# IMBA or STC



## Bruce in SoCal (Apr 21, 2013)

I just read the two opinion pieces, so here are my questions:

How many legal trails or miles of legal trail has IMBA opened in Southern California (where I live and ride). Of that, how much is (a) single track, (2) dirt fire road, (3) paved?

How many legal trails or miles of legal trail that was actually slated for closure, has IMBA kept from being closed in Southern California?

How many legal single track trails or miles of legal single track trail has IMBA prevented from being turned into roads in Southern California?

i will withhold further comment until I know the answers.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Zero. Blanket answer.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Both. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

They are one in the same. 

As I stated in one of the opinion pieces, you should not vote for one thing out of spite for another. It's irrational thinking, which is part of the reason we are in this situation in the first place.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

I have a long and complicated reply to this.

Trail Cast ? Rant On Ep 12 ? MBR


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Cotharyus said:


> I have a long and complicated reply to this.
> 
> Trail Cast ? Rant On Ep 12 ? MBR


That was great, thank you.
You made very good points about supporting both sides. Although I believe we need a stronger voice (such as the STC), I may have to renew my IMBA as well.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Shark said:


> That was great, thank you.
> You made very good points about supporting both sides. Although I believe we need a stronger voice (such as the STC), I may have to renew my IMBA as well.


Thank you. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just huffing too many old-tire-air fumes and have it all wrong. But I honestly think the cycling community as a whole needs to come together and consider how and why these decisions get made in our country, and I hope this helps. It's time they quit stealing our trails.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

*Challenges*

*The challenge 1:* For some reason the mountain bike community expects IMBA to be the *One* mountain biking advocacy group but individuals (or small subsets of the mountain bike community) expect IMBA to advocate exactly the way they want.

Example:
Trail Difficulty: Some mountain bikers feel that trails on public land should be accessible by as much of the public as possible. So they don't join IMBA because their local IMBA chapter built an expert level trail. Others don't join IMBA because they feel mountain biking dies a little bit every time an beginner trail is built.

The problem is that if mountain bikers don't join the one mountain bike advocacy group, because IMBA isn't 100% in line with their expectations, then the One Advocacy Group is going to be too weak to be successful.

It is easier for the Sustainable Trails Coalition to make there donors happy, because they are not appealing to mountain bikers as whole. They are appealing to the subset of mountain bikers that want access to Wilderness. (Note this subset of mountain bikers increased significantly with the loss of trails due to the White Cloud's Wilderness).

*Challenge 2:* Chicken or the egg. It seems that many mountain bikers don't want to support IMBA because "IMBA hasn't done anything for them". If every mountain biker joined IMBA, then IMBA would have the funding to put more staff on the ground and be successful in more local places around the country.

*Challenge 3. * *Not fighting hard enough.* In 2014 IMBA's revenue was $4,824,996. Seems like a lot. But Sierra Club's Income was $62,137,742. And at the end of 2014 IMBA had assets of $662,139 while Sierra Club had assets of $89,083,409.

Membership 
IMBA 35,000+ 
Sierra Club 2.4 Million

This is like sending the Freshman football team to play a varsity opponent and complaining the coaching staff isn't winning because they aren't calling aggressive enough plays.

*Challenge 4: Mountain Biker are politically disengaged: * Some of this I blame on our current political system. Kind of hard to get engaged when all your choices are bad. But our opponents are much more engaged. If you look at the numbers at public meetings, you would think 1/2 the population hates mountain biking. While voting is important, what is more impactful, is to be engaged in the election process. How many mountain bikes contact there City Council, State/Federal Legislates, Governor, or Mayoral candidates during the election process?

*Challenge 5: Too much success:* How does a small underfunded politically detached group succeed in getting more trails on the ground. Well the one thing we have done well is to put boots on the ground building trails. But as we build more and more trails it becomes harder and harder to get new riders to volunteer. They have lots of trails to ride and never had to build them. They just expect or assume that the park built them. More and more I hear mountain bikers, who I have never seen at a volunteer day, boast about the volunteerism of mountain bikers.

