# IMBA submits letter to Congress opposing HR1349 and STC



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)




----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

IMB-who?


----------



## dtimms (Apr 28, 2006)

This just sucks. I thought IMBA was going to stay quiet and not take sides?


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

IMBA can KMA. They will never see a dime of my money again.


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

k2rider1964 said:


> IMBA can KMA. They will never see a dime of my money again.


I wrote them to say FU. They have zero presence in New England anyway but this is the last straw. It's too bad, the TCCs we worked with were great people.


----------



## kmj831 (Apr 4, 2014)

So Disappointing. They did not need to say anything, why did they? Likely and attempt to appear relevant by an organization rapidly becoming irrelevant.


----------



## dtimms (Apr 28, 2006)

kmj831 said:


> So Disappointing. They did not need to say anything, why did they? Likely and attempt to appear relevant by an organization rapidly becoming irrelevant.


Over in the Colorado - Front Range forum the suggestion is they struck some kind of deal with the wilderness groups. They tried the deal approach before and got burned. This is going to backfire on them I think. I will never support IMBA. I was really hopefu when Dave W took over but that is gone now.


----------



## smmokan (Oct 4, 2005)

F*ck IMBA. This is just ridiculous.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

radair said:


> I wrote them to say FU.


I did the same. I'm not Specialized but I donated $300-500 every year to various IMBA projects, most recently to the St George area group (Dixie MTB Trails Assoc) for signage.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

They've got caught-up in the Patagonia, REI, fray this week. They're all losing their collective **** over unsettled political dust. Our local org is a chapter and we've been bouncing the idea of stay/leave based more on what they can do for us. It was recently determined to hang in and I was willing to go along with that...for the greater good though membership management is about the only thing that we truly use. Now, after this weeks blow-up? Fuq 'em and feed 'em tOOna fish. I will attempt to best support my local group with involvement as I'm able but no cash that becomes any portion of IMBA. I'm just done with being thrown under the bus.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

Interestingly, this is their 'official position':

https://www.imba.com/resources/land-protection/wilderness-guide/wilderness-stakeholders

Note how they just included like one sentence in their 'STC memo':
https://www.imba.com/joint-statement-imba-and-sustainable-trails-coalition-stc

Good thing I didn't renew this year.


----------



## jmitchell13 (Nov 20, 2005)

Imba had the chance to change the one piece of legislation that MTB opponents use to block us out and they decided to not support it?
I am completely disappointed in IMBA and won't be renewing my membership. 

Instead of renewing your IMBA membership I would encourage all to make a monetary donation to their local chapter. Support the "boots on the ground"...

Even though this is really about the federal wilderness designation, state and local municipalities mimic the same type of designation on their own land management policies. Changing this definition starting at the top could have a massive trickle down effect for years to come. So disappointed...


----------



## D_Man (Jan 7, 2004)

Done with IMBA. Took my annual donation and gave 100% of it to my local group, which supports the STC. Sent IMBA a note to tell them why they lost a long-time member and supporter.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Glad to see the IMBA going the way of the Dodo.


----------



## Joe_Re (Jan 10, 2011)

I stopped supporting IMBA after they "made a deal" with the Sierra Club. They won't have the membership dollars to have a HQ or staff soon enough. At the end, they will represent no one, then they will be broke and say they don't know what happened.


----------



## Porkchop_Power (Jul 30, 2008)

Done. Don't support the Sierra Club, their stance on Wilderness or their acceptance of Emountain bikes on trails.


----------



## LetsBeHonest (Nov 28, 2017)

Want to make an impact? Cancel your IMBA membership and demand a refund for the remainder of your membership. If you simply choose not to renew, the "trickle effect" of people doing this will be strung out over a long time period, up to 11 months, based on your expiration date. That won't have a very big impact unfortunately. A huge, vocal cancellation aka mass exodus will. Just email the Membership Manager at [email protected] with a cc: to [email protected] and [email protected]


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

dtimms said:


> Over in the Colorado - Front Range forum the suggestion is they struck some kind of deal with the wilderness groups. They tried the deal approach before and got burned. This is going to backfire on them I think. I will never support IMBA. I was really hopefu when Dave W took over but that is gone now.


Struck a deal? It's been well established that IMBA is nothing more than a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of Sierra Club. It's nothing but a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

I've always said IMBA was SC's *****, and now we have the proof. How anyone can support these people is beyond me. Hopefully this will be the last nail in the coffin for IMBA, and a _REAL_ MTB advocacy organization without ties to anti-bike groups will take their place.

