# c'mon IMBA, do the right thing



## feral (Feb 10, 2007)

Open Letter to IMBA about Wilderness, the Sustainable Trails Coalition and e-MTBs | NEMBA


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

From the left coast; I whole-heartily support the content of your letter.

To this I'll comment that IMBA's current Wilderness position "at-a-glance" appears to be just plain "anti-Wilderness" and will be used by anti-biking factions to continue their crusades.

In regards to e-bikes; I feel that these issues are very much related---if "e-bikes" become classified as just "bicycles" there will never be any hope of gaining bicycle access to Wilderness areas.

By all means; please contribute to the STC.


----------



## dan4jeepin (Apr 9, 2007)

I hope IMBA changes it's stance and supports STC. It's clear that IMBAs current policy isn't working and we will continue to lose trails.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

dan4jeepin said:


> I hope IMBA changes it's stance and supports STC. It's clear that IMBAs current policy isn't working and we will continue to lose trails.


One way to send IMBA a message is to stop supporting them.

Not one dime for IMBA or their member clubs until they cut ties with the Sierra Club, and start advocating for mountain bike access in wilderness areas. IMBA can lobby congress 4x as much as STC's budget allows, and still maintain their tax deductible status, they just choose not to. That's a problem. How much money does Sierra Club spend lobbying to take away more and more lands from mountain bikers and other groups?

I sent STC some money this year, and they will get all my bicycle advocacy donations going forward. IMBA is dead to me.

.


----------



## Blackies Pasture (Mar 3, 2015)

I can somewhat relate to ImBA policy of "a little victory is better than no victory", but I cannot support any organization that does not clearly deliniate between E-motorcycles and pedal bikes.

IF IMBA decides to support E-bikes, I will not only stop my families multiple memberships, but will actively campaign Subaru to stop supporting IMBA.

I would, of course, also campaign Trek, Specialized, "Bosch e-bike", National Bicycle Dealers Association......... but these are some of the companies who want IMBA to campaign for "fatpeople bikes" (e-bikes) in the wilderness.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

I've read lots of comments that if IMBA doesn't maintain the separation of bikes and ebikes, people will no longer support them. But IMBA doesn't make bikes. Blackies Pasture brings up an interesting question: Will you ride a normal bike made by a manufacturer who also makes e-Mountain bikes? I mean, if you're totally anti-ebike but you love your (e.g.,) Specialized bicycles, how can you support a company that is building products that will apparently destroy mountain bike access as we know it?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Empty_Beer said:


> I've read lots of comments that if IMBA doesn't maintain the separation of bikes and ebikes, people will no longer support them. But IMBA doesn't make bikes. Blackies Pasture brings up an interesting question: Will you ride a normal bike made by a manufacturer who also makes e-Mountain bikes? I mean, if you're totally anti-ebike but you love your (e.g.,) Specialized bicycles, how can you support a company that is building products that will apparently destroy mountain bike access as we know it?


Uhmmm, no. IMBA's only skin in this game is Mountain Bike advocacy and if they choose to dilute that then they get what ever they deserve. Their complicity with the NAZI's in the Sierra Club have almost rendered them moot as it is, if they choose not to take a line against E-Bikes I'm sure it could be the end of the line for the IMBA.


----------



## jp08865 (Aug 12, 2014)

I agree with everyone above. Having recently become a member of IMBA because of a club membership, it looks like I will not be renewing that club membership next year.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Thus far, IMBA has drawn the line at non-motorized and not wavered: https://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/motorized position-IMBA 2010.pdf

Then they took a closer look at the issue, trying to get in front of it vs. writing it off as "not our problem": https://www.imba.com/resources/2014-summit/electric-mountain-bikes

"Conclusions: There is potential for IMBA to partner with electric mountain bike (eMTB) manufacturers, suppliers and retailers to help guide this emerging category. *An essential principle for this work is that no loss of existing mountain bike access will be acceptable*. We believe that it is critical to proactively develop strategies to address eMTB use as a component of IMBA's ongoing work on public lands in order to avoid potential setbacks for mountain bikes and trail closures."

"To date, no known valid research into the environmental and social impacts of eMTBs has been performed. Research generally into the impacts of motorized and non-motorized users does exist and can provide a basis for developing research protocols. IMBA and the manufacturers of eMTBs will consider ways to encourage this type of data collection and research."

So they did/are doing some research. I think many people are assuming the e-bike research is setting the table for advocating for ebike access on non-motorized trails, although that is all speculation thus far: https://www.imba.com/news/eMTB-early-study-results

From the research fact sheet (emphasis added):

"IMBA has worked very hard to define mountain biking as
non-motorized. IMBA recognizes that eMTBs, particularly
those equipped with Type 1 pedal-assist are substantially
different from other motorized uses, and may warrant a
separate category and new management strategies.
*IMBA does not have an advocacy interest in the eMTB
study, but is leading this study as a respected partner of
land management agencies, to further knowledge about
recreational trails, and to inform future discussions with
members, chapters, land mangers, the bike industry, and
other user groups."*

But doesn't it all come down to money? Specialized and Trek both donated $100K+ to IMBA in 2014

One wonders how much $ those two companies gave to the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association's e-bike initiative fundraising effort... where $230K has already been raised by "bike brands, component suppliers and retailers". Granted, the e-bike industry is more about road transportation than mt. biking.

BPSA's 2016 e-bike initiative nears $320,000 fundraising goal | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News

At some point, there must be a real conflict of interest between major donors and IMBA's stance on eMTB's, right?

p.s. Pretty amazing that the "industry" has invested $230K on ebike legislation but only $2,000 towards Sustainable Trails Coalition's Wilderness legislation (and that $2K is thanks to one bike shop in New Mexico).


----------



## newfangled (Sep 13, 2010)

Not related to this, but my local IMBA affiliate/partner/whatever is trying to "strongly suggest" that riding non-fatbikes on winter singletrack is poor "etiquette". These are public, shared-use trails that people have been riding on year-round for years. (also, this is canada where winter singletrack lasts for 6 months).

I complained to the locals, and they said "It's an IMBA standard" (which it's not) so I complained to IMBA a week ago and haven't heard a peep in response.

So basically, c'mon IMBA, do the right thing. You shouldn't be advocating e-motorcycles, and you certainly shouldn't be banning bicycles.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Check out my new "e-bike"...






.


----------



## drew p (Jan 20, 2012)

jp08865 said:


> I agree with everyone above. Having recently become a member of IMBA because of a club membership, it looks like I will not be renewing that club membership next year.


Support your local club even if it is an IMBA chapter.

I talked a lot with Aaron (public lands guy from IMBA) at our CA regional summit. The boulder white clouds and whole wilderness thing is a lot more complicated than the IMBA haters in here are making it out to be. But internet forum discussions generally are not the realm of nuance. I still think STC trying other avenues is not a bad thing and support what they are trying to do. I am sure it has made some people from the wilderness activist side take notice... My hope is every mountain biker spends more on advocacy than tires each year, but I think that will be a long battle.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

drew p said:


> Support your local club even if it is an IMBA chapter.
> 
> I talked a lot with Aaron (public lands guy from IMBA) at our CA regional summit. The boulder white clouds and whole wilderness thing is a lot more complicated than the IMBA haters in here are making it out to be. But internet forum discussions generally are not the realm of nuance. I still think STC trying other avenues is not a bad thing and support what they are trying to do. I am sure it has made some people from the wilderness activist side take notice... My hope is every mountain biker spends more on advocacy than tires each year, but I think that will be a long battle.


Not only is the whole White cloud thing a lot more complicated with a unusual political backstory than the internet torch and pitchfork posse knows, but it's also my understanding from a couple sources who have first hand knowledge that the actual impact to local mountain biking that the vast majority of people in the area use in miniscule.

