# Sustainable Trails Coalition.ORG - Care to join the cause?



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

As posted in the NM Forum....

Hi Folks,

There is quite the uproar going on around the country and right here in NM associated with the Wilderness Inventory Review the USFS is conducting. I know IMBA and others are asking that people stand up and make your feelings known.

However, I would like to make everyone aware of an alternative strategy that is beginning to gain some strength. Please read this link from the Angry SS'er and especially the comments at the bottom.

IMBA for many years has not wanted to go right at the 1984 Administrative Ruling on the Wilderness Act that banned Mt. Biking in the wilderness. I believe they decided on this strategy to maintain some legitimacy with the Wilderness Groups and their supporters. I believe their approach is to try to reach common ground in the establishment of future trails and reserves. Unfortunately, I personally feel this strategy has failed!

So what is the Sustainable Trails Coalition all about? Well you can read more about them here!

I believe they get it! Without sustained intense pressure on Washington to revisit the 1984 Administrative Ruling we don't stand a chance to maintain many of the Trails we enjoy. A case in point is the Monarch Crest! How soon before we can no longer ride that! It almost happened two years ago and it's still in the bulls eye for Wilderness designation.

So instead of fighting individual battles for certain tracks of land, we need to change the big picture. The STC has got the right idea in my book, so I have sent my hard earned money their way!

I hope all of you will join me in supporting this effort and please feel free to share this with your riding associates. TOGETHER! I believe we can make a difference and finally change this outmoded ruling within the Wilderness Act! And once that is changed, I will again renew my Sierra Club and Wilderness Society memberships! And none of us will have to worry if some politician wants to expand wilderness designations for their own well being!

Thanks,

DaGoat


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

Hey Goat,

Given the rate at which we've been loosing access, this idea is important. Thanks for re-posting it here.

Despite reservations that some may have about this approach, our community must confront the fact that those who challenge our access do so on many fronts. As committed as we are to our cause, diversifying our approach should be a no-brainer.

On the whole I agree with the concept. That said, I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed and takes issue with the words 'sustainable trails'. Although they are in popular parlance within mountain bike advocacy and land management circles, "sustainable trails" currently has no measurable or legal definition. Why so nit picky? Because the interpretation and meaning of the word "sustainable" can be expanded to be incompatible with our use and therefore access. Not wise.

It will be interesting to see what other regular contributors to the Trail Building forum think about this development.

CB


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

So bikes aren't mechanized travel?


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

zrm said:


> So bikes aren't mechanized travel?


https://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/Penn State Law Review TS.pdf

My alma mater making me proud. This is a 10 year old document too.


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

zrm said:


> So bikes aren't mechanized travel?


ZRM... the original Wilderness Act was written to ban "Motorized Travel". In 1984 an Administrative Rule was implemented through Congress to ban "Mechanical Travel".

If we change this to allow some forms of Mechanical Conveyance, the Wilderness will become an option for the Mt. Community to explore and enjoy!



iceboxsteve said:


> My alma mater making me proud. This is a 10 year old document too.


Good stuff IceBox, thanks for sharing it... and go Nitney Lions!!!



CANADIANBACON said:


> On the whole I agree with the concept. That said, I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed and takes issue with the words 'sustainable trails'. Although they are in popular parlance within mountain bike advocacy and land management circles, "sustainable trails" currently has no measurable or legal definition. Why so nit picky? Because the interpretation and meaning of the word "sustainable" can be expanded to be incompatible with our use and therefore access. Not wise!


I see where you're coming from CB.... maybe "Maintainable Trails Coalition" would have been better!


----------



## feral (Feb 10, 2007)

The original intent of the 1964 Wilderness Act was to prevent *development* of wilderness areas by blocking methods of carrying passengers and materials, typically using motorized means and of building the infrastructure required for that. The language was simplified in committee to "mechanized transport" which was then perverted to include bikes.

Frankly, I'm tired of all those who have used this language as a barrier to prevent MTB access on *public lands* that my tax dollars helps make possible. The strategy that has been used by IMBA to not make waves at the congressional level hasn't worked, isn't going to work and it has just resulted in another 700k acres of public lands lost to MTB.

I think STC's efforts are worth supporting. I'm not renewing my IMBA membership: that money is now going to STC.

This thread, here on MTBR is a very good (I think required) read, and it's also a good analysis of the Stroll article above:

http://forums.mtbr.com/general-disc...tain-bikes-wilderness-philip-keyes-79708.html


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

feral said:


> This thread, here on MTBR is a very good (I think required) read, and it's also a good analysis of the Stroll article above:
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/general-disc...tain-bikes-wilderness-philip-keyes-79708.html


Wow Feral.... that was really good stuff!