.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

LetsBeHonest said:


> Want to make an impact? Cancel your IMBA membership and demand a refund for the remainder of your membership. If you simply choose not to renew, the "trickle effect" of people doing this will be strung out over a long time period, up to 11 months, based on your expiration date. That won't have a very big impact unfortunately. A huge, vocal cancellation aka mass exodus will. Just email the Membership Manager at [email protected] with a cc: to [email protected] and [email protected]


This!

Emails sent.

.


----------



## lml427 (May 13, 2008)

A well written response from IMBA worth reading.

https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness


----------



## Trainable (Jun 7, 2017)

lml427 said:


> A well written response from IMBA worth reading.
> 
> https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness


It was pretty wordy and didn't say much more than 'We've been around 30 years and mountain biking has exploded during that time. We value our relationships more than this bill. We think the right way to gain trail access is to change boundaries.' Let me know if I missed something while trying to decipher what they were saying from the sea of words.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Stockholm Syndrome. 

Other conservation organizations (and I consider IMBA as one) fight and sue the USFS all the time and they still have a seat at the table.


----------



## LargeMan (May 20, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> Glad to see the IMBA going the way of the Dodo.


Agree, all the work they did in my area over the last 10 years I oppose. Ruined fantastic trails to 4ft wide sanitized walkways while removing anything that resembled tech. They claim it made more people try the sport, while at the same time creating zero progression or skills which in turn lost riders due to not being challenged.


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

lml427 said:


> A well written response from IMBA worth reading.
> 
> https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness


Well written? Pathetic.....


----------



## kmj831 (Apr 4, 2014)

If I were to summarize their "position paper" it would be as follows;

- We put 30 years into building relationships with land managers and power brokers
- Those relationships have made it possible for us to do what we've done to this point
- We don't want to sacrifice a sacred cow and potentially burn bridges with these relationships
- This bill threatens a sacred cow
- Burning bridges is less effective in the long run in our opinion, so we're picking our battles cautiously. 

Ok, fine. I disagree but understand their point. Where they loose me is when they chose to throw everyone who disagrees with them under the bus, and undermine STC. 

They could have, and should have, just stayed quiet.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

kmj831 said:


> They could have, and should have, just stayed quiet.


Agreed.

Not taking a position is one thing. Actively undermining the STC's efforts are another entirely. Especially after they said they weren't going to support or oppose, then show up at the eleventh hour to throw a fire bomb into the whole process.

I can only hope that now everyone sees them for who and what they really are, and they end up being roundly ignored by the people who ultimately vote on the bill.

.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

The funny part is, if I'm not mistaken, only witnesses are invited to give written testimony during a legislative hearing and there were no invited witnesses other than Stroll... so the IMBA testimony, PCTA testimony, BCHA testimony, Wilderness Society testimony, etc. went in the circular file 

They'll reappear during mark up though.


----------



## smmokan (Oct 4, 2005)

Trainable said:


> It was pretty wordy and didn't say much more than 'We've been around 30 years and mountain biking has exploded during that time. We value our relationships more than this bill. We think the right way to gain trail access is to change boundaries.' Let me know if I missed something while trying to decipher what they were saying from the sea of words.


You missed the part where they repeatedly said "we know mountain bikers don't like this, but we're going to do it anyways because we're IMBA".

I don't get it. And sadly, I don't think IMBA does either. Even if they don't want to support the Wilderness bill, they should at least pretend like they give a ****.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

kmj831 said:


> If I were to summarize their "position paper" it would be as follows;
> 
> - We put 30 years into building relationships with land managers and power brokers
> - Those relationships have made it possible for us to do what we've done to this point
> ...


Apparently it's fine to burn bridges with your membership and other biking advocacy organizations.


----------



## kmj831 (Apr 4, 2014)

Curveball said:


> Apparently it's fine to burn bridges with your membership and other biking advocacy organizations.


Right?

Which is what makes clear where the loyalty is.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I don't quite understand how advocating for Wilderness access would jeopardize relationships with the land management agencies. Do these agencies have a deep-rooted belief that mountain bikes should be excluded from Wilderness?


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

IMBA has more in common with People for Bikes than they do with mountain bikers or the STC.


----------



## Klainmeister (Apr 14, 2012)

None of this makes much sense, that's the whole problem.


