted) evidently feels that the Trail is fundamentally altered.....and not for the better..... by the presence of bicycles on a Trail that was designed as a footpath.
This to me speaks volumes.
To clarify my last post, that last sentence was mine, the font changed when I pasted from the other website & didn't go back when I started typing.
Gee, Case.......a ripped up, rutted-out Trail would sure alter MY Trail experience, as well as altering the Trail.
So I don't think the CDNST's comments can be so quickly ignored or made light of.
The fact that Mountain Bikes do lots less damage than ATV's is not in dispute here, and never was. It's like saying that horses on the Trail would do less damage and have less impact than elephants. It doesn't alter the fact that horses have the potential to do a lot of damage. The fact the bikes have the potential to do great damage....and frequently do so.....is also not something open to dispute,as the comments above from long-time maintainers indicates.
And merely because bikes are "currently allowed " on certain Trails doesn't mean this should stay that way indefinitely. I mean, once upon atime, it was perfectly legal to drink and drive in all 50 states. Then people came to the realization that this probably wasn't such a hot idea, despite the fact that it was an old practice that had existed for years.
Just cuz something is "currently allowed" doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good thing, and certainly doesn't mean that it it is protected forever.
The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Society (who you yourself quoted) evidently feels that the Trail is fundamentally altered.....and not for the better..... by the presence of bicycles on a Trail that was designed as a footpath.
This to me speaks volumes.
The CDNST society exists for the purpose of removing other users from the trail. On the 1st page of their website, there is mention of the fact that they advocate a "silent trail" with a link to their reasoning for getting rid of motorized and mechanized (bikes) travel.
What I read there sounds like it has less to do with trail damage and lots to do with hikers having their solitude briefly interrupted by a biker.
Crap. I only wanted to quote your last paragraph, Jack. 46 post and still a noob.
What I read there sounds like it has less to do with trail damage and lots to do with hikers having their solitude briefly interrupted by a biker.
As I see it that is not a problem. These are both very valid reasons for prohibiting bikes from hiking-only trails. Bikes do cause physical damage, and they do cause degrading of the experience. Just two different, but equally valid, reasons to limit or eliminate conflicting use.
My experience has not been that the interruption is "brief". In popular areas, it can become very frequent, often being "interrupted" numerous times by the same group as they ride back and forth over a particular section of trail.
Lone Wolf
07-05-2007, 10:41
What I read there sounds like it has less to do with trail damage and lots to do with hikers having their solitude briefly interrupted by a biker.
my issue isn't with solitude being interrupted, hardly any on the AT anymore, or damage, cuz there's lots of damage on the AT from Leki poles and sheer numbers of hikers. my issue is being run ito by a biker. so i say y'all can't ride between 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, when i hike.:D
First, there are two trail orgs for the CDT:
The Contintental Divide Trail Alliance (http://www.cdtrail.org/page.php)tends to support multi-use trails (equestrian, hiking and yes, mountain biking). It works closely with the various govt agencies and is the one that is doing much of the heavy lifting now (in many cases literally, as they do much trail work) to get the trail complete. They want to make an "official trail" [1] marked from Canada to Mexcio. Currently the trail is ~70% complete.
The Continental Divide Trail Scociety (http://www.cdtsociety.org/) is Jim Wolfe. His guidebooks are used by almost all thru-hikers...but, the CDTS does not work as closely with the govt agenices anymore. His books are better than the CDTA books and contain many alternate routes that are often better than the "official" trail.
Basically, the CDTA is for trail advocacy. The CDTS is for CDT hiker advocacy.
There are some politics involved, but that is the short hand synopsis.
Now, the mountain biking can of worms.
Most Eastern trails are not mountain biking friendly. Too steep, rocky, rooty.
However, most Western trails are built a bit wider, plenty of switchbacks and tend to be graded nicely. Basically, I don't think mountain bikes have as much an impact on western trails as they would on (most) Eastern trails.
Out West, there is more of a tradition with multiuse trails. As such, there does not seem to be as much an impact.
To be honest, with declining use of the backcountry, to keep mountain bikers out of trails is going to be extremely difficult. The majority of backcountry users are NOT backpackers at this point. Point blank: We don't have the political muscle to keep mountain bikers out of most areas.
Rather than fight the other users, we should concetrate our energies on preseving what is out there.
Do I want to see mountain bikers on the AT? No, I don't. Too old of a trail that would require major overhaul in many parts to accomodate mouintain bikers.
On the Colorado Trail, CDT et al? They are out there already. To exclude them would also exclude people who could be allies. There are not many people into non-motorized recreation. Hunters, mountain bikers, anglers, equestrians and hikers also share a love for the outdoors (in different ways). The division amongst us only hinders everyone's ultimate goal: protecting the outdoors.
I do not mountain bike. But I don't see how excluding potential allies on trails already open to them would help us either.
[1] That's another discussion. A well marked trail helps preserve the corridor. OTOH, the idea of purism on the CDT is laughable, too. It really is more of a corridor. Even if there is an "official" trail from Canada to Mexico, it will always be with an asterik. The "official" trail, for example, avoids the Wind River Range and takes a low-land route in a valley! Still, there is value in officially having something on paper and on the ground.
Mags, as usual you bring a welcome calmness and clarity to these discussions.
It is probably true that some western trails, or at least some parts of some western trails, could more easily accommodate mountain bikes and perhaps horses than much of the AT can.
I would only ask, because I don't know: Who maintains these trails? Volunteer hiker-oriented clubs like those who maintain the AT? Bikers? Equestrians? The government? Some combination? Nobody?
My point would be, after learning the answer, that we should defer to the wishes of those who put the most blood/sweat/tears into creating and maintaining a particular trail or section.