That's why you should never jump on interwebz bandwagons without a lot of independent research and independent thought and it's also why a group like IMBA should NEVER set policy via interwebz opinion contests. Honest, reasoned, informed debate is almost always the first casualty.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

_CJ said:


> One way to send IMBA a message is to stop supporting them.
> 
> Not one dime for IMBA or their member clubs until they cut ties with the Sierra Club, and start advocating for mountain bike access in wilderness areas. IMBA can lobby congress 4x as much as STC's budget allows, and still maintain their tax deductible status, they just choose not to. That's a problem. How much money does Sierra Club spend lobbying to take away more and more lands from mountain bikers and other groups?
> 
> ...


Same here. I will no longer be renewing my IMBA membership.

I do donate to STC though, they appear to be ready to fight.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Shark said:


> Same here. I will no longer be renewing my IMBA membership.
> 
> I do donate to STC though, they appear to be ready to fight.


Isn't STC a pretty much one issue group? How much have they done for trails in your area? How much have they helped with trail maintenance, construction, education (something very important to access which threatens MTB trail access on a lot more trails than the wilderness act) and legislation that benefits MTBs that has an actual good chance of passage?


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

zrm said:


> Isn't STC a pretty much one issue group? How much have they done for trails in your area? How much have they helped with trail maintenance, construction, education (something very important to access which threatens MTB trail access on a lot more trails than the wilderness act) and legislation that benefits MTBs that has an actual good chance of passage?


Well, in my area, there is a trail group that did just fine without IMBA for decades. Built and maintained all sorts of trails. Unfortunately, they aligned themselves with IMBA a couple years ago.

The only thing I see IMBA's involvement doing is sucking money away from the club, and getting them to hold hands with groups that want to ban bikes from our trails. Colorado Mountain Club, etc.

We lost a big chunk of trails recently, and IMBA was nowhere to be found. I suspect they supported it because of the environmental claims involved, and because they're friendly with the people responsible for it.

When local club membership starts dropping like flies, they'll drop IMBA, and then people will return. Or, IMBA will be forced to change their position, and people will return.

The fact that IMBA specifically opposes MTB access in wilderness areas is a problem. There's no justifiable reasoning for it, yet they still support people who want us banned strictly out of selfishness and a sense of entitlement. "Wilderness doesn't cover enough land to worry about" is not a valid argument. We have groups pushing for more and more areas to be locked up as wilderness or wilderness study areas.

Just look at what's happening in NC: Hundreds of Miles of the Best MTB Trails in Western North Carolina Are Being Evaluated as Wilderness | Singletracks Mountain Bike News

It's going to be coming to a forest near you soon, and your local club won't be able to do jack. It's time for IMBA to get on board or step aside.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Well, in my area, there is a trail group that did just fine without IMBA for decades. Built and maintained all sorts of trails. Unfortunately, they aligned themselves with IMBA a couple years ago.
> 
> The only thing I see IMBA's involvement doing is sucking money away from the club, and getting them to hold hands with groups that want to ban bikes from our trails. Colorado Mountain Club, etc.
> 
> ...


So what big chunk of trails and why? WHat's the back story and issues?

You give the link to the situation on NC, fair enough. Once again, what is the back story ? Our local club in CO along with IMBA and several other clubs with IMBA in the region have been involved with a local wilderness proposal. We worked with all the parties involved and it took years of hard work, but we worked and came up with some innovative solutions that resulted in a bill that preserves MTB access to pretty much all of the trails that we use. The bill is sponsored by Jared Polis and called the continental divide wilderness and recreation act. Wilderness - U.S. Representative Jared Polis 
It's an example of what MTB groups can do when they work on creative solutions. IMBA did a LOT of the work on this.


----------



## jp08865 (Aug 12, 2014)

_" Support your local club even if it is an IMBA chapter."_
------------
*No thank you.* 
Their is another club in my area that is not affiliated with IMBA that can use my support. 
I'll also support my local trails directly with contributions directly to the builders so I know where it is going, and what their visions are.


----------



## thickfog (Oct 29, 2010)

Always more info than one side shows. http://reviews.mtbr.com/guest-opinion-say-no-to-the-sustainable-trails-coalition


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Beginning of the end?*



thickfog said:


> Always more info than one side shows. Guest Opinion: Say no to the Sustainable Trails Coalition - Mtbr.com


That editorial affirms what I had suspected (feared); not sure I can justify my support of IMBA much longer.

So they saved 50 miles of bike trails from Wilderness and they lost 800 miles to Wilderness? That's an accomplishment???

They don't want to piss off Subaru?


----------



## thickfog (Oct 29, 2010)

pliebenberg said:


> That editorial affirms what I had suspected (feared); not sure I can justify my support of IMBA much longer.
> 
> So they saved 50 miles of bike trails from Wilderness and they lost 800 miles to Wilderness? That's an accomplishment???
> 
> They don't want to piss off Subaru?


More of stc doesn't understand what they are trying to do, or how accomplish it.

Anyone have their written plan with goals, timeline, expected effectiveness/outcome, expected costs?


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

.............................


----------



## thickfog (Oct 29, 2010)

slocaus said:


> Many of your questions are answered on the STC site.
> FIX AMERICA?S TRAIL SYSTEM


Sorry, I've read through it all. Their big solution" We hired a lobbyist. As the guest said, takes way more than that.

This is laughable at best. Congress can fix this? C'mon. Now my stomach is hurting form laughing so hard.

Big, bold stands do nothing. Cheap talk does nothing. Saying what you want without a solid, workable plan does nothing.

These guys sound like Trump.

"Congress can fix these problems, but it needs a nudge and now is the time.

We have located an established government-affairs firm in Washington, D.C., that is willing to take on the challenge and tells us this is the right time to undertake this effort. Congressional leaders with responsibility over America's wildlands will be open to new policies that will repair neglected areas, reduce operational and maintenance costs, and protect the freedom to enjoy public lands in ways that are consistent with environmental preservation."


----------



## dan4jeepin (Apr 9, 2007)

Agreed that opinion article just made me more pissed at IMBA.

"By concentrating IMBA’s efforts closer to where populations exist we brought more trails to more people faster, as opposed to tying up our resources on a few miles of trails in remote areas." -> So a trail isn't important if not enough people use it? What if that was the trail right next to your house you rode everyday? I bet it would be a lot more important to you then. We should look to protect every mile of trail that we can not just the ones near big cities. 

The rest of the article seemed to just say that STC will fail so they shouldn't even try. It also seems to be based on STC wanting to do away with all wilderness areas and even allowing logging and motorized traffic. However if you read they are only trying to get human powered vehicles allowed and only in case by case areas.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Just look at what's happening in NC: Hundreds of Miles of the Best MTB Trails in Western North Carolina Are Being Evaluated as Wilderness | Singletracks Mountain Bike News
> 
> It's going to be coming to a forest near you soon, and your local club won't be able to do jack. It's time for IMBA to get on board or step aside.


Holy ****, that is some of my favorite riding in the damn country! If they turn that area into wilderness (or "proposed"), the local bike shops might as well just close up shop now. Plenty of my friends drive 9+ hours to ride there, heck just this year I flew from ID to IN, then road-tripped down there for a week of riding. It's amazing riding in the Pisgah Forest.


----------



## thickfog (Oct 29, 2010)

slocaus said:


> Did not realize this was bait for a rant.


Yes. Me neither. All these people ranting about quitting their local chapter due to half grown info. Nothing like hurting your own chapter. Should work out really well locally for them.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

thickfog said:


> Sorry, I've read through it all. Their big solution" We hired a lobbyist. As the guest said, takes way more than that.
> 
> This is laughable at best. Congress can fix this? C'mon. Now my stomach is hurting form laughing so hard.
> 
> ...