DaGoat said:


> Indeed, for mountain biking to return to the wilds, the Wilderness Act would not need to be altered or amended. All that needs to change is the subsequent regulation created by the managing agencies who oversee Wilderness lands: the US Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and to a lesser extent, US Fish & Wildlife....


Uhmmm, so an Agency that says we need to stand up and make our point for not expanding Wilderness, actually controls whether we ride there or not?

Is it just me or does "divide and conquer" come to mind?


----------



## feral (Feb 10, 2007)

DaGoat said:


> Wow Feral.... that was really good stuff!
> 
> Uhmmm, so an Agency that says we need to stand up and make our point for not expanding Wilderness, actually controls whether we ride there or not?
> 
> Is it just me or does "divide and conquer" come to mind?


Someone needs to push the Reset button on the Wilderness Act. I'm hoping that will be the STC. And unless we are all complete fools, expect complete mental fits by various "conservation" groups more interested in preventing public access to public lands and a full-court press by them against this.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

feral said:


> The original intent of the 1964 Wilderness Act was to prevent *development* of wilderness areas by blocking methods of carrying passengers and materials, typically using motorized means and of building the infrastructure required for that. The language was simplified in committee to "mechanized transport" which was then perverted to include bikes.
> 
> Frankly, I'm tired of all those who have used this language as a barrier to prevent MTB access on *public lands* that my tax dollars helps make possible. The strategy that has been used by IMBA to not make waves at the congressional level hasn't worked, isn't going to work and it has just resulted in another 700k acres of public lands lost to MTB.
> 
> ...


Wow, awesome! This article summarizes the link I posted earlier, the actual law review. Philip is an amazing advocate, coming from New England he has been the head honcho of NEMBA (New England Mountain Bking Association) for years and is a real smart dude, not to mention a great rider and guy. Sweet stuff, thanks!


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Some timely info... totally agree that the time is now!


----------



## feral (Feb 10, 2007)

Help STC out: https://secure.squarespace.com/commerce/donate?donatePageId=55aab951e4b0ba2b927fb396


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

zrm said:


> So bikes aren't mechanized travel?


In plain language, absolutely. Per the definition used by Congress at the time the Wilderness Act was written, no. Legalese is all about defined terms (not a lawyer...but I spend a lot of time dealing with their writings).

I made a contribution to STC, and will make annual contributions until they can get this done. I hope others do as well.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Worth the watch:

Mountain Biking in Wilderness Areas | BIKE Magazine


----------



## snowkraft (Apr 12, 2015)

OUTSIDE Magazine article hikers and bikers:

The Mountain Biker and Wilderness Relationship: It?s Complicated | Outside Online


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

This just in, from IMBA's executive director:

https://www.imba.com/blog/mike-van-abel/imba-and-sustainable-trails-coalition


----------



## panchosdad (Sep 21, 2008)

Mark, thanks for posting that. It's good that you have links in there showing that your approach is bearing fruit in some areas, because here in the Northern Rockies I'm not seeing it. The Gallatin Crest, Pinnacle trail near Togwotee pass, and mass Bitterroot closures have all happened without any official Wilderness designation. The BWC closure has been the tipping point for many of us who are tired of the string of losses in our area.

Perhaps I'm overlooking some successes in our area. Care to point any out?


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

personally when it comes to urban or frontcountry trails, imba is the best, when it comes to backcountry trails, imba has partnered with the enemy.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

tim208 said:


> personally when it comes to urban or frontcountry trails, imba is the best, when it comes to backcountry trails, imba has partnered with the enemy.


I'd argue that the enemy includes us. A shocking number of alleged mt. bikers are completely opposed to access to Wilderness. Couple that with our own asshats that make others not want to share a truly Wilderness experience with bicyclists. I can't blame IMBA for the losses... they are comparatively underfunded and outgunned by organizations that don't really like us in the first place. And given some restrictions on lobbying as a 501c(3), I'm not sure they can go for the gusto in changing some rules at the top via lobbying. That's where Sustainable Trails Coalition (a 501c(4)) fits in. Hopefully a full IMBA endorsement/strategy is made, so that IMBA's industry partners get behind the fundraising effort. In the meantime, the mtb community is doing pretty well raising $... but more is needed!


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Definitely. Far too many mountain bikers are either completely uninvolved with trail advocacy, trail building, even supporting their local organizations. I'm astounded by how many speak up in support of the bike ban, though I always suspect those are hikers who own a 20 year old mountain bike and therefore consider like to throw out that they are mtn bikers and they support the ban. Just like I hike every so often, and I like to mention to our local pols that our local hiking group does not speak for me, as I'm a hiker and I support bike access to every trail that is feasible.

Re IMBA, call me a cynic, but I don't see them publicly endorsing any group that could lead toward $ flowing to that group instead of IMBA. Mark E, I'd be thrilled if you proved me wrong in this case.