My experience has not been that the interruption is "brief". In popular areas, it can become very frequent, often being "interrupted" numerous times by the same group as they ride back and forth over a particular section of trail.
Yeah, I can see that getting annoying, but it's only going to happen in a popular place close to an urban area. Keep in mind that you also interrupted their ride (assuming legal trail).
Jack Tarlin
07-05-2007, 11:39
Skyline has said a very wise thing.
The people that build, repair,and protect the Trails are the people who are absolutely the best qualified to discuss what is best for them, what potentially threatens them, etc.
It never ceases to amaze me how often one sees comments about what is best for the Trail, or what is bad for the Trail, and then you realize that the people making the statements have done little or nothing as far as actually WORKING on the Trail.
Hats off to these folks (i.e the maintainers). Without their efforts, theTrails wouldn't be there, or would be in such lousy shape we wouldn't want to spend any time on them.
When these peope speak, we all should listen.
My point would be, after learning the answer, that we should defer to the wishes of those who put the most blood/sweat/tears into creating and maintaining a particular trail or section.
That makes sense.
Yeah, I can see that getting annoying, but it's only going to happen in a popular place close to an urban area. Keep in mind that you also interrupted their ride (assuming legal trail).
Nice try, but . . .
It happens fairly often on trails in the George Washington National Forest in Virginia. Most nearby towns look more like Mayberry than Philadelphia, and the forest itself where the trails are located is up in the mountains--not part of some town's trail system.
If hikers interrupt bikers' rides by just being there, perhaps they should slow down so they don't overtake them so suddenly and in some cases, dangerously. Or organize to build a bike-only trail that hikers would be forbidden to walk on.
I would only ask, because I don't know: Who maintains these trails? Volunteer hiker-oriented clubs like those who maintain the AT? Bikers? Equestrians? The government? Some combination? Nobody?
That's a good question. Unlike the AT, there are no maintaining clubs per se. It is an ad hoc mixture.
Rather, various outdoor agencies have projects they work on in what can be best described as a "shock troop" approach. The VOC will often have 150 volunteers in one weekend to do a stretch of trail.
Most of volunteers groups work on mulituse trails. And the volunteers reflect that mix.
The project I did on June 2nd had the tools and timber brought in by pack mule (in part) by a local backcountry equestrian group.
Some limited trail work is also done by the government (AmeriCorps, for example.
Groups I know that have worked on the CDT/CT (200 miles shared with the CDT) include:
The USFS
AmeriCorps
Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado
Wildlands Restoration Volunteers (they usually do habitat restoration, not straight trail work..but very important IMO)
Colorado 14ers Initiative
IMBA (yes..the mountain biking group)
Various backcounry horse groups (usually local ones)
Colorado Trail Foundation
Continental Divide Trail Alliance
..and more I probably don't even know about!
Yes..ad hoc indeed. But, we tend to be less organized out West. ;)
My point would be, after learning the answer, that we should defer to the wishes of those who put the most blood/sweat/tears into creating and maintaining a particular trail or section.
Well the CDTA (and the CTF) does advocate multi-use trails. And they tend to coordinate the trailwork.
I am doing a CDT project on July 20-22nd. It is also Trail Fest weekend (http://www.cdtrail.org/page.php?pname=trailfest). There will be hiking, horseback riding and mountain biking. Good sign (I think) the CDTA advocates mulituse. Notice there is a llama trekking pic on the above link.
As I said, the other groups (VOC, for example) often has local backcountry horse groups carting in the tools.
Finally, FWIW, looks like I am going to be a crew leader next year for the VOC. Guess I am getting really involved with the trail work stuff now. :) Also means I feel a little better about adding my .02 in. ;)
Hey Skyline, I get up your way pretty regular to ride (not as much as when I lived in Roanoke) and the woods seem pretty empty to me. Reddish Knob and Elizibeth Furnace see some traffic but most other stuff is pretty sparse, in my opinion. As for the "interrupting rider's ride's" comment, I was just trying to make a point.....if the trail is open to more than one user group then nobody is interrupting anybody.
spittinpigeon
07-05-2007, 13:05
Some of those links go to busy news sites where finding the AT article is a chore in and of itself. Can we get a direct link from now on plz?
Or organize to build a bike-only trail that hikers would be forbidden to walk on.
In Boulder, one of the popular trails has hiker only days and biker use days. (Hikers can use the trails, they probably don't want to)
Sign of the times, I guess.
Hikers do not want to be worried about bikers. Bikers feel they should have access to trails they helped support via tax dollars.
It is a compromise..but most of life is a compromise.
Jack Tarlin
07-05-2007, 14:02
Helped support with tax dollars?
The fact that one might...repeat might....have "paid" money that eventually helped fund an outdoors area does not necessarily give one the right to help damage that same area.
Alls sorts of people pay "tax dollars", Mags. This does not mean that they have the right to do whatever they wish and engage in whatever behavior they wish in the backcountry, nor does it mean that activity that has been permitted for years is allowedtocontinue in perpetuity.
Paying tax dollars to the state or to the Federal Government doesn't necessarily mean you have any special rights or privileges. It merely means you're obeying the law and paying your taxes....as any other citizen is expected to do.
I pay taxes that help pay for highways and bridges. Does this give me the "right" to damage or destroy them?
Um, I don't think so.
Cyclists have no inherent "right"to ride backcountry Trails, and whether or not they pay their taxes is irrelevant to the discussion.
Cyclists have no inherent "right"to ride backcountry Trails, and whether or not they pay their taxes is irrelevant to the discussion.
Jack, why are you so beilligerent?
I am trying to have a rational discussion looking at the issues in a fair and even handed manner.
Futhermore, in the case of the Boulder Open Space system, we directly voted for a sales tax increase to fund open space land. That includes mountainb bikers.