"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

It seems we're moving along a familiar path here, somewhere in the middle at this point.

It's clear IMBA has gotten the word out. Their stooges are coming out in full force to deflect, discredit, and misdirect. They're masters over at Sierra Club must have told them to get to work....I'm suddenly seeing all sorts of talk about how IMBA is doing this, and doing that, but no real defense of their position to keep bikes out of wilderness, or how they plan to handle the NFS's position of banning bikes from places that might someday (decades from now) become wilderness. All they can say is "get back in line"? Not good enough.

As for that woman's opinion.....she's wrong, and it started on her first point. We DO have a RIGHT to use public lands. It's called the "right to travel", and as citizens of this country we don't need permission slips, or to "earn" somebody's approval for it.

It disgusts me that these pro-IMBA players are environmentalists first, and MTB advocates second....but they keep talking and the picture gets more and more clear every time. It's as if they're actually working on behalf of Sierra Club instead of the people paying their salaries.


----------



## thickfog (Oct 29, 2010)

_CJ said:


> It disgusts me that these pro-IMBA players are environmentalists first, and MTB advocates second....but they keep talking and the picture gets more and more clear every time. It's almost as if they're actually working on behalf of Sierra Club instead of the people paying their salaries.


Exactly why we loose. You guys miss the whole point as stated right here.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

tiretracks said:


> Uhmmm, no. IMBA's only skin in this game is Mountain Bike advocacy and if they choose to dilute that then they get what ever they deserve. Their complicity with the NAZI's in the Sierra Club have almost rendered them moot as it is, if they choose not to take a line against E-Bikes I'm sure it could be the end of the line for the IMBA.


OMG, You played the NAZI (capitalized) card! So is everyone else who doesn't agree with you on land use policies a NAZI or just the Sierra Club?


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

thickfog said:


> Exactly why we loose.


Yes that IS why we lose. Because people like you support the closure of trails when a fish in a nearby stream is found to be "special". Never mind the fact that the fish isn't native to the stream, and has thrived in said stream for the fifty years with people using the nearby trail, or that the DNR was able to breed millions of them in a different location.

You can advocate FOR mountain bike access AND be pro-conservation, but that's not what IMBA is doing. It been demonstrated time and again that mountain bikes are no more harmful to the environment than other non-motorized users, yet they refuse to advocate for wilderness access? Makes no sense.


----------



## thickfog (Oct 29, 2010)

_CJ said:


> Yes that IS why we lose. Because people like you support the closure of trails when a fish in a nearby stream is found to be "special". Never mind the fact that the fish isn't native to the stream, and has thrived in said stream for the fifty years with people using the nearby trail, or that the DNR was able to breed millions of them in a different location.
> 
> You can advocate FOR mountain bike access AND be pro-conservation, but that's not what IMBA is doing. It been demonstrated time and again that mountain bikes are no more harmful to the environment than other non-motorized users, yet they refuse to advocate for wilderness access? Makes no sense.


Can you point where I've said I advocate for trail closure?

You lose because you are fighting a much larger, more organized and supported group(s). Our small sport is nothing in comparison. That's just how it is. Like I said, seems the good ol USA loves bs talk that in the end gets us nothing. Just give me a strong leader with a big mouth. Yup. Solves everything.


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

_CJ said:


> It disgusts me that these pro-IMBA players are environmentalists first, and MTB advocates second....but they keep talking and the picture gets more and more clear every time. It's as if they're actually working on behalf of Sierra Club instead of the people paying their salaries.


Actually the article from the ex-IMBA board member belies exactly that: She mentioned that they don't want to piss off Sierra Club (who also buy Subarus) and thus lose the Subaru sponsorship. So in effect they are working on behalf of the Sierra Club and the people who pay their salaries...

Moreover that same logic doesn't seem to apply at the Sierra Club which has no problem fighting mt bike access. Do they worry about angering the subaru buying mt bike crowd?


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

I disagree, but to use your analogy, if STC is Trump, IMBA is the political existing political establishment. In both cases, it's frustration with the existing establishment that is causing the drive for change.



thickfog said:


> Sorry, I've read through it all. Their big solution" We hired a lobbyist. As the guest said, takes way more than that.
> 
> This is laughable at best. Congress can fix this? C'mon. Now my stomach is hurting form laughing so hard.
> 
> ...


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

thickfog said:


> You lose because you are fighting a much larger, more organized and supported group(s). Our small sport is nothing in comparison. That's just how it is.


No, that's how it used to be when IMBA agreed to tow the line for Sierra Club after their "six month meditation process". :rolleyes

These days the hiking and biking groups are about equal in numbers, but that's not really the point.

WE are in the right

THEY are in the wrong

There is no justifiable reason, scientific or emotional, that mountain bikes should be kept out of wilderness areas, as Sierra Club _lobbied congress successfully for_ in 1984. To suggest otherwise is a betrayal to the community people like you claim to support.

If IMBA and their member clubs want the full backing of the entire MTB community (and their $$$), it's really simple, just stop towing the line for the anti-access groups, advocate for MTB access in wilderness, and continue on with the things they're already doing well.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

I agree in principle. However, while mtb is bigger than it used to be, our numbers, and our advocacy dollars are still dwarfed by those of the hiker/Wilderness nazis. Whether that'd due to numbers of participants, age of participants, or wealth of participants I don't know. I do know that mtn biking is gaining participants and certainly trends toward a younger demographic, so the trend may well change as the hiking generation and their HOHA groups decrease in numbers. There is no doubt that mtn bikers need to be more involved in every level of bike advocacy.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

ACree said:


> There is no doubt that mtn bikers need to be more involved in every level of bike advocacy.


No doubt here. We had a round of important public meetings and a handful of the same mountain bikers showed up. But I will spend all year having mountain bikers asking me when we are getting more access to trails.

IMBA and STC could both get more accomplished if mountain bikers made themselves known politically.

IMBA has an action alert out on the proposed Wilderness in Pisgah. If you haven't at least used there link to submit a comment then your are part of the problem.


----------



## thickfog (Oct 29, 2010)

I agree, but just don't think we have the power and numbers yet to be hard core and fight hard against the bigger groups. I think that's why imba is forced to tow the line.

That's why, in my opinion, leaving your local imba chapter will do is more harm than good in the long run.

Why not support both imba and stc for now and see how it pans out?


_CJ said:


> No, that's how it used to be when IMBA agreed to tow the line for Sierra Club after their "six month meditation process". :rolleyes
> 
> These days the hiking and biking groups are about equal in numbers, but that's not really the point.
> 
> ...


----------



## thickfog (Oct 29, 2010)

indytrekracer said:


> No doubt here. We had a round of important public meetings and a handful of the same mountain bikers showed up. But I will spend all year having mountain bikers asking me when we are getting more access to trails.
> 
> IMBA and STC could both get more accomplished if mountain bikers made themselves known politically.
> 
> IMBA has an action alert out on the proposed Wilderness in Pisgah. If you haven't at least used there link to submit a comment then your are part of the problem.


This!


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

When you have a half hour to spare, listen to an informative interview with the 2 founders of the STC.

Podcast: The STC's Plan to Get Mountain Bikes into Wilderness, Part 1 | Singletracks Mountain Bike News


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

thickfog said:


> "This is laughable at best. Congress can fix this? C'mon. Now my stomach is hurting form laughing so hard."


Clearly ThickFog (perfect Handle) is an IMBA plant to discredit STC. And I am not leaving IMBA to support STC I will support both. But to attack a grassroots effort to gain access to what is our land is admirable. Yes they do not know everything but to mock STC for their effort for which I think is a cause we all agree on, I don't get it.

My guess ThickFogs bacon is at stake.