The idea that as a 501(c)(3), IMBA can't lobby is not that accurate. A (c)(3) can engage in limited lobbying. There are two ways to determine how much lobbying can be done, with the more objective approach measured by percent of lobbying expenses vs other expenses. That limit for IMBA was $405K per the 2013 Form 990* - or more than 3 times what STC is trying to raise. IMBA actually spent $11k on lobbying in 2013*. I would argue it's much more that IMBA doesn't WANT to lobby than IMBA "can't" lobby. There is value IMO to having more than one national level advocacy group, and I think it's a sign of a maturing sport and cause.

*Source: page 24 of the pdf Form 990 located here https://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/2013-IMBA-990-PublicCopy.PDF



Empty_Beer said:


> I'd argue that the enemy includes us. A shocking number of alleged mt. bikers are completely opposed to access to Wilderness. Couple that with our own asshats that make others not want to share a truly Wilderness experience with bicyclists. I can't blame IMBA for the losses... they are comparatively underfunded and outgunned by organizations that don't really like us in the first place. And given some restrictions on lobbying as a 501c(3), I'm not sure they can go for the gusto in changing some rules at the top via lobbying. That's where Sustainable Trails Coalition (a 501c(4)) fits in. Hopefully a full IMBA endorsement/strategy is made, so that IMBA's industry partners get behind the fundraising effort. In the meantime, the mtb community is doing pretty well raising $... but more is needed!


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

I'll share a few thoughts here ...

First and foremost, IMBA is definitely taking the STC effort seriously and has had meaningful discussions with their leaders. Believe me, the staff here takes the bikes/wilderness issue to heart and is open to new ideas. Personally, I was awake at 3 AM this morning running far too much of this stuff through my mind! 

I don't think that the $$ is the main issue, ACree. I'm absolutely sure that there are more dollars out there, in the bike industry and from private donors, if we can come up with some effective new strategies in this realm. 

What is interesting to watch and attempt to gauge at this moment is the extent to which this issue resonates through the MTB community, and how much, as you point out, opinions vary in our own ranks. In order to effect meaningful change, I think IMBA and the STC need to gather as much input from MTBers as possible right now. 

Personally, I know more than a few dyed-in-the-wool MTB lifers that hate the idea of IMBA shifting its views away from a collaborative approach with the wilderness community. One of them—no names will be revealed—who I spoke to early in my career here has stood on multiple podiums on the world stage, and in several MTB disciplines. 

Right now, I perceive a committed and inspired group rallying around the STC, and some real growth in that camp. But it's also a bunch of familiar voices doing a lot of the talking. I'm hoping to hear from more riders who are willing to engage in a meaningful way on this issue. 

For the STC effort to succeed there needs to be a lot of continued growth. No doubt, IMBA can play a part in encouraging that growth, but it can't be manufactured wholesale if a majority of MTBers need to be dragged into the fray and never really engage on a personal level. 

I have never had a problem with people who say, "I don't want to get into politics—I ride my mountain bike so I can get away from that kind of thing." However, I do think that if your take on it is such then you don't get to complain very much about where you can and can't go for a ride. 

Finally ... lobbying. Don't forget that IMBA also receives significant pro bono lobby assistance—maybe twice again what we spend in cash? I'm not really sure as it's not in the communications budget.


----------



## BonkedAgain (Aug 23, 2005)

Mark E said:


> ... if we can come up with some effective new strategies in this realm.


Exactly. In this latest revival of this issue I haven't heard any new ideas (unless I missed something). Chest-pounding and demanding that bikers deserve access hasn't worked yet and it seems unlikely to work in the future. Somebody who is way more clever than I am needs to come up with a new angle on this or the results are very likely to be the same as they have been in the past.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

there is no win with the wilderness debate. If there is no win, why fight. 

We truly need a new designation. One that protects and allows use. The feds need to have another tool to use to get the formal protection that wilderness offers, but with looser recreational controls. I don't think you will be able to change the wilderness act. 

I wish I was good with excel and typing, over the last 15 years, I have been coming up with a new designation that would give recreationalist what they want and the general public what they want.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ BonkedAgain: Has another organization gone after this legislatively before (like STC is)? What happened?


----------



## twright205 (Oct 2, 2011)

ok, excuse me if these are stupid questions...