----------



## anustart (Jun 3, 2013)

You people need to take a reading comprehension class. It clearly states how IMBA has worked with conservation groups to regain the trails lost to recent wilderness designations and they are working to standardize the meaning of "recommended wilderness" to avoid losing some 500+ miles of threatened trails that they made examples of. So they're approach is more conservative and measured than you would like. That doesn't mean they work against you. They're not willing to risk burning the bridges they've built over the course of their existence. Sounds pragmatic to me. Plus we don't need to create more adversaries for us in our fight to maintain the trails we have. Seems like more riders these days are clueless to trail etiquette. I've been threatened by descending riders for not yielding to them and had others run into me. Take them to a wilderness location and they descend on some backpackers with their 60 lbs of kit and we are going to lose advocates and allies.

Thank you, IMBA!


----------



## anustart (Jun 3, 2013)

Curveball said:


> Do these agencies have a deep-rooted belief that mountain bikes should be excluded from Wilderness?


Yes. Yes, they do. They have for the last 40 years. Keep wild spaces wild.


----------



## anustart (Jun 3, 2013)

So many comments here in knee jerk reaction to what was suggested by the title of the thread and so far off from what was actually said. None of us are entitled to ride where ever we want. There's nothing wrong with reserving land for restricted use and access. Telling them to f off and to kma is childish and shows you have no understanding of the politics needed to help our sport survive the intense backlash that could be there, was there 25 years ago. Grow up, will ya?


----------



## anustart (Jun 3, 2013)

smmokan said:


> You missed the part where they repeatedly said "we know mountain bikers don't like this, but we're going to do it anyways because we're IMBA".
> 
> I don't get it. And sadly, I don't think IMBA does either. Even if they don't want to support the Wilderness bill, they should at least pretend like they give a ****.


You should read the letter again. Not only do they not use the words you quote then as saying, but they give examples of how they have worked to regain lost trails to recent wilderness designation. And are working to protect threatened trails.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Don't feed the troll.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

It's just a bill to give the land managers a choice. They could all say no. IMBA blew it, should have just kept their mouths shut. IMBA is dead to me.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)




----------



## pOrk (Jan 16, 2015)

Maybe it was all a misdirection play? IMBA comes out publicly against the HR, knowing that it would pass anyway. Now their relationships stay in tact and the WA language is changed. 

That's what I would be feeding the rumor mill if I worked there if this HR passes.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

It didn't pass


----------



## Klainmeister (Apr 14, 2012)

Just read the notes from STC. They made it quite far given this was their first attempt, so I commend them. Once again, the equestrians win out (in this case, not the environmentalist). 

Save a Trail. Eat a Horse.


----------



## Klainmeister (Apr 14, 2012)

What a rollercoaster, a second vote occurs: "Chairman McClintock's staff person in charge of H.R. 1349. It's confirmed; it passed 22-18"


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

HAHAHAHAH so how does this impact IMBA now? We didn't want it but it passed so we have the access but won't move on it b/c we don't believe in it? What a mess for them.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

TiGeo said:


> HAHAHAHAH so how does this impact IMBA now? We didn't want it but it passed so we have the access but won't move on it b/c we don't believe in it? What a mess for them.


IMBA is dead.

.


----------



## skiracer88 (Mar 10, 2014)

TiGeo said:


> HAHAHAHAH so how does this impact IMBA now? We didn't want it but it passed so we have the access but won't move on it b/c we don't believe in it? What a mess for them.


It only passed a committee vote. It still
Has to be passed in a full house vote and in the senate. There still is a long way to go.

However, STC has already pushed this far further along than the naysayers were saying they would get to. But, there still is a lot of work to do.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

This is how it's being presented by the Wilderness Society:

House Committee approves dangerous bill that undermines the Wilderness Act | Wilderness.org


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Curveball said:


> This is how it's being presented by the Wilderness Society:
> 
> House Committee approves dangerous bill that undermines the Wilderness Act | Wilderness.org


Jesus, how do these people sleep at night? The gross exaggerations and blatant lies in that piece are sickening. What's sad is that huge numbers of people look to organizations like these for the truth, and this is the propaganda they're fed.

.


----------



## Klainmeister (Apr 14, 2012)

Yep, they are the 'owners' of wilderness, they believe. 

Hopefully, with the hubbub over Bears Ears and Escalante, their membership won't fight this as hard.