----------



## Skelldify (May 10, 2013)

zrm said:


> So what big chunk of trails and why? WHat's the back story and issues?
> 
> You give the link to the situation on NC, fair enough. Once again, what is the back story ? Our local club in CO along with IMBA and several other clubs with IMBA in the region have been involved with a local wilderness proposal. We worked with all the parties involved and it took years of hard work, but we worked and came up with some innovative solutions that resulted in a bill that preserves MTB access to pretty much all of the trails that we use. The bill is sponsored by Jared Polis and called the continental divide wilderness and recreation act. Wilderness - U.S. Representative Jared Polis
> It's an example of what MTB groups can do when they work on creative solutions. IMBA did a LOT of the work on this.


Let me guess, you live in CO or CA.... Yup, Colorado.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

Maybe we need a "new" group supporting e bikes and not have IMBA directing this at all...


----------



## thickfog (Oct 29, 2010)

ABud said:


> Clearly ThickFog (perfect Handle) is an IMBA plant to discredit STC. And I am not leaving IMBA to support STC I will support both. But to attack a grassroots
> 
> effort to gain access to what is our land is admirable. Yes they do not know everything but to mock STC for their effort for which I think is a cause we all agree on, I don't get it.
> 
> My guess ThickFogs bacon is at stake.


Uhh. Nope. Nice try. I work in the automotive industry.

But when people start discrediting something and spreading more IMBA hate and start the constant leave IMBA ranting, that does affect my chapter as we are a chapter under IMBA. We lose members, dollars and local support this way.

Think about who you might be affecting. Could be your own chapter and all of the VOLUNTEERS that bust their assess behind the scenes to keep the chapter running so you have trail to ride on.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

thickfog said:


> Uhh. Nope. Nice try. I work in the automotive industry.
> 
> But when people start discrediting something and spreading more IMBA hate and start the constant leave IMBA ranting, that does affect my chapter as we are a chapter under IMBA. We lose members, dollars and local support this way.
> 
> Think about who you might be affecting. Could be your own chapter and all of the VOLUNTEERS that bust their assess behind the scenes to keep the chapter running so you have trail to ride on.


Or think about the fact that with the chapter model, there is a very significant dilution of your funds that are NOT helping the local group. Here in WA, IMBA does not have significant presence, and advocacy has not suffered. IMBA has gotten involved in at least one issue where they didn't make it better. There may well be a place for IMBA and there's nothing wrong with supporting them. I have a big problem with IMBA saying not to support STC though. I put my $ where I think it will have the most impact on the things that I care about. Currently that means it goes to STC and select local orgs.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Wouldn't it be funny if there were a small group of profit sharers running both the STC and IMBA? I will continue to donate my time, rather than my money. It's time well spent.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

thickfog said:


> Uhh. Nope. Nice try. I work in the automotive industry.
> 
> But when people start discrediting something and spreading more IMBA hate and start the constant leave IMBA ranting, that does affect my chapter as we are a chapter under IMBA. We lose members, dollars and local support this way.
> 
> Think about who you might be affecting. Could be your own chapter and all of the VOLUNTEERS that bust their assess behind the scenes to keep the chapter running so you have trail to ride on.


Just jumping in here, been watching this argument play out for months now, I'm so curious...why do you need IMBA to have a mountain bike club...?

I mean, if your members don't want to support IMBA and IMBA takes 60%(?) of your dues, and your group has established relationships with with land managers, where does IMBA help you exactly?

In fact, couldn't your group do more if you left the chapter program and used all your dues locally?

I just find it baffling people scream bloody murder if folks talk about the ills of IMBA when in fact, lets be honest, its your local group that gets **** done in your local area.

The boots on the ground. The volunteers. The ones at meetings. The ones drinking beer with the land manager and putting ideas in their ears. Why in the world do you need to spend so much money to slap a logo with your name?

This is why I stopped supporting IMBA. I don't need my money paying some CEO in Colorado so that my local group can talk to the parks and rec director and build trails.


----------



## trailnimal (Mar 1, 2004)

iceboxsteve said:


> Just jumping in here, been watching this argument play out for months now, I'm so curious...why do you need IMBA to have a mountain bike club...?
> 
> I mean, if your members don't want to support IMBA and IMBA takes 60%(?) of your dues, and your group has established relationships with with land managers, where does IMBA help you exactly?
> 
> ...


First realize the difference between a "club" and "advocacy group".
As for the why, because to a large extend, it was IMBA that provided the resources and guidance to us on how to be successful advocates.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

iceboxsteve said:


> Just jumping in here, been watching this argument play out for months now, I'm so curious...why do you need IMBA to have a mountain bike club...?
> 
> I mean, if your members don't want to support IMBA and IMBA takes 60%(?) of your dues, and your group has established relationships with with land managers, where does IMBA help you exactly?
> 
> ...


I agree. Except, IMBA is deeply embedded with LM's. We had a local group at one time that got quite a bit done in the way of preserving/creating access. When their work was done and the time came to pass the torch, bad leadership - a person with a selfish agenda - took the reigns. He did some good things, but inevitably he aided in a divide among the community. Maybe the divide was already there, and in his defense the new crowd coming into the scene had already been taking matters into their own hands and there was very little in the way of input that would force him to take notice to the needs of an expanding community who had a variety of interests. So, why shouldn't try and fulfill his own agenda? Point is we let him get away with it. Inevitably, he left and an FS employee got involved as the president and successfully dismantled what was left by doing absolutely nothing for a few years except to get non-profit status through IMBA. Everyone thought IMBA would pick up where the original group had left off, but all they did was sit back and collect dues. When a few members got wise to this, a few of us tried to organize again but by that time another forest service employee had been making arrangements and pushing a whole other agenda involving IMBA. He claimed to be neutral and only acting as a "consultant." Within a year, the name was changed and whole new organization has been formed. It's sad that people have forgotten what the original mission of the club was. This is what we have now. IMBA still collects their dues, and very little in the way of NEW trail construction/preservation is going on. Mostly, FS has been renaming/claiming/re-routing bootleg trails as their own. Pretty slick if you ask me! AND, we could potentially lose as much ground as what has been gained with the Wilders evaluation. There is just a whole bunch of special interests getting tossed around, and money changing hands. I'd venture to say more got accomplished when there was no affiliation with IMBA, and the leadership simply acted in his/her best interests. Almost like a dictatorship. ooops! That is what happens when communities give up on their own ability to become involved and insert their own influence so that a variety needs can be met. This is as true on the small stage of MTB advocacy as it is on the world stage. Just take a hard look around and you will see what I mean. In short voting with your pocket book only works when it involves goods (free market), not services like mountain bike advocacy. You have to put in the time effort to get things done. But, I get the feeling that people like being fooled.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

trailnimal said:


> First realize the difference between a "club" and "advocacy group".
> As for the why, because to a large extend, it was IMBA that provided the resources and guidance to us on how to be successful advocates.


Don't include we in us. This is not true in my experience. It's the new breed of mountain biker that commits themselves through monetary donations rather than physical labor and real time input, which allows the Money Makers to control outcomes.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

trailnimal said:


> First realize the difference between a "club" and "advocacy group".
> As for the why, because to a large extend, it was IMBA that provided the resources and guidance to us on how to be successful advocates.


Where I come from we use the terms interchangeably. A club is the advocacy group. The Appalachian Mountain _Club_ is quite the advocacy group in the Northeast.

Also, if you are successful advocates now...why continue to support a group who just takes money and doesn't do much?