1. is there a Forest Service /BLM audit or info on volunteer efforts in Wilderness Areas regarding trail maintenance. and if so, what recreational groups are doing the volunteer effort.

perhaps in wilderness areas there are no trails? so hikers and equestrians can elect to take whatever path/direction they please. either once or repeatedly, thus making braided trails, making trail the old fashioned way, simply by repeated use.... and there is no regulation against that?

so the FS itself if working on maintenance issues in these lands have to walk or horsey ride in and use stone age tools so to speak. no chainsaws? pulleys?

if the actual wilderness act was not actually re-written in 1984, but just the agency regulations.. which agency? any idea of how mtber's volunteer efforts in national forests compare to other user group volunteer efforts.?

perhaps answers are in the links above. so I apologize, but was pondering these questions.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

twright205 said:


> ok, excuse me if these are stupid questions...
> 
> 1. is there a Forest Service /BLM audit or info on volunteer efforts in Wilderness Areas regarding trail maintenance. and if so, what recreational groups are doing the volunteer effort.
> 
> ...


Locally we have a group called the friends of the Eagles Nest Wilderness which works with the local ranger district on trail and other stewardship projects. They are all volunteer and work in the Eagles Nest and Williams Fork wilderness. I am sure there are similar groups in other places but since I'm not plugged into that scene, I can't give specifics. The Ranger district also has some wilderness rangers/staff who do trail work, law enforcement, etc.

Wilderness crews do not use chainsaws or wheeled carts. I can't speak to things like pulleys but other than rescue work by the SAR group, I don't see much reason for them to use them for trail maintenance.

There isn't enough horse rider/packer use in my area that there is noticeable impacts that you mention. Almost all the use is foot traffic. Hunting season is when the large majority of horse pack type traffic occurs. That is when the impacts are more noticeable. A lot of that is also things like large hunting camps that don't observe the pack in pack out ethic although the FS has been cracking down on the hunting OGs and doing more enforcement/education of the horsepack/wall tent hunting crowd and it has gotten a lot better than it used to be.

In the local wilderness the trail impacts follow a fairly predictable pattern that is present in most other areas - wilderness and non wilderness - that get used recreationally. The closer you are to popular trailheads, the more things like braiding, shortcutting switchbacks, etc. Where I live there is very little off trail travel below treeline simply because bushwacking is very difficult on foot, much less on horseback. Above treeline the slopes are generally steep and craggy enough that equestrians stay on the trails, but once again, where I live isn't a big equestrian use are. It might be different in other places.

The areas that are an easy overnight, in and out see more impacts from camping but I have found that most backpackers are pretty mindful of their impacts. None the less, popular areas will see vegetation trampled to the point of bare dirt where folks have repeatedly set up tents, trails down to water sources, and excessive fire rings. The further out you go, the less impacts you see.


----------



## mudflap (Feb 23, 2004)

There is more on this topic, especially the recent decision on the BWC, over in the Idaho Montana Wyoming forum if you all are interested in further reading or discussion.
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming - Mtbr.com


----------



## icycle (Apr 20, 2004)

mudflap said:


> There is more on this topic, especially the recent decision on the BWC, over in the Idaho Montana Wyoming forum if you all are interested in further reading or discussion.
> Idaho, Montana, Wyoming - Mtbr.com


This thread specifically has some good discussion:
http://forums.mtbr.com/idaho-montana-wyoming/rip-castle-divide-antz-basin-rides-984616.html

According to the latest post as of this writing (http://forums.mtbr.com/idaho-montan...e-antz-basin-rides-984616-2.html#post12162066), the Wilderness signs are up all over the place. Wow, that was FAST.


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

Well folks,

We have reached the first goal, but the fight has just begun. Please consider your continued donations to the STC and please share this with all who may be concerned. Thanks for your support!

*We Have Landed in Washington!*

_Dear Supporter of the Sustainable Trails Coalition,

We recently reached the hoped-for point where we had to decide to go forward or not. Based upon our fundraising, which has brought in almost $50,000 in just a few weeks, numerous positive articles in the press, and some great information from our DC advisers, we are happy to report that we hired those advisers. As a consequence, our money-back guarantee is no longer in effect. We are delighted to give you this great news.

Our representatives in Washington DC are now actively seeking legislators who understand the flaws in current legislation and are willing to try to fix them. Just last week they had a meeting with the Chief of Staff of a congressman (who will go unnamed at this time) and the response to our goals was extremely positive. We are hopeful that within a few months we will have more good news to report.

In the meantime, we still need more donations to fund the continuation of the work into 2016. So please share our information with your friends and associates. Remember, in addition to addressing the restrictions on 109 million acres of federal land, our success will remove the precedent that local land managers often look towards when determining local trail access. So our goals are far bigger than just national wilderness lands._


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

Status update... Another $50 from me! They now take recurring monthly Paypal! Give what you can!

_"We want to fund this effort for a full year and assuming we can run everything as lean as possible, we need at least $124,850.

We started raising $ on July 28th 2015 and as of 9/7/2015 we have raised $46,620 and are 37% of the way to our goal."_

We can do this folks!


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

Oct. is right around the corner, so let's keep up the good fight! Give what you can and give often! 