I have already gone longer than I intended. But advocacy inherently is hard and complicated. The bottom line is that if you want to move the ball forward for mountain biking, then you need to join. I don't care if you join an IMBA or non IMBA advocacy group, but make sure you are counted amount those supporting mountain biking overall. While donating to STC doesn't count as joining (they don't have members, just donors), if access to Wilderness is important to you then donate to them. Just keep in mind that if we gain access to Wilderness at the expense of our advocacy groups, then we will not be in a position to take advantage of the Political win. Then in addition to joining, do what you can to move the ball forward: Dig, fund raise, contact you legislators, get new people into the sport, etc....


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ Great post.


----------



## tjp (Feb 17, 2004)

Repost from a different thread.... 

My opinion: It's foolish not to support both organizations. Reason?

1) STC is fighting for reasonable access to wilderness. It is a fight worth fighting, and worthy of our support, but in no way is it the basket where all or most of our eggs should be put. I think it's great that STC has come around to take up this issue (since this is a fight that will require a massive expenditure of resources and political capital), so...
2) IMBA can put their/our limited resources toward more winnable battles and partnerships without harming existing relationships with this contentious battle, because..
3) IF in 10 years STC wins this battle, IMBA will have in place successful partnerships with USFS etc. to open up appropriate wilderness trails to bikes.

My organization uses our IMBA affiliation to our advantage in discussions with private, county, city and federal partners. The name carries some weight with those partners, like it or not. IMBA does not do anything directly for us in these discussions, because frankly we don't need anything beyond their name and the occasional presence of the rep at a meeting. However, there are larger, long-term federal land use discussions going on in our area, and when I informed our IMBA rep, IMBA was right in the middle of it in a useful way. They have come through for us in the past, big time.

IMO, IMBA does not "do stuff" for you. The reps are spread too thin. They do provide backing support to lend legitimacy to our cause, and they lend legitimacy because of years of work with land managers but y'all still need to do the heavy lifting. It's a good thing. We need IMBA. We need STC. Support them both - every ounce of energy these two organizations, or supporters of these two organizations spend infighting is an ounce of energy that could have been spent on advocacy.

There are more reasons, just want to keep things to a reasonable length.


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ Great post.


Hear, hear, burp!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

In the East Bay nearly 85% of riding is done in the EBRPD near where riders live. (The rest of the time other rides are destinations like Annadel, Skeggs, Tamarancho, Skyline....)

What group effects the trails that you ride most or would like to ride that are now closed to your regular riding? In the East Bay it is the BTCEB.

IMBA does NOTHING for these venues except to show up for photo ops and wring their hands at the problem with scofflaws. They made this decision years ago when they decided that there were no success possible here. Since then they have done the vast bulk of their work out of state with California money.

Are you supporting them?

The BTC are the people who are doing the heavy lifting and their credibility is enhanced when they say that they represent significant numbers of riders (read open space users.) Who got more narrow trails open in Pleasanton Ridge? Who got Crockett Hills developed? Who keeps Joaquin Miller, the most intensely used trails in the area, a great place to ride?

Are you supporting the BTC?

Current discussions re access to EBMUD lands run into figures of 2000+ hikers and equestrians who use the land. The local advocacy group, the BTC, cannot boast such membership numbers. Why not? Yet who is doing the heavy lifting there?

Same goes for representing at the EBRPD. 

Whats up with dat?


----------



## Bruce in SoCal (Apr 21, 2013)

Let me refine my original questions:

How many legal trails or miles of legal trail has any advocacy group opened in Southern California (where I live and ride). Of that, how much is (a) single track, (2) dirt fire road, (3) paved?

How many legal trails or miles of legal trail that was actually slated for closure, has any advocacy group kept from being closed in Southern California?

How many legal single track trails or miles of legal single track trail has any advocacy group prevented from being turned into roads in Southern California?

Digging and maintaining trails is important and an organization that does so deserves support. But what trails have they prevented from being closed and what closed trails have been opened

If Southern California or all of California is a lost cause. I can live with that. But, I want someone to say so and to say that as a result, efforts are being put where there is a chance of success. 

I will defer further comment.


----------



## Kliemann53 (Aug 11, 2009)

Berkeley Mike said:


> In the East Bay nearly 85% of riding is done in the EBRPD near where riders live. (The rest of the time other rides are destinations like Annadel, Skeggs, Tamarancho, Skyline....)
> 
> What group effects the trails that you ride most or would like to ride that are now closed to your regular riding? In the East Bay it is the BTCEB.
> 
> ...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Kliemann53 said:


> Berkeley Mike said:
> 
> 
> > In the East Bay nearly 85% of riding is done in the EBRPD near where riders live. (The rest of the time other rides are destinations like Annadel, Skeggs, Tamarancho, Skyline....)
> ...