----------



## skiracer88 (Mar 10, 2014)

Klainmeister said:


> Yep, they are the 'owners' of wilderness, they believe.
> 
> Hopefully, with the hubbub over Bears Ears and Escalante, their membership won't fight this as hard.


I think they are strategically fighting this in the background without mobilizing their members (likely because their membership would be decided on this issue). They haven't even posted about this on their FB page


----------



## pedaler845 (Jul 18, 2004)

I'm accepting that IMBA's position isnt perfect?

Like all politics, bikes in Wilderness is a long game. Maybe there's room for more than one approach.

The opposition (to bikes) has many organizations. I'd hate to have some short term thinking derail the big picture.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

pedaler845 said:


> I'm accepting that IMBA's position isnt perfect?
> 
> Like all politics, bikes in Wilderness is a long game. Maybe there's room for more than one approach.
> 
> The opposition (to bikes) has many organizations. I'd hate to have some short term thinking derail the big picture.


I don't agree with IMBA's position on Wilderness, but I can accept it. What I can't accept is them trying to actively derail efforts at Wilderness access by opposing the bill.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

IMBA's 1st chapter was in Philadelphia and it's been said that they've been holding thousands of dollars in escrow for the area. I've started a trail advocacy group here and was talking to the former chapter (SEPTR) president about possibly joining IMBA with our group. IMBA isn't needed here, because our scene manages relationships on a park by park basis and by and large, we've got the advocacy covered and I've been deeply ambivalent about the organization. Still, money that we could spread out to trails was tempting, but after this, I have to say, no [email protected] way. While the legislation won't affect my area, it still irritates me that a so-called mountain biking advocacy organization would publicly testify against opening up land on a case by case basis. This makes no sense and shows how completely out of touch they are with their user base.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

And now the groups fighting against bikes in wilderness are using IMBA's statement as part of their argument. Note that Sierra Club didn't comment on the bill.....they didn't have to with their little lap dog doing as they were told. If anyone ever needed proof IMBA is doing Sierra Club's bidding, this is it.



.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

_CJ said:


> Jesus, how do these people sleep at night? The gross exaggerations and blatant lies in that piece are sickening. What's sad is that huge numbers of people look to organizations like these for the truth, and this is the propaganda they're fed.
> 
> .


It struck me as a lot of inflammatory rhetoric with no factual basis.


----------



## LetsBeHonest (Nov 28, 2017)

Petition IMBA to Not Lobby Against Mountain Bikes in Wilderness!
https://www.change.org/p/board-imba...t-lobby-against-mountain-biking-in-wilderness

This petition, started by the New England Mountain Bike Association and the San Diego Mountain Biking Association, demands that the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) cease its opposition to HR 1349, a bill that would allow mountain biking in Wilderness areas on a case-by-case basis. We demand that IMBA retract its public comment opposing HR 1349. IMBA's opposition to this bill is contrary to their stated mission to "enhance and protect great places to ride mountain bikes." We believe that IMBA should be supporting mountain bike access and not lobbying against it.*

We believe that IMBA should be supporting mountain bike access and not lobbying against it. This will be delivered to David Wiens, Executive Director, and the IMBA Board of Directors.

For more info visit*Sustainable Trails Coalition


----------



## LetsBeHonest (Nov 28, 2017)

The Back Country Horsemen of America lobbied heavily against the bill and tried to kill it in the House Natural Resources Committee. Check out their website for their call to action against bikes in Wilderness.


----------



## LetsBeHonest (Nov 28, 2017)

Absolutely!! The mentality in the Forest Service, particularly in Region 1 (ID, MT, ND) is that Wilderness is their #1 goal. Ever talk to a Forest Service Recreation Officer off-record?


----------



## CactusJackSlade (Apr 11, 2006)

lml427 said:


> A well written response from IMBA worth reading.
> 
> https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness


What a joke... it may be "well written" but still just a pacification letter at best.

*My biggest problem with IMBA is not only did they not just stand aside.... they STOOD UP AND OPPOSED IT*. They could have easily just stood aside and let it play out with the others like STC take action.

IMO this is more likely about control - if IMBA does not feel they can control something, oppose it. BAD POSITION TO TAKE.


----------



## CactusJackSlade (Apr 11, 2006)

anustart said:


> Yes. Yes, they do. They have for the last 40 years. Keep wild spaces wild.