They now have a "Monthly Option" through Paypal... I'm starting at $10/month and will increase it along the way. For the price of a good growler of beer a month, you too can help to potentially get access to some of the finest trails America has to offer!

No guarentees, but you'll never win if you don't fight!


----------



## mudflap (Feb 23, 2004)

DaGoat said:


> Well folks...
> 
> Our representatives in Washington DC are now actively seeking legislators who understand the flaws in current legislation and are willing to try to fix them...


Those dirtbags in DC (the elected ones) don't do anything for free. If the manufacturers aren't on board, where's the payola going to come from to grease their grubby little hands?
Good cause, non the less. You've got my Ulysses S. Grant in your piggy bank.


----------



## icycle (Apr 20, 2004)

Mark E said:


> I'll share a few thoughts here ...
> 
> First and foremost, IMBA is definitely taking the STC effort seriously and has had meaningful discussions with their leaders. Believe me, the staff here takes the bikes/wilderness issue to heart and is open to new ideas. Personally, I was awake at 3 AM this morning running far too much of this stuff through my mind!
> 
> ...


Mark,
I just received a reminder to renew my IMBA membership. Several things concern me:

1) I am as of yet unconvinced that IMBA's stance on the STC movement, and Wilderness in general, is the right way to go.

2) I spent 10 days on a MTB trip to Idaho this month and saw firsthand the BWC Wilderness trails we lost access to. I also spoke to a ranger who brought up the lack of trail maintenance in general in the Sawtooth area and I asked about IMBA's presence. She stated she wished IMBA and the USFS could be friends as that could go a long way to improving that situation.

3) There is no IMBA presence/action in New England (where I live); for that reason I am a NEMBA member, officer, and volunteer.

Discounting concern #3 above since I'd say we're covered by NEMBA, I do want to see some real announcements on #1 before I renew. Also, I am puzzled by #2; if IMBA's strategy on the Wilderness ban is to befriend agencies like USFS and organizations like Sierra Club to draw beneficial boundaries yet concede defeat for Wilderness interiors, yet the USFS does not look at IMBA as an ally (in this admittedly cherry picked case as I have no other comments to base an opinion on), then how do we define success?

Yes, I read the success stories in the regular (albeit short) IMBA publication. But I think IMBA needs to step up its game regarding its work in Washington D.C., either by better communications to its members or with better execution. Barring that, then start really supporting those who will. I may be just exposed to too many fails recently (ID, MT, and the awful time I'm having working with my MA government to improve MTB access), but I see a slow and steady bleeding of MTB access by better organized and funded groups than us and nothing being done to truly stop it. Fingers crossed on STC, I have donated and will continue to. As for the IMBA membership...not sure yet.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Darn good article. Share with your bike pals and clubs. Keep the $ flowing in. Some favorable announcements to come before Xmas...

Opinion | US Wilderness Act: Banning Bikes is UnAmerican | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Empty_Beer said:


> Darn good article. Share with your bike pals and clubs. Keep the $ flowing in. Some favorable announcements to come before Xmas...
> 
> Opinion | US Wilderness Act: Banning Bikes is UnAmerican | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine


Editorials favoring MTBs in lands under the wilderness act in MTB magazines and blogs isn't exactly earth shattering.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

I've never heard of Enduoro Magazine, but I'm not big on mags. Lots of fluff, IMO, and very little in the way of actual journalism. It's nice to know that they donated a few pages to the cause, though. Surely, STC can't afford advertising like that....

Anywho, I for one am looking forward to this xmas present!


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

icycle said:


> Mark,
> I just received a reminder to renew my IMBA membership. Several things concern me:
> 
> 1) I am as of yet unconvinced that IMBA's stance on the STC movement, and Wilderness in general, is the right way to go.
> ...


It would seem to make sense that IMBA will see more results by working on small projects that create real results rather than taking on the massive battle to change federal law and acts accordingly.

They're getting quite a bit done here in the Southwest by informing local businesses and governments how much money mountain biking can and does bring in, and then working as a larger group to influence land managers. The wilderness issue just doesn't have same sort of specific impact and interest.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

There's no reason it has to be one or the other. The whole point of chapters was to have local action, sounds like that's going well in your area, but that can be done effectively by local groups. The strength of a national org is the ability to take on large issues, like Wilderness. 'more results' is a very subjecting thing. Does it mean more miles of trail access? It apparently doesn't mean more miles of high altitude, quality backcountry access, because that's on a steady decline with each deal that comes from 'collaboration'. Personally, my $ will continue to go first to STC because they are the ones most directly targeting the issue that matters most for the type of riding I like, and then to select local orgs. IMBA doesn't even have the sense to call a spade a spade with ebikes.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

richde said:


> It would seem to make sense that IMBA will see more results by working on small projects that *create real results rather than taking on the massive battle to change federal law and acts accordingly.*
> 
> They're getting quite a bit done here in the Southwest by informing local businesses and governments how much money mountain biking can and does bring in, and then working as a larger group to influence land managers. *The wilderness issue just doesn't have same sort of specific impact and interest.*


Really? IMBA has done virtually nothing in my area.