----------



## Kliemann53 (Aug 11, 2009)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Kliemann53 said:
> 
> 
> > I am a former President of the Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay. BTCEB is *not* a Chapter of IMBA. It is, however, one of the last remaining original founders of IMBA, the others having folded their tents after years of hard work and lack of support during which IMBA was absent.
> ...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

BTC is an IMBA dues paying member. Keep in mind that it predates IMBA, was a founder of the bike patrol, and led both adult and youth riding programs before IMBA. In addition, the BTC sponsors NorCal High School cycling to the tune of $3000 per year, not the "partnering" spin for support used by IMBA. 

As a further clarification the BTC does not use IMBA, nor its devices, to attract members. Keep in mind that we do support IMBA; we are all in this together. Our jersey says that "we support IMBA" as opposed to being an IMBA-supported group. It is in small letters.

It is just so important to those of us who are really doing the work to get credit for what is done in world where it is so easy for people to give IMBA credit.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

As a NorCal guy, I'm not too stoked on IMBA lately either, but oddly enough, if STC gets anywhere on this Wilderness stuff, I would have no problem with IMBA taking any credit they want, provided they assist in some public or even private capacity. I just don't want to see/read/hear about anymore IMBA reps actively opposing a reasonable effort to make things right. If I wanted to join the Sierra Club, I'd join the Sierra Club.


----------



## Kliemann53 (Aug 11, 2009)

Berkeley Mike said:


> BTC is an IMBA dues paying member. Keep in mind that it predates IMBA, was a founder of the bike patrol, and led both adult and youth riding programs before IMBA. In addition, the BTC sponsors NorCal High School cycling to the tune of $3000 per year, not the "partnering" spin for support used by IMBA.
> 
> As a further clarification the BTC does not use IMBA, nor its devices, to attract members. Keep in mind that we do support IMBA; we are all in this together. Our jersey says that "we support IMBA" as opposed to being an IMBA-supported group. It is in small letters.
> 
> It is just so important to those of us who are really doing the work to get credit for what is done in world where it is so easy for people to give IMBA credit.


Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Kliemann53 said:


> Berkeley Mike said:
> 
> 
> > So what your telling me is they are useing IMBA's name and programs(bike patrol) to attract membership fees but thats not where the money is going? Pretty sure there's laws agianst that.
> ...


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Empty_Beer said:


> As a NorCal guy, I'm not too stoked on IMBA lately either, but oddly enough, if STC gets anywhere on this Wilderness stuff, I would have no problem with IMBA taking any credit they want, provided they assist in some public or even private capacity. I just don't want to see/read/hear about anymore IMBA reps actively opposing a reasonable effort to make things right. If I wanted to join the Sierra Club, I'd join the Sierra Club.


Well said. I could see if IMBA didn't want to get publicly in with STC. Stuff like Ashley's oped (even if not currently on the board, IMBA was mentioned enough that it certainly seemed like their view - and Mark E hasn't disclaimed it) makes me think she's more Sierra Club than mtber.


----------



## Kliemann53 (Aug 11, 2009)

ACree said:


> Kliemann53 said:
> 
> 
> > With all due respect Kleimann, this isn't the first advocacy related related post where your facts have been a touch off. Maybe more reading before posting is in order.
> ...


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Kliemann53 said:


> ACree said:
> 
> 
> > Whats the other one?
> ...


----------



## Kliemann53 (Aug 11, 2009)

ACree said:


> Kliemann53 said:
> 
> 
> > Your choice of source for Wilderness facts comes to mind. There have been others as well but I'm not going to rehash your post history for you.
> ...


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Bruce in SoCal said:


> Let me refine my original questions:
> 
> How many legal trails or miles of legal trail has any advocacy group opened in Southern California (where I live and ride). Of that, how much is (a) single track, (2) dirt fire road, (3) paved?
> 
> ...


Did you ever think about looking for this information yourself?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I thought Kliemann53's comments concerning the BTC a great opportunity for clarification.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Here's a new blog by IMBA's VP of Chapter and Member Services.