...so they can hunt and kill wild game


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

LetsBeHonest said:


> Petition IMBA to Not Lobby Against Mountain Bikes in Wilderness!
> https://www.change.org/p/board-imba...t-lobby-against-mountain-biking-in-wilderness


Up to 4500 signatures already. Going to be hard for IMBA to ignore.

.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

_CJ said:


> Up to 4500 signatures already. Going to be hard for IMBA to ignore.


"We serve our membership. We don't know if any of those signatures are from members." -IMBA


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

Our local group, an IMBA charter, had our monthly board meeting last night. We had a drop in memberships of 10% due to cyclical membership expirations. It will be VERY interesting to see how the following months adjust.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Empty_Beer said:


> "We serve our membership. We don't know if any of those signatures are from members." -IMBA


and what do their members think? Haven't seen any attempt by them to gain a consensus there, but if you look at their facebook page, support of their position seems to be hoovering around 1%.

.


----------



## Klainmeister (Apr 14, 2012)

This is about the worse PR disaster I have seen in a while for an organization the size of IMBA.


----------



## gerryl (Aug 10, 2014)

My local IMBA chapter will be getting a donation vs. my annual IMBA membership dues. Too bad IMBA crashed and burned on this one (the political trail was too technical for their skill level).

Support the petition at 
https://www.change.org/p/board-imba..._campaign=share_petition&utm_term=autopublish


----------



## LetsBeHonest (Nov 28, 2017)

Over 7,300 signatures as of Jan. 14! Not to worry, IMBA and their self-elected board of directors, aka good ol' boys club, will ignore the petition AND mounting membership cancellations AND chapters leaving.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

LetsBeHonest said:


> Over 7,300 signatures as of Jan. 14! Not to worry, IMBA and their self-elected board of directors, aka good ol' boys club, will ignore the petition AND mounting membership cancellations AND chapters leaving.


Yeah, nothing seems to penetrate their echo-chamber. They're all still patting each other on the back, talking about all the "spoiled little children" who can't see the big picture.

Personally, I think the letter the LA chapter sent to IMBA (and copied McClintok on) was pretty damning, and probably largely negated the testimony submitted by IMBA. Hopefully other chapters including the one local to me have the balls to step up and do the same.

.


----------



## injected59 (Aug 14, 2016)

I’m confused and don’t have time to read all this legislation and letters, probably don’t have the brain capacity to understand the true meanings if I did. Can anyone summarize what’s going on in laymen’s terms in a paragraph or so? I am an IMBA member but I don’t want to make any rash decisions based on half you be pissed and the other claiming knee jerk. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

injected59, start here: https://mwba.org/advocacy/mwbas-stance-on-wilderness/

If that is too many words for you, I can't help you.

p.s. Yes we need a healthy IMBA. But whatever happens to IMBA moving forward is their own doing. I understand Trek recently bailed on them (and their $100K + bikes). Sad times for IMBA for sure. All self inflicted by an Executive Board out of touch with its constituents.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

A Board of Directors full of IMBAciles.


----------



## LetsBeHonest (Nov 28, 2017)

Empty_Beer: Yes, we need a healthy, robust and effective national voice for mountain bikers! NOT necessarily IMBA. How do you feel about recreating IMBA vs. forming a new advocacy organization?


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

IMBA has many resources: books and other knowledge; contacts with land managers and other officials and legislators and bike manufacturers and bike users and brand name.

They also have problems articulating what they do and why. And make some strange decisions. One of which being the subject of this thread, the Wilderness issue.

The best outcome is probably for them to survive but do a much better job. I'm surprised no one has posted about their chapter-next (aka imba local) program on this board.

I don't know what you (LetsBeHonest) have against them, but attacking IMBA seems to be the only theme of your posts here. Maybe be honest and explain it?


----------



## LetsBeHonest (Nov 28, 2017)

Attacking vs. truth-telling. Depends on your perspective. And whether you believe that there is a better future for MTB advocacy. How best to get there??


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

IMBA won't change until it gets a new BOD. Until then it's just an industry mouthpiece. The Industry is not our friend either, it preys on us for survival. Hence the current IMBA position. Get rid of the current IMBA BOD, supporting them just makes them more arrogant, sadly.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

CactusJackSlade said:


> What a joke... it may be "well written" but still just a pacification letter at best.
> 
> *My biggest problem with IMBA is not only did they not just stand aside.... they STOOD UP AND OPPOSED IT*. They could have easily just stood aside and let it play out with the others like STC take action.
> 
> IMO this is more likely about control - if IMBA does not feel they can control something, oppose it. BAD POSITION TO TAKE.