I think if people directly pay for something, they have the right to use it. Correct?
Also, I almost forgot something. As I said, trails out West tend to be moutain bike friendly as they are constructed so as they can be used by mountain bikes with min. damage. The CDTA tends to agree as well.
AS you said so eloquently "The people that build, repair,and protect the Trails are the people who are absolutely the best qualified to discuss what is best for them, what potentially threatens them, etc."
Since i work on the western trails and you don't..... :)
Jack Tarlin
07-05-2007, 14:14
Nobody's being belligerent, Mags.
All I said was that paying your taxes is an obligation of citizenship.
Fullfillig this obligation, and in the process, making contributions to public facilities or services.....such as Parks, Trails, etc......doesn't grant anyone the right to do these places harm.
Bikes damage Trails. Nobody has any inherent "right" to do this, and it doesn't matter whether they pay their taxes or not.
Bicyclists have no inherent ride to ride on backcountry Trails, and this especially applies to Trail originally planned and designed as foot PATHS.
Why this simple statement of fact seems "belligerent" to you is a mystery to me.
I'm not angry or belligerent towards anyone.....unless,of course, they suggest that they have some sort of "right" to do whatever they please on paths and Trails that in all likelihood, they didn't help create, and don't help maintain.
THAT sort of attitude bothers me.
Jack Tarlin
07-05-2007, 14:15
And my comments obviously don't apply to YOU, Mags. But fact is,an awful lot of cyclists I've encountered seem to think they have the right to ride ANYWHERE they please, and get all pissy and indignant when they're told otherwise. These people do their fellow cycling enthusiasts a great deal of harm.
Nobody's being belligerent, Mags.
:-?
All I said was that paying your taxes is an obligation of citizenship.
Er..Jack, it was a voting issue. People directly voted to incresed their taxes for open space. Was not obligatory.
>>Bikes damage Trails. Nobody has any inherent "right" to do this, and it >>doesn't matter whether they pay their taxes or not.
Again, on WESTERN TRAILS which are designated MULTI-USE the damage is arguable.
>> especially applies to Trail originally planned and designed as foot PATHS.
Hmm? Perhaps you missed what I wrote:
Do I want to see mountain bikers on the AT? No, I don't. Too old of a trail that would require major overhaul in many parts to accomodate mouintain bikers.
So we are in agreement it seems.
>>Why this simple statement of fact seems "belligerent" to you is a mystery >>to me.
:)
>>that they have some sort of "right" to do whatever they please on paths >>and Trails that in all likelihood, they didn't help create, and don't help >>maintain.
Well, as I said, the CDT is multiuse. Horse groups, mtn bikers and hikers all help maintain and created the trail. I am still not sure of your arguement since we seem to be in agreement.
(As a reminder, I don't mountain bike).
all the best.
berninbush
07-05-2007, 14:24
:) Thanks for the logical good sense, Mags.
Since this seems to be shaping up into something of an "East vs. West" controversy, perhaps I should tell about a local situation we've got here in the middle (Texas). The Sam Houston National Forest has hundreds of miles of trails, much of it multi-use (hiking, biking, equestrian, and ATV allowed). But it reserves one trail, the 100+ mile Lone Star Hiking Trail, purely for hikers. We all get to travel through the same forest, but hikers who want an "unspoiled" experience can get it.
Keeping some trails open to multi-use doesn't mean that all trails have to be like that. I suspect that a lot of the passion in this thread comes from folks who worry that this will become a "growing trend" and open trails like the AT to bikes. But it doesn't have to be that way. The woods are big. There's room for both kinds of trails.
Jack Tarlin
07-05-2007, 14:28
Mags:
I'm an Easterner. I happily defer to you when it comes to disscussing affairs in the West. If you tell me the CDT is full of Mountain bikers and horseback riding enthusiasts that help build and repair hiking Trails in their spare time, well I of course believe you.
I wish this were true out in these parts, but it ain't,so when I speak of cyclists and their contributions to National Scenic Trails, I'm talking about what I've seen. Which ain't pretty.
But I acknowledge things may be different out in youre neck of the hills, which is great. This is a Western issue, a CDT issue, and perhaps should remain that way.
Peace and out. I'm done with this one for awhile.
Hey Skyline, I get up your way pretty regular to ride (not as much as when I lived in Roanoke) and the woods seem pretty empty to me. Reddish Knob and Elizibeth Furnace see some traffic but most other stuff is pretty sparse, in my opinion. As for the "interrupting rider's ride's" comment, I was just trying to make a point.....if the trail is open to more than one user group then nobody is interrupting anybody.
The specific places I was thinking of in the Massanutten area of GWNF include Bearwallow Trail (concurrent with Tuscarora mostly), Signal Knob, and others near Elizabeth Furnace. When I hike and/or backpack in that area, I see a lot of bikes being ridden way too fast on narrow trails with lots of curves where hikers are routinely and dangerously descended upon by one, two, three, or up to a dozen-plus cyclists at the same time. Sometimes the same cyclists two or more times.
The thing is, not far away are wide, hardened fire roads and other former mountain roads where bicycles would not be nearly the problem they are on the softer, narrower trails. By voluntarily using these trails to the exclusion of the others they would do less damage, and be less threatening to humans and wildlife they might encounter. Can't cyclists use some common sense here?
I also note the same issues regularly in the Sherando Lake area of GWNF.
I suspect that a lot of the passion in this thread comes from folks who worry that this will become a "growing trend" and open trails like the AT to bikes. But it doesn't have to be that way. The woods are big. There's room for both kinds of trails.
I agree, but tell this to the high-paid ATV/Mountain Bike lobbiests who are pushing for access to all trails. I'd bet (don't know this for a fact) that much more of IMBA's money goes toward lobbying efforts and PR than goes for trail building.