If STC gets it done, it will have cost less than 100k.

With regard to Wilders impacts on MTB it's mostly just on principal, but with all of their supposed connections should have seen the recent Wilders evaluation fast approaching.

I'm not buying it...


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

ACree said:


> There's no reason it has to be one or the other. The whole point of chapters was to have local action, sounds like that's going well in your area, but that can be done effectively by local groups. The strength of a national org is the ability to take on large issues, like Wilderness. 'more results' is a very subjecting thing. Does it mean more miles of trail access? It apparently doesn't mean more miles of high altitude, quality backcountry access, because that's on a steady decline with each deal that comes from 'collaboration'. Personally, my $ will continue to go first to STC because they are the ones most directly targeting the issue that matters most for the type of riding I like, and then to select local orgs. IMBA doesn't even have the sense to call a spade a spade with ebikes.


Personally, I think it all boils down to local inputs. I won't be donating any of my income to national organizations. I'm already paying taxes. I did, however, donate proceeds from a local race to STC in good faith. It was a one time deal, hopefully they will get it done and disband so we can move on....

That is the way it should be. Orgs like this that continue to stay in the "business" of fighting multi-jurisdictional issues like this, tend to always look forward to the next battle...IMBA being a perfect example of this.


----------



## skiracer88 (Mar 10, 2014)

got an email from STC yesterday. this seems like good news and is a big step!



> Dear STC donor,
> 
> We have great news. Sustainable Trails Coalition's model Wilderness and National Scenic Trails reform bill is being reviewed by congressional staff whose job it is to turn draft legislation into a bill that a senator or representative can introduce in Congress.
> 
> ...


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

skiracer88 said:


> got an email from STC yesterday. this seems like good news and is a big step!
> 
> [/FONT]


Nothing personal but I think I'll support maintaining the hundreds of thousands of miles of trails that we have access to that need maintenance. I think I'll support continuing education of MTBers, many of whom take their cue on trail manners and environmental ethics from "action sports" and rad brah bike porn. I think I'll support planning and building new trails on the millions of acres of public and private land that have no use prescription restrictions that prohibit using bikes that won't require a long drawn out, contentious, messy and expensive, legal battle that is, IMO, unlikely to succeed. Nothing personal, but I think there are better, more productive, more beneficial ways to spend my time and money.


----------



## skiracer88 (Mar 10, 2014)

zrm said:


> Nothing personal but I think I'll support maintaining the hundreds of thousands of miles of trails that we have access to that need maintenance. I think I'll support continuing education of MTBers, many of whom take their cue on trail manners and environmental ethics from "action sports" and rad brah bike porn. I think I'll support planning and building new trails on the millions of acres of public and private land that have no use prescription restrictions that prohibit using bikes that won't require a long drawn out, contentious, messy and expensive, legal battle that is, IMO, unlikely to succeed. Nothing personal, but I think there are better, more productive, more beneficial ways to spend my time and money.


Nice blog. Good for you. Myself, and many others are tired of consistently being barred from some of the most beautiful backcountry areas that the united states has to offer not based on evidence of environmental impact, but because some simply don't want to share. Most of the people pushing for these designations will never even venture into these areas...its all political ******** and manufactured outrage by the likes of the sierra club and the wilderness society. I have never had a negative experience with other trail users in low-use backcountry areas. In most cases, you can ride all day without seeing another user, and when you do its a pleasant experience.

With your method of advocacy, at some point we will be relegated to fire roads and crowded bike parks with no real opportunities for adventure.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

skiracer88 said:


> Nice blog. Good for you. Myself, and many others are tired of consistently being barred from some of the most beautiful backcountry areas that the united states has to offer not based on evidence of environmental impact, but because some simply don't want to share. Most of the people pushing for these designations will never even venture into these areas...its all political ******** and manufactured outrage by the likes of the sierra club and the wilderness society. I have never had a negative experience with other trail users in low-use backcountry areas. In most cases, you can ride all day without seeing another user, and when you do its a pleasant experience.
> 
> With your method of advocacy, at some point we will be relegated to fire roads and crowded bike parks with no real opportunities for adventure.


You're not barred from going there. You just can't ride a bike. Saying "I am barred, or I am being discriminated against" because you can't participate in an activity is an argument that isn't going to get you anywhere and is easily refuted. I'm not trying to be an a$$hole, I'm just pointing out something that anyone who presents this argument is going to come against. Don't resort to hyperbole when it's easily shot down. it's not an effective tactic.