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

The chapter model has it's place. If you were forming a small local group, becoming an IMBA chapter is much easier than doing all the admin stuff yourself. I've done a 501(c)(3) application for our local org, and it is time consuming. Annual tax returns for a nonprofit are also time consuming. For a local group, the chapter thing is a service to the mtb world. For larger groups, it's a cash cow for IMBA that drains resources from your local area. IMO anyway. There's a reason that in WA there is very little IMBA presence (we have our own chapter program under Evergreen). There's also lots of good that could come from having an effective national level advocacy group, and it should have an Executive Director paid by its members. Whether IMBA and Van Abel effectively fill that role can be debated.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

ACree said:


> The chapter model has it's place. If you were forming a small local group, becoming an IMBA chapter is much easier than doing all the admin stuff yourself. I've done a 501(c)(3) application for our local org, and it is time consuming. Annual tax returns for a nonprofit are also time consuming. For a local group, the chapter thing is a service to the mtb world. For larger groups, it's a cash cow for IMBA that drains resources from your local area. IMO anyway. There's a reason that in WA there is very little IMBA presence (we have our own chapter program under Evergreen). There's also lots of good that could come from having an effective national level advocacy group, and it should have an Executive Director paid by its members. Whether IMBA and Van Abel effectively fill that role can be debated.


I agree on your points. I do see a need for a national level organization. But as you said, are they fulfilling what a national level group should?

And thanks for explaining where the chapter program is beneficial. I come from New England, which like WA, has little (no) IMBA influence. I can see where the chapter program helps small groups get going, but as you point out more eloquently than I, IMBA seems to be sucking funds from groups who could really operate on their own.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Our group operated just fine without non-profit status. It's the difference between being a club vs being an organization. They simply collected money from members and distributed it according to projects/tools as needed. There is an element of trust associated with that, though. That's where a core group of dedicated community volunteers is essential. It's more about negotiations, partnerships, and the needs of that community.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

I just got back from riding an e-bike, and I have to say that I'm impressed! It was attached to a fatbike no less. Definitely has it's place, and is a real step forward towards getting more people on bikes compared to the incremental approach towards progress (profiteering) that is so common in the industry now. IMBA aside, these things are coming and coming fast, which will usher in a slew of regulations not unlike the drone regulations that just got passed. Things are moving in a hundred different directions right now. There is no time for slouching if you have any hope of influencing your future, and the future of our progeny.

Personally, my ego (among other limitations and traditional habits) would prevent me from riding them on trails, but as a commuter it's truly revolutionary. They will be making their way into trail applications, though. It's just a shame that the industry has decided to run with these in the near term instead of a gearbox.... hmmmm....:skep:


----------



## old_MTBer (Feb 16, 2014)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Our group operated just fine without non-profit status. It's the difference between being a club vs being an organization. They simply collected money from members and distributed it according to projects/tools as needed. There is an element of trust associated with that, though. That's where a core group of dedicated community volunteers is essential. It's more about negotiations, partnerships, and the needs of that community.


In most states creating a non-profit corporation is fairly easy. That does give some isolation from being personally obligated from paying the debts of the organization. Like if your organization is found to be liable in a trail injury lawsuit. Obtaining 501c3 status is easier than ever for small, low budget, uncomplicated organizations since the IRS created the Form 1023EZ. It is done on line and takes about an hour.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

old_MTBer said:


> In most states creating a non-profit corporation is fairly easy. That does give some isolation from being personally obligated from paying the debts of the organization. Like if your organization is found to be liable in a trail injury lawsuit. Obtaining 501c3 status is easier than ever for small, low budget, uncomplicated organizations since the IRS created the Form 1023EZ. It is done on line and takes about an hour.


Thanks.

I've looked into Benefit Corporations also where the "profits" could be directed back into the shared-use community to fund a number of different programs, primarily youth related, but also funding things like research and the various startups associated with trail construction and maintenance. Do you know anything about them, and why aren't they more widely utilized?


----------



## YRG (Feb 26, 2012)

feral said:


> Open Letter to IMBA about Wilderness, the Sustainable Trails Coalition and e-MTBs | NEMBA


I think the STC is the ones who are out of line here. At least if it is true that they are focusing their lobbying efforts on republicans. The whole things screams of irony.

I also really enjoy the sense of entitlement among our community.

I spend a very large portion of time working in the dirt, which is much more meaningful than anything I do on a computer. So for whatever it is worth, I would say it would be best to stay away from the STC. I think opening up wilderness to bikes en total, would be a mistake. As someone who is totally pro mountain bike, I just don't think we have to be everywhere.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

I believe because they are neither tax exempt, nor able to receive tax deductible contributions. 501(c)(3) status is relevant when you do anything beyond just being a social club. (c)(4) can be used if you don't need donations to be tax deductible, or if the goal is significant lobbying. (I'm a CPA when not MTBing)


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

ACree said:


> I believe because they are neither tax exempt, nor able to receive tax deductible contributions. 501(c)(3) status is relevant when you do anything beyond just being a social club. (c)(4) can be used if you don't need donations to be tax deductible, or if the goal is significant lobbying. (I'm a CPA when not MTBing)


But it also opens the door for environmentally/social conscious investors, as well as grants from some very well established endowments. Tax donations (percentage of excess revenue gained through use of common infrastructures) is good maintenance for a healthy financial system.



> In today's fiercely competitive business environment, one might assume that a company that thinks altruistically is doomed to failure. To a free-marketeer, a B corp is just a way to waste shareholder money on do-gooding whims. Yet Warby Parker has had no trouble raising money from investors. And Dave Gilboa, another Warby co-founder, told me that, at the operational level,* having a social mission can offer distinct advantages. It's an important way for a company to attract and retain talented employees. Survey data show that workers-especially young ones-want to work for socially conscious companies, and will take less compensation in exchange for a greater sense of purpose. Such people often work for nonprofits, but B corps may soon become a more attractive option.* Blumenthal himself came from the nonprofit world, having worked at VisionSpring before starting Warby. He says, *"Your ability to have an impact on a large scale is just greater in the for-profit world, and that's chiefly because of the capital and the talent available to you." * Having a social mission can also be an important selling point with consumers, as the success of the fair-trade movement makes clear.


Can Benefit Corporations Work? - The New Yorker


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Not practical for a mtb club/advocacy group IMO. For these, tax deductions to donors will be far more important that 'investors' in a nonprofit like entity. They will also just lead to confusion with grant applications. This entity type could make sense for a commercial trail building org though, where they are already viewed with some suspicion as competing with nonprofits in this space. Way, way off topic from IMBA vs STC though.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

ACree said:


> Not practical for a mtb club/advocacy group IMO. For these, tax deductions to donors will be far more important that 'investors' in a nonprofit like entity. They will also just lead to confusion with grant applications. This entity type could make sense for a commercial trail building org though, where they are already viewed with some suspicion as competing with nonprofits in this space. *Way, way off topic from IMBA vs STC though.*


Thanks.

Not really. It's a sub topic. We all know Corps carry with them a ton of influence, especially in the way of lobbies, and enjoy legal protections that non-profits do not.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Not really. It's a sub topic. We all know Corps carry with them a ton of influence, especially in the way of lobbies, and enjoy legal protections that non-profits do not.


If you think that a corp has more influence than other entity forms simply by being a corp... well, feel free to think that. Legal protections are determined by the type of state law entity that you have. Every nonprofit I've looked at has been a nonprofit corporation for state law. You'd have to ask a lawyer if there's any difference in liability protection between a profit corporation and a nonprofit corporation (to use WA state terminology). The ability to lobby is determined by federal tax status (C Corp vs. 501(c)(3) vs 501(c)(4), etc.), not state law entity status.