I know that with the trails I'm familiar with here in the Midwest, the IMBA contribution to actual trail building is token, more a talking point for the lobbyists than actual concerted effort to get trail on the ground. They are a very organized, politically savey group mostly about forcing access issues.
Just my opinion, based on first-hand observation.
I agree, but tell this to the high-paid ATV/Mountain Bike lobbiests who are pushing for access to all trails. I'd bet (don't know this for a fact) that much more of IMBA's money goes toward lobbying efforts and PR than goes for trail building.
I know that with the trails I'm familiar with here in the Midwest, the IMBA contribution to actual trail building is token, more a talking point for the lobbyists than actual concerted effort to get trail on the ground. They are a very organized, politically savey group mostly about forcing access issues.
Just my opinion, based on first-hand observation.
Good points. Perhaps someone with connections to various bike organizations can cite some hard figures for us, and provide documentation. How many miles of new trail have biking groups conceived, lobbied for, and built with their own volunteer labor in the past decade? How many miles have they routinely maintained during this same period?
The ATC, local AT maintaining clubs, and stewards of other hiking trails have a proud tradition when it comes to creating and maintaining trails. These volunteer efforts have been chronicled elsewhere on White Blaze, and if I had more time today I'd provide some links. It would be interesting to compare their efforts today and historically with those of the mountain biking organizations.
Mags:
If you tell me the CDT is full of Mountain bikers and horseback riding enthusiasts that help build and repair hiking Trails in their spare time, well I of course believe you.
Seriously, it is amazing how much people pitch in here. I think outdoor recreation is why so many people moved out here there is a very strong sense of stewardship because of that fact. The mountain bikers actually do contruct their own trails (http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/060806/elevation.html)at times. The horse packers tend to well, pack in the tools, etc.
There are conflicts at times, but well, that's human nature.
I really do think ALL the groups needs to work together for the greater good. Too few resources to argue amongst each other.
I wish this were true out in these parts, but it ain't,so when I speak of cyclists and their contributions to National Scenic
No arguement there. I think the (mainly) older traily were designed with foot traffic in mind. Without spending a ton of money and sweat equity, mountain bikes on these trails would be a nightmare.
Shameless plug time: I may be doing hiking related articles once a month for the local paper I linked above. [1] I think I'll do one on trail work next.
I think one thing we agree on is that all people who use the trails should pitch in once in a while.
[1] Ring the Peak! (http://www.boulderweekly.com/elevation.html)
I agree, but tell this to the high-paid ATV/Mountain Bike lobbiests who are pushing for access to all trails..
(How did a person who does not mountain bike get to be a MTB advocate ?!?!? :D)
I would not put ATV and MTBers in the same category. Just a thought.
I know that with the trails I'm familiar with here in the Midwest, the IMBA contribution to actual trail building is token, more a talking point for the lobbyists than actual concerted effort to get trail on the ground.
I can't speak for the mid-west, but outdoor recreation is such a huge reason why people moved out here. I suspect more people do trail work (and restoration work, can't forget about that) because of that reason. Can't forget climbers as well.
I think the portion of people who do trail/restoration work for each group is dissapointingly small over all. Look at thru-hikers.
How many of us grabbed a pulaski, pulled some weeds or bagged some garbage over the past year?
Mags:
I wish this were true out in these parts, but it ain't,so when I speak of cyclists and their contributions to National Scenic Trails, I'm talking about what I've seen. Which ain't pretty.
.
Of course we make no contribution to National Scenic Trails in the east. We're not allowed to use them.
Lyle, you're probably right about where IMBA spends its money, and the article that started this thread is proof that they are spending it wisely b/c bikes are a target for remaval from every trail we ride.
Skyline, I am genuinely sorry that you have been spooked or startled by mountain bikes. Bikes have the ability to seemingly come from nowhere, ......especially to an uphill hiker who is looking at the ground & sweating.... and it is the rider's responsibility to be ready to stop for whatever is around the next turn. Your suggestion to have the bikes stay on fire roads makes sense on the surface but to be perfectly honest roads make for some boring riding.
Mags,
You indicated that the CDT does not have specific maintainers or maintaining organizations (local Chapters) that other trail oragnizations have. What about the Colorado Trail? I thought that this trail did have official maintainers, assigned to various sections.
If my information above is correct, are any of the maintaining organizations mountain biking clubs? horse clubs?
I guess, if I saw that some of these organizations were committing to long-term sweat equity, not just when a vaction comes up and it sounds like a fun thing to do, but month after month being responsible for keeping the trail in good condition, then my opinion may not be so harsh.
This is not the case here in the midwest, or east from what I'm hearing. Most of the long-term committment I've seen from biking clubs is for a bike park, or short, municiple trails. Just wondering are they full, committed partners with long distance trails that can be counted on year after year?
[quote=Mags;377718
I would not put ATV and MTBers in the same category. Just a thought.
[/quote]
My original point.
My original point.
But they are both attempting the same tactics of coopting hiking trails for their use, either legally, or, for the most part, illegally because they know enforcement is so sketchy. In this regard, they are very similar.
Mags,
You indicated that the CDT does not have specific maintainers or maintaining organizations (local Chapters) that other trail oragnizations have. What about the Colorado Trail? I thought that this trail did have official maintainers, assigned to various sections.
If my information above is correct, are any of the maintaining organizations mountain biking clubs? horse clubs?
First, the trail and restoration work is done hand in hand. It is not a HIKER project, or BIKER project or a HORSE project. It is just a project. As I said earlier, most of the time horses bring in the heavy tools and such.
There is not an us. vs them mentality. It is an "We use the outdoors. We want to pitch in" mentality.
As for the CTF, you are think of the Adopt a Trail Program. (http://coloradotrail.org/aat.html)
Not quite the same as the trail maintenance you are familiar with back East.