-- Mark

https://www.imba.com/blog/supporter/opinions-principles-and-mtb-advocacy

Let me begin by revealing something in the spirit of full disclosure: Although I am on the senior leadership team at IMBA I have contributed financially to both IMBA and the Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC). Why does this matter? Some have suggested that there is an untenable gap between these organizations, or that mountain bikers must choose to only support one or the other. I don't agree with that viewpoint, and here are some truisms that support my view.

One truth I see is that neither IMBA nor the STC (nor any of the other mountain bike advocacy groups) hold an exclusive, golden ticket to protecting mountain biking. Our power lies in our collective voice. Right now, that voice is relatively small and, at times, fragmented. By some estimates, there are about 8 million mountain bikers in the United States. As of last count, approximately 40,000 are active IMBA members and supporters. The non-membership-based STC has raised approximately $89k. Other important voices in the MTB community, such as the New England Mountain Bike Association (NEMBA), are also relatively small groups when viewed in a societal context. Without a sincere effort by all of us to work together and grow our numbers the mountain bike advocacy movement will not win many political battles.

Another truth is that too many mountain bikers sit the sidelines and do nothing to contribute to our potential collective voice. I'm asking anyone and everyone who rides knobby tires to please help change this. IMBA is introducing a multi-year campaign this year to get more mountain bikers active and engaged-measured by the numbers of our members, chapters, affiliate members, volunteers and financial supporters. Although some critics have suggested that IMBA's influence is receding, that is simply not the case. In fact, membership grew by 20 percent in 2015, and I'm confident that trend will continue.

We're pushing for growth because we know that, regardless of the outcome of the bikes in Wilderness debate, or any other issue important to mountain bikers, it will ultimately be the local mountain bike organization (more than likely an IMBA chapter) that will be at the table advocating for the things that are important to mountain bikers. To quote one of my colleagues, "We desperately need more active soldiers (and Marines, I'll add) in our mountain bike advocacy army." No matter what you personally believe about bikes in Wilderness, I'm hopeful that we can all agree we need to get more mountain bikers productively involved. If we resign ourselves to waging a civil war within our own sport via negative social media comments then we'll only have ourselves to blame for our ineffectiveness.

"Every difference of opinion is not a difference in principle."

- Thomas Jefferson

The third truth is that there is great respect at IMBA for STC's courage of its convictions and for helping to get more mountain bikers engaged. Personally, I applaud-even envy-the STC's ability to demand specific actions on the issue of bikes in Wilderness. STC's goals are simply defined: to pass legislation that will open Wilderness and some National Scenic trails to bikes. That's an admirably straightforward mission.

A fourth truth is that IMBA and STC do not share the same governance and mission. An important distinction is that you join IMBA by becoming a member and support the STC by donating to its cause. This difference leads me to some important conclusions:

IMBA incorporated as a nonprofit tax-exempt entity under Internal Revenue Code (IRS) section 501(c)(3). As such, IMBA is subject to some limitations on political activity. IMBA's mission is to create, enhance and preserve great mountain biking experiences. To accomplish such a broad mission, IMBA must balance the competing interests of all its members toward something that serves all its members.
STC incorporated as a nonprofit, tax-exempt entity under IRS Code section 501(c)(4). As such, STC's able to spend all of its donations-which are not tax deductible-on seeking legislative remedies in Congress. The STC's mission-expressed as goals on its website-is narrower in scope than IMBA's. STC serves the segment of the mountain biking community that shares its mission's value proposition.
The fifth, and final, truth I see is that both IMBA and STC respect the Wilderness Act and each other. However, due to differing governances and missions, IMBA and STC have differing approaches when it comes to bikes in Wilderness. IMBA works within the existing legislative playing field while STC works to change the legislative playing field altogether. Regardless of STC's mission success, IMBA Chapters and affiliate members will continue to play a key role in working with Wllderness issues moving forward, which perhaps explains why a large majority of STC's board members are also IMBA members. This difference of approach is not a difference in principle.

In conclusion, I urge all mountain bikers to channel enthusiasm into knowledge by:

Learning more about how we can work within the current law by reviewing IMBA's Land Protection and Wilderness Toolkits
Considering how to possibly change the current law by reviewing STC's website, reading their draft legislation and listening to their strategy podcast
Thinking about the downstream effects if some version of STC's proposed bill were to become law so that we can productively work with all Wilderness interest groups moving forward
Remembering that if some version of STC's bill were to become law it will not change the fact that Wilderness is only enacted by Congress and is therefore inherently political-compromise is embedded in the Wilderness Act's DNA.
Turn social media chatter into action by joining and financially supporting mountain bike advocacy groups. As STC's Ted Stroll explains in his podcast, it's mountain bike advocacy groups that will ultimately be responsible for the implementation of STC's draft bill if it ever becomes law.
A deeper understanding is what is essential for mountain bikers, IMBA, STC and Wilderness to coexist.