What makes it even worse is that IMBA signed an agreement not to interfere with the efforts of STC. This is something that they can't back out of.


----------



## kmj831 (Apr 4, 2014)

CBO report on HR1349

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr1349.pdf


----------



## gerryl (Aug 10, 2014)

It will be interesting how or if HR1349 moves forward. As my IMBA membership is up for renewal, I will send half the $ to IMBA with a letter that mountain bikers need a national organization, but not at the expense of bowing to wilderness advocates (hence why my donation is reduced by half). The other half will go to my local IMBA chapter working to a) get winter access for fat bikes on local trails and b) adding new trails on NF lands here. A new annual donation to STC....purchased a tee shirt to help with HR1349 efforts.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

As president of an imba chapter, I suspect we will break our ties with imba soon. I hear more rumbling every time they stiff us. We don't really get much, if anything, that we actually need or use for local trail building. Most of our income is by direct donations from local and regional supporters who refuse to support middleman organizations of any kind.


----------



## Porkchop_Power (Jul 30, 2008)

This really seems to be the correct summary at this point. The more I look into it the more it seems like their BOD and their budget is overwhelmingly controlled by the big bike companies with local trail groups not getting much of a say. This is why they are supportive of eMTB's which is the one area that bike companies are really trying to push right now. I also wish they would break all support of the Sierra Club.


----------



## Porkchop_Power (Jul 30, 2008)

The two largest local trail groups in Colorado are also moving in that direction. Nothing has officially been communicated yet but from what I am hearing it is likely. These are also probably two of the larger if not largest chapters in the US as well so hopefully it sends a message.


----------



## pedaler845 (Jul 18, 2004)

It sounds here like the tea party mentality wants to displace IMBA with no viable national representation.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

National representation is not necessary.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

We work very closely with our federal reps and senators, as well as local fed land managers, who have a very deep commitment to our area, work, and goals. Mentioning IMBA at this point causes more eye rolls than anything else...


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

Porkchop_Power said:


> The more I look into it the more it seems like their BOD and their budget is overwhelmingly controlled by the big bike companies with local trail groups not getting much of a say. This is why they are supportive of eMTB's which is the one area that bike companies are really trying to push right now. I also wish they would break all support of the Sierra Club.


Back in the late 90's, I attended a national trail symposium in Tucson. I was invited to sit in on the IMBA board meeting that took place there. They seemed proud of the fact that they were also members of the Sierra Club. It made as much sense as telling Jews to be members of the PLO, so they could better understand each other. A couple years later, my wife and I were one of two couples chosen to be interviewed to be IMBA's mobile trail care crew. We did not get chosen and it worked out best because I then began running trail crews locally, designing, building, and maintaining multi-use trails. I never understood IMBA's position when they stated they agreed that 2.5 million acres of land in Utah should be designated wilderness. They somehow felt being cozy with the Sierra Club was a smart political move.

Last night, I attended a board meeting of a local mountain biking organization. We discussed how to move forward with IMBA this coming year. We are reviewing options that were posted by MTBR member, LetsBeHonest. We could use some help making the right decision, if any local groups have suggestions. The article below mentions the following options;

*Chapter Level*: to take advantage of IMBA's IRS Group Exemption and full range of membership services;

*Co-Branded Affiliate Level*: if your organization has its 501(c)3 designation, but wants IMBA to perform its full range of membership services under both entities' names.
*
White-Label Affiliate Label*: to have IMBA perform membership processing services under your organization's name to offset any member loss or opportunity costs while your organization takes on membership acquisition and retention responsibilities.

*Supporting Organization*: if you might want to use Services at some point in time, and since the $200 one-time fee is not applicable to current or former IMBA chapters. Note that you won't incur any cost for IMBA's Services unless you actually use them. Bear in mind that IMBA has not published the cost for these Services yet and you can always change your participation level later if, for instance, it turns out you're a heavy Services user and it's more cost effective to participate at a different IMBA Local engagement level.

_______________________________________________________

If we end our relationship with IMBA entirely, we need to figure out what our choices are. I thank you for any help in this matter.