I am not sure of the breakdown of who does what. I do know I've seen signs along the CT that "THIS SECTION ADOPTED BY BLAH BLAH BLAH group". It has been a mixture of scout groups, horse groups, mtn bikers and private groups. I think all the groups would be surprised to put themselves into just one category. The private and scout groups probably contain people who do all three activities!
Why? Because many people do more than just one past time.
Finally, most of the heavy trail work is done on weekend and two week projects that are based on reports as done by trail adopters (Their primary job. If there is a blowdown, the USFS often does) See http://coloradotrail.org/crews.html (http://coloradotrail.org/crews.htmlAgain...it)
Again its not an US vs. THEM. We all work together. I'd hate to have to lug in timbers on my back. :)
Finally do not disparage the weekend trail crews. Why? Because it is hundreds of volunteers who work on the trails in a year. Very important contribution.
OK, I will follow Jack's lead. I'm through with this topic for now. Eveyone can imagine what I will say from this point on.
I just want to re-iterate. I do bike. I'm currently planning a short tour for later this summer. But I also think that it makes perfect sense to keep some trails for hiking only, since they are the group most affected by other users impact. When in doubt, the trails designated by congress to be foot trails, and that are being built by hikers should have this privilage.
Everyone carry on now :-)
I don't mountain bike much anymore, but I do have several friends that do. They would probably respond that hardened roads and paths are "boring." And I'd have to agree with them. Half the fun of mountain biking was the sensation of speed that riding on a narrow path gives. Riding a MTB on a fire road is about as exciting as riding a stationary bike. Sort of defeats the purpose.
Here in Philadelphia they have designated trails for bikes only in Fairmount park, mainly becasue of the sheer numbers of people that use the trails, both hikers and bikers. Having been on both, I can't see any real difference in trail condition between them.
Just my two cents.:D
Apparently you have never been a hiking trail maintainer. Bicycle-riding humans do cause a lot more damage to certain types of trail tread than do hikers alone. While the bike may only add 30 lbs. or so, all that weight of the rider + bike touches the trail in a very concentrated place--where the tires meet the dirt.
A single bicycle ridden on soft trail will cause a rut. This rut expands quickly due to:
1) Successive bicyclists seeing that it has been ridden on, they do likewise, and the rut gets deeper and wider.
2) Rain begins to flow down the rut, causing significant erosion in as short as one season.
Hiker-oriented trail maintaining clubs along the AT (or other trails) spend tens of thousands of hours each year constructing and maintaining trails. It is selfish and inconsiderate for bike riders (or others) to purposely destroy what they have created.
There are trails in many state parks, national forests, etc. that are set aside for bicyclists and other recreational users (those on horseback or on ATVs, for example) to enjoy. While hikers may also walk on some of these, their expectations (re: tread quality and solitude) are not as high, and typically these trails have not been as carefully manicured by hiking club volunteers whose work is undone by mixed use.
I won't quarrel with your assessment that ATVs are harder on hiking trails than bicycles. But bikes and their riders do cause considerable damage.
All true. Though I haven't noticed mountain bike damage on the AT in Maine -- possibly because i haven't been out as much as I would like during the past few years. But the damage is obvious on our town land trust trails.
Use isn't such as yet that I want to urge prohibition. I believe in human powered endeavers -- especially those that involve introducing young people to the woods. Read "The Last Child in the Woods." I recommend it highly, though my title may be a bit off. My copy is 4,000 miles away at the moment.
But sooner or later our land trust will have to make a decision. A rut is a rut. Too deep they discourage walking, which is the major use of our land trust trails -- and the use that the donors most expect us to protect.
Ah dilemmas. Saving land is difficult. Managing it wisely is even more difficult.
Weary
Jim Adams
07-05-2007, 23:23
I mt bike occassionally. The most trail damage that I 've ever seen was and is caused by horses. I LOVE the AT and I feel sure that most of the whiteblazers that know me realize how true that statement is BUT the only reason that I have thru hiked the AT twice and am planning another thru is because I am not allowed to thru ride it on my dirt bike!
I do not break the wilderness laws or trail standards. I do not ride my mt bike or my dirt bike in illegal areas. I have much respect for the wild areas that I use for recreation BUT do not fight to take away the legal areas that I already have. I don't fight to shut down your hiking trails!
geek
fiddlehead
07-06-2007, 00:08
When i first saw this thread started a day or two ago, i immedietly had some reaction about bikes on the trail but decided not to write them as i really thought it was a forum about the "news" section of whiteblaze. However, now that i see that has turned into a full blown bike vs hike thread, i'll put in my 2 cents about the CDT and bikes:
Jim Wolfe, of course, has the CDT society which is doing it's best to get the trail moved to the most scenic, water supplied routes that go through wilderness areas whenever possible.
He knows that mtn. biking is popluar in CO and would like to see the CDT go where they cannot by law put mtn bikes (wilderness areas) and is working with the park service and national forest agencies all the time to do this.
Bruce Ward and the CDT alliance on the other hand is also working with the park service and national forest agencies to get his trail put where he wants it. And he doesn't want the trail to go through wilderness areas because, he is a biker among other things.
In the first edition of his guidebooks, there was a quote that went something like this for the area around Monarch pass: you may see some groups of mtn bikers passing you on the trail, and IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE FUN, PUT DOWN YOUR PACK AND GO JOIN THEM!" does this sound like a guidebook written by hikers for hikers, or for a multi use trail that may include (and does on many of the most scenic parts of the CDT) ATVs, motorcycles and of course horses.
I don't have any problem with horses. Out west the horse people built many of the original trails> that is why they use more switchbacks out there and easier trails. They have done a lot of work and i have worked with them on the PCT.