IMBA: California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation
STC: Colorado Nonprofit Corporation


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

ACree said:


> If you think that a corp has more influence than other entity forms simply by being a corp... well, feel free to think that. Legal protections are determined by the type of state law entity that you have. Every nonprofit I've looked at has been a nonprofit corporation for state law. You'd have to ask a lawyer if there's any difference in liability protection between a profit corporation and a nonprofit corporation (to use WA state terminology). The ability to lobby is determined by federal tax status (C Corp vs. 501(c)(3) vs 501(c)(4), etc.), not state law entity status.
> 
> IMBA: California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation
> STC: Colorado Nonprofit Corporation


Cool, Thank you.

I didn't realize that the International Mountain Bike Association was sectioned as a PBC at all. There is actually a lot of visibility/transparency associated with that.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

If you do some googling, I don't think the CA term means what you think it does. More like a weird way to say nonprofit corp. See this Forming a Nonprofit Corporation in California | Digital Media Law Project for example.


----------



## EddyKilowatt (Aug 10, 2007)

Shark said:


> Same here. I will no longer be renewing my IMBA membership.
> 
> I do donate to STC though, they appear to be ready to fight.


Same here.

Except I will be donating to BOTH the IMBA and the STC. There's plenty of fight to go around, and if they wind up working like a good cop/bad cop team, well, that wouldn't be the worst possible outcome.

One sure way for IMBA to lose me, though, would be to fail to put plenty of daylight between themselves and any group that advocates for any kind of motorized bike, no matter how feeble, on non-motorized trails.


----------



## icycle (Apr 20, 2004)

YRG said:


> I think the STC is the ones who are out of line here. At least if it is true that they are focusing their lobbying efforts on republicans. The whole things screams of irony.


Not sure where you heard that but they proudly state that they are getting support from both sides of the aisle. 


YRG said:


> I also really enjoy the sense of entitlement among our community.


Why does this only go one way? When was the last time hikers ever had hundreds of miles of trails that they've used for decades suddenly off-limits? And us wanting to stop that is a sense of entitlement?



YRG said:


> I spend a very large portion of time working in the dirt, which is much more meaningful than anything I do on a computer.


Well, our opponents spend plenty of time not only on computers but also donating and lobbying. Mountain bikers best learn that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and "united we stand, divided we fall".



YRG said:


> So for whatever it is worth, I would say it would be best to stay away from the STC. I think opening up wilderness to bikes en total, would be a mistake. As someone who is totally pro mountain bike, I just don't think we have to be everywhere.


One of the key tenets of the STC's mission is, and has always been, to lift the blanket ban on bicycles. It is NOT to allow blanket access for bicycles. As the STC said here:


> To be sure, if anyone likes the comprehensive bicycle ban in Wilderness and on the Pacific Crest Trail-no access to a single inch of trail anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances-nothing we say will make them happy.


I think the sad part is the trend for ever-increasing Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and Recommended Wilderness areas, all of which now appear to ban bicycles, won't hit home for many mountain bikers until it directly affects them.

It's your right to stay on the sidelines and/or rail against a movement, but at least be educated about what the STC is trying to do before trying to dissuade the rest of the folks from trying to effect change.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

YRG said:


> I also really enjoy the sense of entitlement among our community.
> 
> .


These are public lands, they belong to everyone, not just hikers and horse riders.
Wilderness saves areas from being strip mined and clear cut, that is great.

However riding a pedal bike in wilderness does not hurt anything.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

ACree said:


> If you do some googling, I don't think the CA term means what you think it does. More like a weird way to say nonprofit corp. See this Forming a Nonprofit Corporation in California | Digital Media Law Project for example.


Weird.


----------



## YRG (Feb 26, 2012)

Shark said:


> These are public lands, they belong to everyone, not just hikers and horse riders.
> Wilderness saves areas from being strip mined and clear cut, that is great.
> 
> However riding a pedal bike in wilderness does not hurt anything.


Yes it does. If you were to say riding a pedal bike once in the wilderness doesn't hurt much, I would agree. Of coarse we aren't talking about one bike or one ride.


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

YRG said:


> Yes it does. If you were to say riding a pedal bike once in the wilderness doesn't hurt much, I would agree. Of coarse we aren't talking about one bike or one ride.


You believe that if the Wilderness Act is amended, every single rider will go out and ride the trails, destroying everything that has been so carefully preserved?

Look at most of the back country rides and tell me they suffer from the dire traffic and dire impact you are proclaiming.

Also, are we talking 120 or 60 grit?


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

YRG said:


> Yes it does. If you were to say riding a pedal bike once in the wilderness doesn't hurt much, I would agree. Of coarse we aren't talking about one bike or one ride.


Can you provide evidence for your claim? How could such evidence not also be used to argue for prohibiting hikers and/or equestrians on these same trails?


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

YRG said:


> Yes it does. If you were to say riding a pedal bike once in the wilderness doesn't hurt much, I would agree. Of coarse we aren't talking about one bike or one ride.


Study after study finds biking has very similar impact as hiking. And horses have the most damage, much worse than hiking or biking.

Many of these back country areas see very little bike use, maybe a handful of riders each week. We are not talking about IMBA ride centers.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

EddyKilowatt said:


> One sure way for IMBA to lose me, though, would be to fail to put plenty of daylight between themselves and any group that advocates for any kind of motorized bike, no matter how feeble, on non-motorized trails.


They aren't legal on singletrack in the US, currently. IMBA has come out as "neutral," in their position paper, in the same way that they're neutral towards any other activity that doesn't impact mountain biking. Just like everyone would hope the other users would be.

Keep in mind that the "I" in IMBA stands for "International." E-bikes are allowed on singletrack in other countries, so demanding that IMBA act only as "USMBA" is a a bit unrealistic.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

richde said:


> demanding that IMBA act only as "USMBA" is a a bit unrealistic.


Another great reason to send your advocacy money to somebody other than IMBA. My personal hope is that the STC will be successful in their wilderness campaign and expand into a USMBA of sorts, leaving IMBA to twist in the wind as they rightfully should.


----------



## LaXCarp (Jul 19, 2008)

richde said:


> Keep in mind that the "I" in IMBA stands for "International." E-bikes are allowed on singletrack in other countries, so demanding that IMBA act only as "USMBA" is a a bit unrealistic.


They named themselves this to help market their legitimacy as a advocacy group when they were created. They don't really do much internationally.

I was president of my local club where we debated becoming an IMBA chapter. I was pretty hard against, and am thankful our club didnt choose to move forward with it. Losing 60% of our membership base fees would have sunk us pretty quickly.

When people pay into your organization, you hope they listen to their membership base. I dont feel IMBA does this, in particular with the wilderness issue.


----------



## LaXCarp (Jul 19, 2008)

Blackies Pasture said:


> I can somewhat relate to ImBA policy of "a little victory is better than no victory"...


IMBA prefers to make 0.75% interest on their savings account instead of taking a gamble on a 10% index fund.


----------



## LaXCarp (Jul 19, 2008)

jp08865 said:


> I agree with everyone above. Having recently become a member of IMBA because of a club membership, it looks like I will not be renewing that club membership next year.


You should provide a donation to your club instead of paying the membership fee. IMBA takes 60% of membership fees but cannot take any amount of dollars contributed by donation.


----------



## LaXCarp (Jul 19, 2008)

YRG said:


> Yes it does. If you were to say riding a pedal bike once in the wilderness doesn't hurt much, I would agree. Of coarse we aren't talking about one bike or one ride.


Go look at at all the rutted out drainage ditch of hiking ONLY trails all through the Adirondack Park of upstate NY, millions of acres of wilderness designation and no bikes.

MTB's will not impact these trails anymore than the already established hiking trails. The trails are a mess in the adirondacks!