_______________________________________________________
*
IMBA Local Program: What Mountain Bike Advocacy Organizations Need to Know*

With this new program offering, leaders for existing and former IMBA chapters, member clubs, and organizations unaffiliated with IMBA have a business decision to make in the first half of 2018. Since IMBA Local is a membership management and services offering, the first step in answering this "good deal" question is to evaluate your organization's business requirements. The appropriate IMBA Local engagement level is dependent on the answers to the following four business questions, as well as other questions pertinent to each organization. Read the article:

https://www.singletracks.com/blog/trail-advocacy/new-imba-local-program-mountain-bike-advocacy-organizations-need-know/


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Talk to any other chapters that are affiliated? Seems there are more cons than pros these days.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

pedaler845 said:


> It sounds here like the tea party mentality wants to displace IMBA with no viable national representation.


No representation is better than bad representation, or representation that actively works to undermine the sport.

If/when IMBA folds, it won't take long for a member driven organization to fill the void.

.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

_CJ said:


> No representation is better than bad representation, or representation that actively works to undermine the sport.
> 
> If/when IMBA folds, it won't take long for a member driven organization to fill the void.
> 
> .


Who is going to step up on a national level to fill that void? STC would probably have the credibility to take over, but as of right now they are a one trick pony (by their own admission) focusing on Wilderness access. A national MTB advocacy organization worth anything needs to do a heck of a lot more than that. I think STC has shown some leadership, and has support of a lot of the MTB community, but, the real question is, do they want to be more than what they are now?

If IMBA folded, I think things will move more towards a local/regional model. I know for our chapter, we'll be looking for a stronger voice than just us. If IMBA does fold, I think a lot of former chapters will start to band together regionally, to form something more like NEMBA or Evergreen. But, there are probably a number that will also be fairly inwardly/locally focused that are happy with their local situation if they have plenty of opportunities to build and maintain trails.

If STC's bill doesn't get signed into law, and IMBA folds, then I think we're worse off in the end.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

HacksawReynolds said:


> National representation is not necessary.


I think you'd feel differently if you lived in a state where millions of acres of land were being proposed for Wilderness designation, and your favorite trails were on the chopping block.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

twd953 said:


> I think you'd feel differently if you lived in a state where millions of acres of land were being proposed for Wilderness designation, and your favorite trails were on the chopping block.


Thems the breaks. So glad I live in Maine.🙌🏻


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

twd953 said:


> Who is going to step up on a national level to fill that void?


That remains to be seen. My best guess would be somebody from one of the larger regional organizations, or from the remnants of IMBA's implosion, will put something together. There has been talk of member clubs demanding that IMBA reorganize to be a member driven group, but the chatter I'm seeing form the IMBA elite/insiders indicates they'd rather go down with the ship than fix it.

Overall, I think IMBA as it exists now is doing more harm than good, so even if nobody stepped up to take their place, we'd be better off.

.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

_CJ said:


> That remains to be seen. My best guess would be somebody from one of the larger regional organizations, or from the remnants of IMBA's implosion, will put something together. There has been talk of member clubs demanding that IMBA reorganize to be a member driven group, but the chatter I'm seeing form the IMBA elite/insiders indicates they'd rather go down with the ship than fix it.
> 
> Overall, I think IMBA as it exists now is doing more harm than good, so even if nobody stepped up to take their place, we'd be better off.
> 
> .


Maybe we don't need a big national organization. Local politics and relationships seem to be a lot more important and effective in the long run. Maybe IMBA was a Sierra Club scam from the beginning. I wonder who made the most money off IMBA?


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> This thread inspired me to donate $100 to the STC. It will be interesting if IMBA will ever change their position.


If you look at IMBA's Facebook page, it's not looking good for them. They keep throwing stuff at the wall as a distraction, like "hey look at what great advocates we are all of the sudden!" and nobody cares. There was a period there TONS of people were posting about how pissed off they were, and now it's just dead.

Seems like a good time for more member clubs to pen a letter telling them to retract their statement or lose another club.

.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

Switchblade2 said:


> This thread inspired me to donate $100 to the STC. It will be interesting if IMBA will ever change their position.


Who are the trail groups in Sedona? How large are they? We are looking for ideas on how to best run a mountain biking advocacy group of 160 or so members without using IMBA's services, and have not figured it out yet and need ideas. I don't know much about specifics of obtaining 501c status (?) or if we need to hire a part-time staff person to handle things. I just know the board is looking at the four options IMBA is currently offering and trying to sort it out. If you know someone in Sedona who has created an organization without IMBA, I'd like to speak to them.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

bsieb said:


> Maybe we don't need a big national organization. Local politics and relationships seem to be a lot more important and effective in the long run.