But a mtn biker coming up behind me and practically running me over is another thing and i can take it once or twice but when their are hordes of them out there, i want another trail and that's when i prefer cross country hiking.
I liked the CDT when it didn't have trail markers, or even a trail sometimes. But, of course that's changing and Bruce Ward and his CDT Alliance is doing his best to mark it, keep it out of wilderness areas, so he can get his biking and possibly even his ATV friends enjoying it too.
You're right Mags, CO is full of people who mtn bike the outdoors and the extreme ones love to be up there on Hope pass and Parker mtn and those beautiful places that you and I have been enjoying peace and quiet. Well, the ATVers are next and there goes the peace and quiet.
My solution, would be to keep the CDT from becoming a marked trail. And to listen to Jim Wolfe who has been studying this trail for half of his life and wants to put it where the law will not allow those scary things to happen.
Anyway, i waited until others hijacked the thread Dixie before i inserted my thoughts.
berninbush
07-06-2007, 10:35
Jim Wolfe, of course, has the CDT society which is doing it's best to get the trail moved to the most scenic, water supplied routes that go through wilderness areas whenever possible. ... Bruce Ward and the CDT alliance on the other hand is also working with the park service and national forest agencies to get his trail put where he wants it. And he doesn't want the trail to go through wilderness areas because, he is a biker among other things.
I don't know the area, so forgive me if this is a stupid question.
But I can't help but wonder... why on earth not have two parallel trails, one multi-purpose and one hiker only, running through different areas? Wouldn't that make 'most everyone happy?
I don't know the area, so forgive me if this is a stupid question.
But I can't help but wonder... why on earth not have two parallel trails, one multi-purpose and one hiker only, running through different areas? Wouldn't that make 'most everyone happy?
At one time, the AT traversed a lot of roads. Today, not so many. It was mostly moved into the woods. But no one is prevented from still walking on those roads as far as I know. Or for that matter riding a bike on those roads.
If the CDT is moved into Wilderness, the existing trail will presumably still be available for use in many places. Bikers can still use it. Of course they might have to maintain it. And that may be the rub. They would probably prefer to ride on the nice new trail in Wilderness built for foot traffic if they could, but more likely will fight to keep it out of Wilderness so they can ride on it without having maintenance responsibilities.
W However, now that i see that has turned into a full blown bike vs hike thread, i'll put in my 2 cents about the CDT and bikes:
That's what I don't understand. Why does it have to be us VS them?
Perhaps I am naive, but I think backpackers are such a small group (and dedicated outdoor users in general), that hunters, anglers, horsepackers, backpackers, mountain bikers, climbers, etc. should work together and not against each other. The enemy is not us..it is those who wish to strip mine West Virginia for coal, put in more drilling stations in the Basin, relax the rules in National Parks. You get the idea.
Do I want mtn bikes in Wilderness areas? Heck no. Do I want to close trails already open to mountain bikes? No.
It would tick off some people who could otherwise help.
(I don't hunt, fish, mountain bike or ride a horse BTW)
re: ATVs
Again, I politely question putting ATVers and Mountain Bikers in the same category.
re: Making an "official" trail
Well, that's another can of worms. :) As with you, I like the idea of a corridor. But, to protect the corridor, there needs to be wider support for the trail. And in this political climate, you need a wide range of people. By having something concrete (relaitvely speaking), it is easier to protect and support.
40 thru-hikers a year are not going to protect the Basin from development.
re: Thread jacking
Well, it was also about trail work and mtn bikes on trail from the start if you look at the first post. Discussions evolve (unless it is gear discussion..but that gets boring after a while!)
For the most part, this has been an interesting discussion. Again, perhaps I am being naive..but I think there is value in discussing differences of opinion. I learn many different views and consider my own. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
but more likely will fight to keep it out of Wilderness so they can ride on it without having maintenance responsibilities.
Again, why this us vs. them attitude?
I really think we should start thinking ourselves as outdoor users and work together to form a compromise.
Otherwise the real winner in this debate are the Haliburton's, the coal miner's, the people who want to put McDonald's in national park's, etc.
Just my .02.
Finally do not disparage the weekend trail crews. Why? Because it is hundreds of volunteers who work on the trails in a year. Very important contribution.
Ok, just one clarification.
I did not mean to disparage the weekend or "vacation" crews. I have participated in these types of crews all over the country. It is a highly valuable and fun way to see new areas while still accomplishing substantial work. I recommend AHS's "Volunteer Vacations" every chance I get! There are many other opportunities out there too.
Having said that, and the point I meant to make earlier, was that it is a very different level of committment to offer a week's vacation vs. signing on to be the person or organization responsible for a trail or section of trail. This is where I have seen very little activity from the other trail user groups
The exception locally here in Michigan is the "Shore to Shore Hiking/Riding Trail". Conceived, built, maintained by horse people who gladly allow hikers but have a devil of a time keeping ATV's off. The problem for hikers is that it is designed for horses - makes pretty lousy hiking in many ways so it is not a great or highly used asset for hiking, but that is fine.
Ok, back into my hole now...
At one time, the AT traversed a lot of roads. Today, not so many. It was mostly moved into the woods. But no one is prevented from still walking on those roads as far as I know. Or for that matter riding a bike on those roads.
If the CDT is moved into Wilderness, the existing trail will presumably still be available for use in many places. Bikers can still use it. Of course they might have to maintain it. And that may be the rub. They would probably prefer to ride on the nice new trail in Wilderness built for foot traffic if they could, but more likely will fight to keep it out of Wilderness so they can ride on it without having maintenance responsibilities.
If those roads were closed to vehicle traffic and allowed to devolve into trails they would make for great riding. A lot of trails around here are just old degraded log roads. If that nice new trail is in the Wilderness then bikers cannot legally ride it.