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

It is my observation that human powered mtb has less impact than hiking on soil displacement. LESS IMPACT! Not almost the same... LESS! In many cases considerably less, and in my own location, mtb also reduces hiking impact by keeping the trail narrower and smoother. Mtbs can't operate in conditions that hikers (and cows) grimly post hole on through, sometimes completely trashing a trail tread for years. Hikers tend to appreciate the mtb trails because they are easier to walk on. Many remote trails would benefit from an mtb presence. I maintain trails in NW New Mexico, don't know about conditions elsewhere.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

EddyKilowatt said:


> Same here.
> 
> Except I will be donating to BOTH the IMBA and the STC. There's plenty of fight to go around, and if they wind up working like a good cop/bad cop team, well, that wouldn't be the worst possible outcome.
> 
> One sure way for IMBA to lose me, though, would be to fail to put plenty of daylight between themselves and any group that advocates for any kind of motorized bike, no matter how feeble, on non-motorized trails.


Playing the devil's advocate here, but have you ever ridden an e-bike? It's quite a different experience than a combustible engine. Pretty darn fun, too.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Another aspect... IMBA may need to cultivate it's own image before venturing into the sensitive areas access issue. Much of IMBA/Partner PR stresses the gonzo sort of tearing it up in the wilderness on muddy trails image, which could really hurt the cause in the minds of those who don't know better. Maybe better if IMBA waits outside for awhile with the other more commercial, sales oriented interests, the movement will have more credibility. Just sayin'...


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

LaXCarp said:


> Go look at at all the rutted out drainage ditch of hiking ONLY trails all through the Adirondack Park of upstate NY, millions of acres of wilderness designation and no bikes.
> 
> MTB's will not impact these trails anymore than the already established hiking trails. The trails are a mess in the adirondacks!


The only trails in the Adirondacks that don't look like eroded, rutted, muddy drainage ditches are the mtb trails!

You'd have to be blind not to see that the best, most well constructed trails in the Park are the ones made and maintained by mountain bikers. Riders are the first ones out there with pick and shovel eager to build and maintain trails. Anyone who wants to keep them out is either selfish or ignorant.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Miker J said:


> The only trails in the Adirondacks that don't look like eroded, rutted, muddy drainage ditches are the mtb trails!
> 
> You'd have to be blind not to see that the best, most well constructed trails in the Park are the ones made and maintained by mountain bikers. Riders are the first ones out there with pick and shovel eager to build and maintain trails. Anyone who wants to keep them out is either selfish or ignorant.


Sure wish that was true here. In all fairness, out trails hold up pretty good to heavy traffic.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Hard to know where to start...I'm the IMBA communications director and have posted here for many years. Lots of work to do these days!

For starters, IMBA has not opposed the STC. We understand their motives and share many common beliefs. We do differ on the tactics that we think will achieve goals that we both value.

Here's a salient point for those deriding IMBA for not financially supporting the STC: It's possible that a two-pronged approach could further mountain bike access, with IMBA continuing in a more moderate role and emphasizing its productive partnerships with conservation groups and land managers. At the same time, the STC can act as the more aggressive group that seeks to alter the implementation of the Wilderness Act by congressional intervention.

But the "good cop/bad cop" dynamic goes away if IMBA directly supports the STC -- in that case we will be seen as one and the same. Opponents of bike access will say, "You see, mountain bikers are not trustworthy and we should not negotiate with any of them, ever."

That close association would certainly damage the partnerships IMBA has built over the decades. For those that say IMBA's partnerships don't yield results, tell me this: How many U.S. national parks offered quality mountain bike trails a decade ago? How many purpose-built MTB trail systems were being legally built on federal lands? Was there a director of the BLM attending mountain bike festivals and praising the expansion of MTB opportunities, as Director Kornze did at Outerbike this year?

All of these things have occurred as the result of careful partnership building.

If you see the STC's approach as the right way to go, perhaps you should send them a donation. If you believe IMBA's work to increase bike access through coalitions and partnerships will continue to increase bike access in all sorts of ways (extending far beyond the Wilderness issue) as has been the case for nearly 30 years, please support IMBA.

Or do both.

Regarding e-bikes (and I agree that these issues are somewhat intertwined) please know that IMBA's stance continues to be, as it has been from 2011, that e-bikes are a form of motorized recreation. We are not against motos but we do not think that motorized access and non-motorized access are the same thing.

E-bikes are an interesting new form of motorized recreation, probably with much lighter impacts on the land than traditional powered two-wheeled vehicles, but they are not the same thing as human-powered mountain biking. IMBA has studied the physical and social impacts related to eMTBs and has not shifted its view. Here's the policy statement paper that fully describes IMBA's perspective:

https://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/motorized position-IMBA 2010.pdf


----------



## jp08865 (Aug 12, 2014)

I guess I'm just too 'old fashioned'. I believe you are either part of the solution or part of the problem and can not be both.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Mark E said:


> For starters, IMBA has not opposed the STC. We understand their motives and share many common beliefs. We do differ on the tactics that we think will achieve goals that we both value.


Fair enough. How about putting out a public statement that IMBA does not agree with the mtbr.com editorital from former IMBA board president Ashley Korenblat, and reiterating what you state in the quote above.


----------



## LaXCarp (Jul 19, 2008)

Mark E said:


> Here's a salient point for those deriding IMBA for not financially supporting the STC: It's possible that a two-pronged approach could further mountain bike access, with IMBA continuing in a more moderate role and emphasizing its productive partnerships with conservation groups and land managers. At the same time, the STC can act as the more aggressive group that seeks to alter the implementation of the Wilderness Act by congressional intervention.


You say this like it is some sort of tactical approach to this issue by IMBA. Nice try. Not the case.

What about the salient point that multiple groups representing MTBs regarding this issue make us look unorganized and not a cohesive community? How about when those representing groups have opposing views on an issue?? I guarantee you that hikers or environmentalists wont show up with multiple voices...it will be unified. I guess to that point, MTBr's may only have 1 voice at the table too because IMBA wont show up.

Regarding E-Bikes...why are you even teaming up with industry partners to address this? You admitingly don't have enough resources to put effort into too many issues...then why spend significant time/money/resources on this issue when your membership base is not asking you to?


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

There are, in fact, multiple groups representing the conservation side, from the radical Earth First types to the mainstream like The Wilderness Society. 

Mountain bikers are, in fact, not united on the issue of mountain bikes accessing existing wilderness. You may not like that but it is true, and some of the voices saying that they do not need to ride in Wilderness are in the Mountain Bike Hall of Fame, etc. 

IMBA did not use any membership money to investigate the possible implications of eMTBs on public trails. The bike industry ponied up for the studies we did, which concluded that low-powered eMTBs probably do not disrupt the trail surface much more than traditional mountain biking, but that the social impacts of eMTBs are significant and that most mountain bikers are not willing to accept them on trails that are managed for non-motorized use. IMBA supports that same conclusion.


----------



## EddyKilowatt (Aug 10, 2007)

Mark E said:


> Or do both.


This will continue to be my approach. Or will be, for as long as I don't see any sign of the two groups working against each other.

I hope both groups will take a deep breath here, and then start looking for ways to cooperate rather than jostle for position.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Fascinating!


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

God, I hate politicians. Always talking out both sides of their mouths.

IMBA isn't part of the solution, they're part of the problem.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

ACree said:


> Fair enough. How about putting out a public statement that IMBA does not agree with the mtbr.com editorital from former IMBA board president Ashley Korenblat, and reiterating what you state in the quote above.


I have to agree with this. Was Ashley speaking for herself (and throwing her credentials around), or was she speaking for IMBA? Cause "Say no to the Sustainable Trails Coalition" and the emotional outburst that followed sure sounded like opposition.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*ASS says it well*

Best synopsis thus far IMHO:

The Angry Singlespeeder?s take on the Wilderness issue - Mtbr.com


----------



## jp08865 (Aug 12, 2014)

pliebenberg said:


> Best synopsis thus far IMHO:
> 
> The Angry Singlespeeder?s take on the Wilderness issue - Mtbr.com


Good read, thanks for the link !