Despite my dislike for IMBA in it's current form/structure, there is a place for a national organization. When you have Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, etc. actively trying to take away our trails on a national level, there needs to be a coordinated national effort against it as well. Even if it's just more of an "association" of local clubs who agree on some basic principles and help each other out. The corporate influence in IMBA is a problem, and I'd love to see it removed in whatever happens going forward. Sponsor/add money from the industry is fine, but sitting on the BOD and making decisions about things is not.

.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Boris Badenov said:


> Who are the trail groups in Sedona? How large are they? We are looking for ideas on how to best run a mountain biking advocacy group of 160 or so members without using IMBA's services, and have not figured it out yet and need ideas. I don't know much about specifics of obtaining 501c status (?) or if we need to hire a part-time staff person to handle things. I just know the board is looking at the four options IMBA is currently offering and trying to sort it out. If you know someone in Sedona who has created an organization without IMBA, I'd like to speak to them.


Not really Sedona, but the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance in Washington is a good-size organization with 501c status that is not affiliated with IMBA. For Evergreen, the decision was made that the benefits offered by IMBA were not worth the cost. It's worked out very well now that IMBA has a much different position on Wilderness than Evergreen.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

Boris Badenov said:


> Who are the trail groups in Sedona? How large are they? We are looking for ideas on how to best run a mountain biking advocacy group of 160 or so members without using IMBA's services, and have not figured it out yet and need ideas. I don't know much about specifics of obtaining 501c status (?) or if we need to hire a part-time staff person to handle things. I just know the board is looking at the four options IMBA is currently offering and trying to sort it out. If you know someone in Sedona who has created an organization without IMBA, I'd like to speak to them.


This is going off topic for this thread--I suggest posting in the 'IMBA Local' thread: http://forums.mtbr.com/trail-buildi...advocacy-organizations-need-know-1066983.html . Not only does the article in the first post address your questions, the author is a local you should contact. (The author of the article. I have no idea who the poster is.)


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

Boris Badenov said:


> Who are the trail groups in Sedona? How large are they? We are looking for ideas on how to best run a mountain biking advocacy group of 160 or so members without using IMBA's services, and have not figured it out yet and need ideas. I don't know much about specifics of obtaining 501c status (?) or if we need to hire a part-time staff person to handle things. I just know the board is looking at the four options IMBA is currently offering and trying to sort it out. If you know someone in Sedona who has created an organization without IMBA, I'd like to speak to them.


It's easy. First, find a local firm that does accounting for business and non-profits. That would be just about any CPA firm. The paperwork to do 501C3 status is easy when you have someone that does it regularly like any of the firms I suggested above. It's worth paying a bit of money to get set up correctly right from the get go and possibly retain those services, as needed, as you grow your organization, independant of a group's Treasurer (unless your Treasurer is a CPA by chance). IMBA will not help you with your own non-profit status. Part of their charter agreement is that you ride their coat tails on their non-profit status. This works for the Feds but you need to file with the State as well and this is where non-profits often get in trouble as they fail to do that and end up upside down with the state's tax laws. Do it right from the beginning and you're golden.

The other thing IMBA does is deal with the membership mailings and tracking with your org. This is where they skim and skim big, IMO. In this day and age of easy-peazy software and mailing programs, there is no reason an org with a person with just a bit of computer savvy can do the same. Beyond that, if there's something you absolutely need IMBA's involvement, it's pay to play just like it is for charters.


----------



## LetsBeHonest (Nov 28, 2017)

Boris Badenov said:


> Who are the trail groups in Sedona? How large are they? We are looking for ideas on how to best run a mountain biking advocacy group of 160 or so members without using IMBA's services, and have not figured it out yet and need ideas. I don't know much about specifics of obtaining 501c status (?) or if we need to hire a part-time staff person to handle things. I just know the board is looking at the four options IMBA is currently offering and trying to sort it out. If you know someone in Sedona who has created an organization without IMBA, I'd like to speak to them.


Check out the Verde Valley Cycling Coalition's website at https://www.vvcc.us/. Click on About Us, then About and you will get a contact box to click. PM me if you have any trouble. They used to be an IMBA chapter, then proclaimed their independence and are being managed very well.


----------