Maybe the bikers in Skyline's part of the state need some prodding to get organized and chip in on some of the trails they share w/the hikers. If my understanding is correct, though, alot of the riders up around Massanutten are daytrippers from far NOVA and DC.
berninbush
07-06-2007, 11:41
If the CDT is moved into Wilderness, the existing trail will presumably still be available for use in many places. Bikers can still use it. Of course they might have to maintain it. And that may be the rub.
This is the part I don't understand.
You can't physically move a trail. You can only blaze a new trail and allow an old one to fade away. As long as someone maintains the old trail, it will still be there.
According to what Mags has said, the CDT Alliance currently coordinates maintenance for the CDT, and hikers and bikers and equestrians bear a more or less equal share. If the CDT Society gets their way, they will construct a largely new trail, and drastically reduce the number of willing maintainers (since bikers naturally won't maintain a trail they aren't allowed to use).
If the CDT Society has the clout to build and maintain a hiker-only trail, what's to stop them from going out and blazing one? Then the Alliance can maintain their multi-use trail and the Society can maintain the hiker trail. The only thing left to fight over would be the trail's *name*. And that might not be an inconsiderable concern; after all, the fame of the name is what often attracts maintainers. But surely they could work out some sort of compromise.
warren doyle
07-06-2007, 11:44
Skyline: "At one time, the AT traversed a lot of roads."
What does a lot mean? During the 1970's, I estimate the trail followed less than 150 miles of roads passable by cars. That was roughly 7% of the entire trail at the time. It would be much more objective to say that less than 10% of the AT was on passable roads rather than a lot.
I admire your reasonable, thoughtful posts Mags.
Thank you for all the information on the CDT.
Happy trails to all!
Again, why this us vs. them attitude?
I really think we should start thinking ourselves as outdoor users and work together to form a compromise.
Otherwise the real winner in this debate are the Haliburton's, the coal miner's, the people who want to put McDonald's in national park's, etc.
Just my .02.
An earlier post in this thread spoke to one organization trying to put a trail in official Wilderness (good, I'm thinking)--and another fighting to keep it out of Wilderness solely for the purpose of keeping it open to bikes. My post spoke to the fact that if the official trail WERE moved to Wilderness, the existing trail would still be open to bikes. Sounds like a win-win to me.
But you're right, my tone suggests an anti-bike agenda. You make some good points for losing the tone. But I doubt I'll lose the agenda. At least here in the East, hikers and bikes don't co-exist very well. I'm glad they do out west, and my tone (and possibly the accompanying agenda) might be out of place there.
If those roads were closed to vehicle traffic and allowed to devolve into trails they would make for great riding. A lot of trails around here are just old degraded log roads. If that nice new trail is in the Wilderness then bikers cannot legally ride it.
Maybe the bikers in Skyline's part of the state need some prodding to get organized and chip in on some of the trails they share w/the hikers. If my understanding is correct, though, alot of the riders up around Massanutten are daytrippers from far NOVA and DC.
Well, no, the roads I'm thinking of that coincided with the AT are public roads still open to traffic. Including bicycle traffic. The point is the old "trail" was never closed--bicyclists can still use it.
If the CDT (or any other trail) is re-routed from its existing location to Wilderness, current rules would mean that bicyclists with ethics would not use it. But the former route would presumably still be available so long as it was maintained.
Re: Massanutten--you are correct. The majority of bicyclist users hail from the DC metro area. Same as hikers. Most of the PATC volunteers who adopt trails, shelters, and volunteer for week-long trail crews travel out here to SNP and GWNF to do their work, too. I'm one of the few who actually lives here. :-)
This is the part I don't understand.
You can't physically move a trail. You can only blaze a new trail and allow an old one to fade away. As long as someone maintains the old trail, it will still be there.
According to what Mags has said, the CDT Alliance currently coordinates maintenance for the CDT, and hikers and bikers and equestrians bear a more or less equal share. If the CDT Society gets their way, they will construct a largely new trail, and drastically reduce the number of willing maintainers (since bikers naturally won't maintain a trail they aren't allowed to use).
If the CDT Society has the clout to build and maintain a hiker-only trail, what's to stop them from going out and blazing one? Then the Alliance can maintain their multi-use trail and the Society can maintain the hiker trail. The only thing left to fight over would be the trail's *name*. And that might not be an inconsiderable concern; after all, the fame of the name is what often attracts maintainers. But surely they could work out some sort of compromise.
Perhaps a better term than "move" would be "relocate."
If the CDT Society relocates its trail to official Wilderness and it is foot-only, my guess is that it will be up to hikers to maintain it. Possibly in concert with government partner(s) in some places.
But that leaves the existing trail presumably still able to be navigated. What's to prevent bicyclists and others from taking a bigger chunk of the maintenance responsibilities for the "old" trail?
Nightwalker
07-06-2007, 14:40
Skyline: "At one time, the AT traversed a lot of roads."
What does a lot mean?
I think that it's quite likely he was talking about logging roads. A great deal of the relocations that I'm familiar with moved from old, disused logging road to cut-through-the-woods trail.
Skyline: "At one time, the AT traversed a lot of roads."
What does a lot mean? During the 1970's, I estimate the trail followed less than 150 miles of roads passable by cars. That was roughly 7% of the entire trail at the time. It would be much more objective to say that less than 10% of the AT was on passable roads rather than a lot.
I admire your reasonable, thoughtful posts Mags.
Thank you for all the information on the CDT.
Happy trails to all!
It might be more accurate to say the AT, a generation or more ago, traversed more public roads than it does today.
Almost all those roads are still available to ride bikes on, while the AT has moved many of those miles into the woods where (mostly) bikes are forbidden.