I also take exception to your stateing "With your method of advocacy, at some point we will be relegated to fire roads and crowded bike parks with no real opportunities for adventure", I and others have worked for 20+ years on advocacy and as a result I live in an area with hundreds of miles of legal, remote, backcountry singletrack trails open to bikes. Everywhere I go in the west, there are many, many miles of backcountry trails that offer real adventure. Just last month I rode a remote, rarely used combination of trails for a 35 mile loop that I had never been on that is a 30 minute drive from my house. All 100% bike legal and hardly a bike park or "fire road". There are many miles of trails, remote, rugged, backcountry trails less than an hour drive that the only reason I haven't been on them is I don't have time.

Admittedly I live in an area that has a very bike friendly local, county and federal government; I understand that it's not like this everywhere, but I also know that in many, many places - it's not rare - MTB trail opportunities are expanding. Just the places I frequent in CO - Summit County, Vail Valley, Eagle, Salida, Buena Vista, Crested Butte, Gunnison, Fruita/Grand Junction, Buffalo Creek, Moab, Sedona, and others are gaining legal trails and they're not bike parks or fire roads.

Don't play the victim card unless you really are a victim.

None of this isn't to say that the MTB community shouldn't be active in Wilderness issues. We've worked together with wilderness folks on a wilderness bill that preserves MTB access on current trails. creates core areas protected under the wilderness act, and creates special management areas for current and possible future MTB use that have most of the goals and management criteria as wilderness. these proposals have the support of the local MTB groups, the wilderness groups and our congressional delegation. We've also fought successfully against wilderness proposals that would cause wholesale closures to MTBs on trails currently open to them. It goes to show what you can do when you have realistic goals.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

zrm said:


> You're not barred from going there. You just can't ride a bike. Saying "I am barred, or I am being discriminated against" because you can't participate in an activity is an argument that isn't going to get you anywhere and is easily refuted. I'm not trying to be an a$$hole, I'm just pointing out something that anyone who presents this argument is going to come against. Don't resort to hyperbole when it's easily shot down. it's not an effective tactic.
> 
> I also take exception to your stateing "With your method of advocacy, at some point we will be relegated to fire roads and crowded bike parks with no real opportunities for adventure", I and others have worked for 20+ years on advocacy and as a result I live in an area with hundreds of miles of legal, remote, backcountry singletrack trails open to bikes. Everywhere I go in the west, there are many, many miles of backcountry trails that offer real adventure. Just last month I rode a remote, rarely used combination of trails for a 35 mile loop that I had never been on that is a 30 minute drive from my house. All 100% bike legal and hardly a bike park or "fire road". There are many miles of trails, remote, rugged, backcountry trails less than an hour drive that the only reason I haven't been on them is I don't have time.
> 
> ...


I like what you are saying. However, as you also stated there are areas of Wilders that do not comply with the designation. While I'm not above barring certain activities in some areas (for a variety of reasons), I'm sort of torn by the idea that there are Wilders trails that are better served by expanded use. Ideally, the local districts should use the authority ALREADY granted to them to do their due diligence. I also don't see this going very far at the national level, particularly after reading the draft.

I especially liked this part: 
*
TITLE I - HUMAN-POWERED TRAVEL IN WILDLANDS

SEC. 101. HUMAN-POWERED TRAVEL IN WILDLANDS*

*(i) Nothing in this section applies to any recreational activity that involves shuttling people by motorized transport to a higher point of a trail or route for purposes of descending that trail or route. Such an activity is deemed to be partly motorized and thus not to be human-powered under this Act.*

Why do they hate carpooling?


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> there are areas of Wilders


Is "_Wilders_" an area near you, or it is your word for *wilderness*? i kept getting lost on your posts in another thread thinking this must be a mountain bike area that I have never heard about.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

slocaus said:


> Is "_Wilders_" an area near you, or it is your word for *wilderness*? i kept getting lost on your posts in another thread thinking this must be a mountain bike area that I have never heard about.


Indeed, it is.

Now, stay focused! The STC wants to expand The Wilders to include paved roadways.

I don't think that bodes well for our Wildertude.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Indeed it is which?

Wildertude...  (sound of flowers blooming, birds chirping, brook babbling, frogs croaking... mtbs cruising silently through spinning off little rainbow vortexes)


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

zrm said:


> Nothing personal but I think I'll support maintaining the hundreds of thousands of miles of trails that we have access to that need maintenance. I think I'll support continuing education of MTBers, many of whom take their cue on trail manners and environmental ethics from "action sports" and rad brah bike porn. I think I'll support planning and building new trails on the millions of acres of public and private land that have no use prescription restrictions that prohibit using bikes that won't require a long drawn out, contentious, messy and expensive, legal battle that is, IMO, unlikely to succeed. Nothing personal, but I think there are better, more productive, more beneficial ways to spend my time and money.