- Kevin P. Adams is a retired Marine Mustang and Fortune 500 Executive, as well as the former Trail Boss and Treasurer of IMBA's largest chapter, the Mid-Atlantic Off-Road Enthusiasts. He currently serves as IMBA's Vice President of Chapter and Member Services. The opinions expressed here are his and not necessarily those of IMBA.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

The state and local land managers already have the ability to manage their land uses appropriately. Certainly, they can be urged or persuaded to do so in a certain way, particularly where the Fed is a primary "stakeholder" within their state. I'm just wondering why we are supposed to be beholden to political agendas, when those agendas are not always in the best interest of the community.

I have gotten actively involved, written letters, attended meetings, etc..., but the idea that in order to be heard by anyone I have to pay to be represented by a group that I actually have very little in common with (other than a blanket mission statement) makes me scratch my head a little. It seems these orgs sole purpose is to remove the individual voice completely, in favor of group think. 

Anyway, I will continue to work with people best I can to help to ensure that everyone continues to enjoy fun trails in as many ways as they can imagine, but I feel compelled to persuade more people to move away from being represented by these non-profits, as they are almost always completely self-fullfilling in one way or another, and get directly involved with local advocacy. You will notice that Mark E. is pushing for local advocacy, as long as memberships continue to rise and local advocacy is mobilized through IMBA politics.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

No one is saying that you can't have an individual voice too. But in the sphere of public lands and attendant politics organized groups almost always drown out individual voices. That's just the way things work.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Mark E said:


> No one is saying that you can't have an individual voice too. But in the sphere of public lands and attendant politics organized groups almost always drown out individual voices. That's just the way things work.


I understand that, but why? Is that the way it should be? Does it work? Sorta seems like a lot of people are flying blind, even to the point of giving up most of their influence. I'm saying that the individual voice should be held to the highest standard, at least for the individual. Obviously, they cannot do that unless they are directly involved with the REALITY of the issues that face them and their community, and not beholden to third parties for representation. IMBA and STC are not beholden to the individual, or their clubs for that matter.

FWIW, I'm pretty generous with donations of money (considering I don't make much anyway) when I feel like it could benefit someone more as a gesture than as an expectation for a "return." People should understand that the STC (and others) have compared their donations to "gambling" and "investments." I have a hard time gambling on something that isn't stacked in my favor, and I certainly don't invest in something that I have absolutely no control over. With regard to IMBA, I feel much the same way. I feel our parts as individuals is better served by garnering better partnerships with local groups.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

The more you fragment your voice, the less likely it is that you will be heard. The people in D.C. don't want to be troubled by squeaky wheels, until the wheel actually falls off. Then, they look for people to blame. Usually, that falls on the individual. Funny how that works. 

IMBA/STC simply exist as buffers in this strategy. You should not be fooled by your org charts and mission. IMBA and STC have no other influence outside of bolstering an image of "success."


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

STC is not a "buffer in the strategy" by any means. They have fought long and hard for place at the table. I would suggest that they are a conduit, not a buffer. Send them money.

The Board is made-up of former BTC Board member Ted Stroll who has worked tirelessly and incisively for trails in the SF Bay area for the last 20 years that I have known him. Davey Simon is and extremely dynamic advocate working in one of the roughest areas in the country, Marin County, for many years on State and watershed/Open Space issues. He is responsible for some of the most fun new trails in the area. Jackson Radcliff works in the same area, against the same pressures, but substantially for a political group, Access4Bikes, doing fantastic work in Marin. Jeff Barker and Dr. Jane Ragan are both Norcal denizens from some of the best riding areas we have, long active in trails issues.

Groups like this do the work the BTC cannot do: a less local focus. Further as 501(c)4 group they can do the political and funding work that BTC (or even IMBA), a 501(c)3, cannot do by law.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

To me here in NM, they represent a buffer. Perhaps in California and Colorado they are more direct means to an end. Congrats!