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

pliebenberg said:


> Best synopsis thus far IMHO:
> 
> The Angry Singlespeeder?s take on the Wilderness issue - Mtbr.com


Almost verbatim from the STC website. Not a "synopsis."


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Empty_Beer said:


> I have to agree with this. Was Ashley speaking for herself (and throwing her credentials around), or was she speaking for IMBA? Cause "Say no to the Sustainable Trails Coalition" and the emotional outburst that followed sure sounded like opposition.


Strange how people think a former employee still speaks for the organization.

Just how many of these declarations is IMBA going to have to put out, and how often?


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

Mark E said:


> Hard to know where to start...I'm the IMBA communications director and have posted here for many years. Lots of work to do these days!
> 
> But the "good cop/bad cop" dynamic goes away if IMBA directly supports the STC -- in that case we will be seen as one and the same. Opponents of bike access will say, "You see, mountain bikers are not trustworthy and we should not negotiate with any of them, ever."
> 
> ...


There certainly is lots of work to do these days and many of us are doing it quite successfully without IMBA or despite IMBA.

Whoever convince you there should be a good cop and a bad cop in order to get things done? That's like suggesting third party candidates are beneficial, when we all know they pull votes away from mostly one party.

Don't pretend that without IMBA, nothing is getting done on Federal lands. I never talked to IMBA or felt I needed them when I walked into the National Parks Headquarters in Flagstaff and offered to reroute a mile of multi-use trail at Walnut Canyon National Monument, that would cross onto Forest Service Land and State Trust Land. I asked them for $25k to help fund the project and I got a local conservation corps to provide most of the labor and to pay me to oversee the project. I supplemented the labor force with local university volunteers as well as getting Americorps volunteers to show up and build trail. It was all a result of a local rider showing his passion for improved trails.

Meanwhile, we have other local riders who have put in countless hours doing trail maintenance and even construction during organized volunteer trail days, as well as heading out to work on trails on their own time. Some have gotten involved in building wildcat connector trails, usually after years and years of waiting for IMBA to show up to encourage the land managers to get moving and stop stalling new trail projects. We all got tired of listening to the Forest Service in Flagstaff and Sedona saying they don't have the resources or funding. It is always their default position. So Riders took risks and trails got built. Dozens of them were then adopted by the Forest Service, even though they were unauthorized. Then one or two riders were caught and punished, to be examples to others. Did IMBA show up and defend them? Did IMBA offer to pay their court costs? Did IMBA even pen a letter to the local paper saying these passionate riders only did what they did because of the absence of effort and concern from local land managers, The Forest Service. Without that push back, the FS continues operating at 10% of what they could and gets away with doing nothing, season after season. Worse still, in a recent article in the Arizona Daily Sun titled Trail Troubles, The Forest Service stated they have trained the Sierra Club volunteers to be out looking for mountain bikers doing anything suspicious. Essentially snitches. Then, after saying they lack funding for projects they have promised for years, they admit they are now investing in motion sensing wildlife cameras to help catch wildcat trail builders.

IMBA surely doesn't want to go on record supporting unauthorized trail work. But they aren't advocating for new trails and asking the FS to get off their lazy butts and do something. Instead, they hunt for one or two small victories, like the head of the BLM showing up and shaking a few hands at a festival, and tell us all how they are changing the world. I suppose that is what a communications director does. He tried to spin any little victory as something IMBA is doing all the time everywhere. They are not. We are in a fight. We must learn to counter punch and not just lean back against the ropes and get pummeled. You keep playing good cop and you will become useless to those of us fighting on the front lines.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Locally, the FS pulled their schedule to build new trail in order to promote a 12hr race. Such high traffic over a sustained period can have adverse affects on the trails. I guess as long as you have the necessary funds to obtain a permit, you can pretty much do anything you want. I suspect the STC bill will invite more of that those types of "transactions." But, get caught building unauthorized well designed "additions," or doing any sort of maintenance and you will get heavily fined. Anything for a buck. Gotta pay to play.


----------



## tjp (Feb 17, 2004)

I guess it's time to chime in. 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 further build 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. They do not do anything directly for us in these discussions, because frankly we don't need anything beyond their name and the occasional 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. 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.


----------



## zachi (Jul 25, 2006)

*zip zippo*

.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Hi Zachi, 

I contacted the relevant IMBA staff today to learn what's going on here. I learned that IMBA is working productively with the current FTA president. You can check in with the FTA leaders to verify this. This discussion thread probably isn't the best place to continue a discussion. 

Cheers, 

Mark


----------



## zachi (Jul 25, 2006)

Mark, our current president, an awesome volunteer by the name of Chris Hawthorne, is brand new, he does not have the years of hard work behind him developing these projects I have or the direct experiences attempting to resolve this. He has shared with me the letter that Kevin sent to him. All of our organization is committed to peace and collective efforts. The underhanded way in which Kevin ignored my request for dialog and instead bullied our new president speaks to IMBA Corporates ability to connect, respect and create great collaborations with grass roots people.

I am still not aware of any offer to dialog or understand what our experience has been other than a demand to 'produce evidence'. We have hired a communication specialist to work with us this Tuesday to understand how we can effectively communicate with IMBA in a way that it produces some form of positive response or consideration.

To date, the phone calls and emails related to discrete requests have produced zero results vs the thoughtful more public discussion this has provoked. While I am sure that IMBA includes thousands of awesome people, there is something missing related to the level of relationship, service and support we have experienced.

I welcome anyone from IMBA who wants to generate or mutually invest in the level of exciting trail development we have brought our region and develop the positive relationship that is possible with FTA. We want that.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Is it just me, or does is seem more and more like IMBA was formed by the Sierra Club just to keep mountain bikers in line with their mission?

How can imba NOT support mountain bike access in wilderness areas? Especially after all the evidence that the STC has released over the past few days? Anything less than full unconditional support of the STC is anti-bike, plain and simple, and I do not give money to anti-bike groups or the groups/businesses they are friendly with, including IMBA.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

_CJ said:


> Is it just me, or does is seem more and more like IMBA was formed by the Sierra Club just to keep mountain bikers in line with their mission?
> 
> How can imba NOT support mountain bike access in wilderness areas? Especially after all the evidence that the STC has released over the past few days? Anything less than full unconditional support of the STC is anti-bike, plain and simple, and I do not give money to anti-bike groups or the groups/businesses they are friendly with, including IMBA.


IMBA exists as a life support system for their trail building enterprise and salary generator.


----------



## jp08865 (Aug 12, 2014)

Mark E said:


> Hi Zachi,
> 
> I contacted the relevant IMBA staff today to learn what's going on here. I learned that IMBA is working productively with the current FTA president. You can check in with the FTA leaders to verify this. This discussion thread probably isn't the best place to continue a discussion.
> 
> ...


---------
*" This discussion thread probably isn't the best place to continue a discussion. "*

Well, there you have it Zachi, don't respond in private & don't want to discuss in public. That sounds familiar in todays society. Personally I'm ALWAYS a 'little' leery of that type response. _Let's keep it secret you know !
_


----------



## zachi (Jul 25, 2006)

Mark,
I wish only good things for you and am humbled by the immense skills in communication I have yet to learn. Please consider I wish only to contribute to my community and the values we share. I am doing my best and I hope that others more inspired and capable will pick up where my efforts of speaking our truth ended.
Peace
z


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Zachi, 

No worries -- I'm glad your message helped spur a positive conversation between IMBA staff and the current FTA leadership. I think those discussions need time to play out so every one can get on the same page again and start moving forward again. 

You can followup with me on e-mail anytime: markDOTellerATimbaDOTcom

Best, 

Mark


----------