I think that it's quite likely he was talking about logging roads. A great deal of the relocations that I'm familiar with moved from old, disused logging road to cut-through-the-woods trail.
Actually, I was referring to both old logging roads AND public roads which today still carry vehicular traffic. The former could conceivably still carry bicycle traffic if the bikers want to keep them open, and the latter almost certainly can.
I think that it's quite likely he was talking about logging roads. A great deal of the relocations that I'm familiar with moved from old, disused logging road to cut-through-the-woods trail.
That's sort of what I though the CDT was. From there, the idea of 2 trails sounds good: one made for walking and one closed to traffic for bike use and allowed to revert to trail. It does not take long for the woods to reclaim unused parts of (dirt) roads......and then everybody's happy.
---That'll be all from me on this one, my week's vacation starts in about 20 minutes. Where's the beer-drink'n emoticon??:banana
Tha Wookie
07-06-2007, 18:45
Um, sorry, but I don't really think Mountain bikes belong on National Scenic Trails. And I don't think that a website devoted to one particular long-distance Trail should post stuff about another Trail that could both damage and degrade that Trail. I think the "Help Save Bike Access!" article is completely inappropriate for Whiteblaze.....what's next, an article urging the introduction or ATV's or snowmobiles to the A.T.? Um, I don't think so.
I agree for the AT, but not other national scenic trails that were designated thanks in part to bikers and horse riders' lobbying. Most other trails are designated "multi-use", which makes the AT that much more special.
As far as impacts go, there is little science to prove that bikes have more impact than hiking. I did a scientifc study on this very issue and found no significant difference between hiking and biking use in terms of cross-sectional erosion rates. But the study needs replication in other areas. I have noticed first hand intense bike impacts on the Colorado Trail. Wheels have different impacts than feet. They tend to pulverize the trail far more, create small deep ruts, and blow out the elbows of switchbacks. But, many biker groups are very organized about trail maintenance. Yet still, they can be absolutely harrowing to a sublimely peacful hiker when they fly around the corner full speed. I think the most unfortunate thing is that most bikers do not follow proper trail etiquite around hikers, which is to dismount and walk around hikers politely. If bikers actually did that, I bet there would be half the resistance to new access points.
As far as wilderness goes, bikes just don't make any sense. Then again, neither do cell phones, leki poles, hiker shelters, cattle, mining, roads, spandex, or nylon.
Alligator
07-06-2007, 21:07
...
As far as wilderness goes, bikes just don't make any sense. Then again, neither do cell phones, leki poles, hiker shelters, cattle, mining, roads, spandex, or nylon.I'm going to get real fired up if they start banning cattle and spandex:mad:.
Skidsteer
07-06-2007, 21:34
I'm going to get real fired up if they start banning cattle and spandex:mad:.
cattle and spandex, cattle and spandex, cattle and spandex, cattle and spandex....
It's vaguely erotic, no?
fiddlehead
07-06-2007, 21:38
I don't know the area, so forgive me if this is a stupid question.
But I can't help but wonder... why on earth not have two parallel trails, one multi-purpose and one hiker only, running through different areas? Wouldn't that make 'most everyone happy?
There already is! It is called the "Great Divide Mountain Bike Trail"
here's a link to maps and the route: http://www.adventurecycling.com/routes/greatdivide.cfm
When we were hiking in 2002, we ran into a guy who looked like he'd come a long way. Turned out, he was biking an extra 30 miles to get an ice cream. He was doing the whole bike trail. It criss crosses the CDT from time to time but rarely is the same trail. (exceptions are in CO) It is on dirt roads (usually forest service roads) near the divide itself.
IT IS AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED TRAIL, FOR BICYCLES!
So, Yes, BurninBush, i would think this would make everyone happy. BUt apparantly, the bikers still want to be up on the divide trail alongside us hikers. I've had the ***** scared out of me many times by bikers cruising past and also, (and much more serious) I've seen 2 4-wheelers out on top of the divide, about 7 in the evening, totally lost and out of fuel and water. I helped them by showing them my map (they didn't have one) When they left, they spun their tires and completely pulled out a drainage pipe that had been put in to hold back erosion.
I reported them to the next ranger i saw, and when he asked where i saw them, he told me that they had every right to be there as it wasn't a wilderness area.
Sure i wish the bikers would stay on the Great divide mtn bike trail. but they won't. Unless our trail is put into wilderness areas which bikes and motorized vehicles are not allowed in.
Alligator
07-06-2007, 22:01
cattle and spandex, cattle and spandex, cattle and spandex, cattle and spandex....
It's vaguely erotic, no?mooo........mmooooo.....mmmoooOO..MMMOOO.. MOOMOOMOO!
Jim Adams
07-07-2007, 16:53
cattle and spandex, cattle and spandex, cattle and spandex, cattle and spandex....
It's vaguely erotic, no?
sounds like a bad FAR SIDE cartoon!:banana
geek
Skidsteer
07-07-2007, 17:03
mooo........mmooooo.....mmmoooOO..MMMOOO.. MOOMOOMOO!
sounds like a bad FAR SIDE cartoon!:banana
geek
And for afterglow....
Tha Wookie
07-07-2007, 18:08
And for afterglow....
god you guys need to get off the farm every once and a while
;) lol
Nightwalker
07-13-2007, 04:42
god you guys need to get off the farm every once and a while
;) lol
Uh, isn't your place called the Roots Farm or something?
I need to come visit you sometime. You're only about two hours away. There was just too much going on at the Soruck for me to get to do anything but say "howdy."
hopefulhiker
07-13-2007, 07:40
I agree with Jack and LW on this one. Mountain bikes on the trail are one of my pet peeves. In 05 I was hiking somewhere up north when a whole slew of mountain bikes forced me off the trail. I complained and they ignored me. They rutted and tore up the trail. It just wasn't right...