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

*501(c)(3)'s can lobby*



Berkeley Mike said:


> Groups like this do the work the BTC cannot do: a less local focus. Further as 501(c)4 group they can do the political and funding work that BTC (or even IMBA), a 501(c)3, cannot do by law.


Great post, but one correction. It is true that 501(c)(3) orgs are limited in the amount of lobbying that they can do. However, they can make an election (IRC Section 501(h))for their lobbying activities to be measured in quantitative rather than qualitative amounts, which results in a hard dollar limit on lobbying activity. IMBA has made this election. The limit is a % of total expenses. Given IMBA's budget size, there is significant capacity for additional lobbying by IMBA - enough that IMBA could spend more than STC is trying to raise.

Personally I see value in having more than one advocacy org. I think it's a sign of a maturing sport. Just recognize that IMBA is not doing this work by choice.

Excerpt from IMBA's 2013 Form 990 (the most recent available on Guidestar) showing a ceiling of $400K and spend of $11K. Other years shown have higher spending, but never approaching the limitation. The excerpt is page 18 of the pdf file at guidestar.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Interesting detail on non-profits. Thanks.

Multiple groups with different tools make for a full approach.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Multiple groups with different tools make for a full approach.


I agree, and that's how our opponents operate.

I wish that instead of people arguing over which org to give $ to, they'd give more in total, to both.


----------



## jmitchell13 (Nov 20, 2005)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Interesting detail on non-profits. Thanks.
> 
> Multiple groups with different tools make for a full approach.





ACree said:


> I agree, and that's how our opponents operate.
> 
> I wish that instead of people arguing over which org to give $ to, they'd give more in total, to both.


I agree 1000%. Both groups get my money.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

I used to declare that mountain biking was my religion. A friend of mine even came up with a name for it: "Church of the Holy Sprocket." By religion I meant that as an activity it engaged my very being in such a way that the positive energy that I gleaned from it often carried over in my normal, everyday affairs. It is quite literally a win/win for everyone in my immediate circles. 

You guys with your philanthropy have taken my religion to a whole other level! Might as well call it a tithing. 

I hope and pray that one day you figure out that "God" has no use for ducats.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Yes, I'm a seventh day recreationalist myself. A friend of mine has said he'd rather be in the woods on his bike thinking about God than in church thinking about biking. In all seriousness, mtn biking in the backcountry is every bit as important to me as any religion could be, and I view attempts to prevent me from doing so as restricting my ability to worship. Too bad the old Ibis 'church of rotating mass' website isn't up anymore.

Others are starting to think this way too. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/some-turn-to-church-others-to-crossfit.html


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

ACree said:


> Yes, I'm a seventh day recreationalist myself. A friend of mine has said he'd rather be in the woods on his bike thinking about God than in church thinking about biking. In all seriousness, mtn biking in the backcountry is every bit as important to me as any religion could be, and I view attempts to prevent me from doing so as restricting my ability to worship. Too bad the old Ibis 'church of rotating mass' website isn't up anymore.
> 
> Others are starting to think this way too. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/some-turn-to-church-others-to-crossfit.html


You see, that is the problem. In order for religion to work, the connection must always be present. The minute you allow someone to represent you in spirit, you have essentially withdrawn yourself from actively participating in your "beliefs." No one can restrict the act of worshiping. There is no preferred venue, if you are a true believer. 

This is the downfall of many popular religions, today. Too many people wanting to be saved, and never enough money to actually get it done. Ergo, the "extremist."


----------



## jmitchell13 (Nov 20, 2005)

ACree said:


> I agree, and that's how our opponents operate.
> 
> I wish that instead of people arguing over which org to give $ to, they'd give more in total, to both.





Berkeley Mike said:


> Interesting detail on non-profits. Thanks.
> 
> Multiple groups with different tools make for a full approach.


Sierra club has a legal arm and flexes it all the time to block mountain bike access, see the link below. Why is IMBA not doing the same? I truly hate the fact that IMBA is in bed with the sierra club, meanwhile Sierra club uses legal entities to litigate against us on the side... Why wouldn't IMBA embrace STC in the same way?

State sued over Adirondack plan for snowmobile, mountain bike use - The Green Blog


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Lands managers cave pretty quickly when threatened with lawsuits. SC plays that card pretty quickly. I have publicly shamed them for that tactic in meetings.


----------