I mostly agree with what you state; my efforts and focus are with my local trail advocacy club, and those who I know in the surrounding areas.

I'll donate to the local chapter that I am a member more than the share that they would get back from IMBA, however I will no longer be an IMBA member, and what I would pay IMBA plus a little more will go to STC. There is wilderness only about 10 hard miles from town here, and I grew up in Idaho, so I know what the wilderness opportunities are there and surrounding states, as well as what was lost.

I'll gamble my money (because advocacy really is gamble, you win or loose) with STC now instead of IMBA, who has done so little for us as a chapter, and on the big access issues nationally, like wilderness.

PS - We are actually discussing whether to remain a chapter or revert to a club status with IMBA. CCCMB was very strong locally before we became a chapter, and not much has changed, except that IMBA gets more money from us. We rarely see our regional rep who is focused out in the Nevada desert. We had the IMBA Trail Care Crew here and had to train them to talk to a huge percentage of hikers, trail runners, and equestrians that we have as supporters.

COMMUNITY IS KEY TO THE SUCCESSFUL TRAILS IN SLO
150+ Outdoor Recreationists Learn Trail Building Skills at the Pismo Preserve | LCSLO

Ok, enough OT, but one has to question how effective IMBA can be, after years of blah results on the wilderness issue and other critical fronts. That is why my financial support goes to STC from now on.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> Indeed it is which?
> 
> Wildertude...  (sound of flowers blooming, birds chirping, brook babbling, frogs croaking... mtbs cruising silently through spinning off little rainbow vortexes)


You my friend, have a one-of-a-kind Wildertude. I like it!


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

You're not barred from going there......uhh yes I am. Not everyone can or wants to hike.


many places - it's not rare - MTB trail opportunities are expanding......Sooooo, I do not see how that is reassuring to people barred from riding trails close to their homes. Boonie vista getting more trails is irrelevant to people who were just shut out of antz basin. There are many places where riding has been reduced to fire roads and bike parks because of the wilderness ban.


We've worked together with wilderness folks on a wilderness bill that preserves MTB access on current trails......Think about how much more productive those discussions are/could be if wilderness didn't automatically mean no bikes allowed. Sounds like you spent a lot of time working out a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Don't play the victim card unless you really are a victim.......The ban on bikes greatly reduces my quality of life, does that make me a victim?


Why do they hate carpooling? .......I think the anti shuttling approach is awesome.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Linktung said:


> You're not barred from going there......uhh yes I am. Not everyone can or wants to hike.
> 
> many places - it's not rare - MTB trail opportunities are expanding......Sooooo, I do not see how that is reassuring to people barred from riding trails close to their homes. Boonie vista getting more trails is irrelevant to people who were just shut out of antz basin. There are many places where riding has been reduced to fire roads and bike parks because of the wilderness ban.
> 
> ...


Good for you!

But, how is it relevant to federal regulation in terms of Wilderness if you are simply limiting the manner in which you can ride a bike? There is a whole subset of mountain biking that includes getting to and from trail heads by way of motorized transport. What it means for mountain bikers is rides like Porc Rim and The Whole Enchilada, as well as many types of Enduro races, become subject to permits and/or fines for use outside of an "intended purpose." Plain and simple, the bill need not isolate or identify any particular discipline. It should stay focused on the issue of blanket bans, and possibly some sort of federal funding for reintegrating lost or damaged trails.

Essentially, what you may end up with (in a very real sense) is "pay to play."


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Good for you!
> 
> But, how is it relevant to federal regulation in terms of Wilderness if you are simply limiting the manner in which you can ride a bike? There is a whole subset of mountain biking that includes getting to and from trail heads by way of motorized transport. What it means for mountain bikers is rides like Porc Rim and The Whole Enchilada, as well as many types of Enduro races, become subject to permits and/or fines for use outside of an "intended purpose." Plain and simple, the bill need not isolate or identify any particular discipline. It should stay focused on the issue of blanket bans, and possibly some sort of federal funding for reintegrating lost or damaged trails.
> 
> Essentially, what you may end up with (in a very real sense) is "pay to play."


The fact that people depend on motorized transport for the above is going to earn you little to no sympathy with your opponents. If anything, just the opposite.

"Well, you see, instead of pedaling up an existing road, we're taking a vehicle, because we're too lazy to pedal, incompetent in our planning, or too dumb to figure out how to get up there without turn-by-turn GPS instructions."


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> The fact that people depend on motorized transport for the above is going to earn you little to no sympathy with your opponents. If anything, just the opposite.
> 
> "Well, you see, instead of pedaling up an existing road, we're taking a vehicle, because we're too lazy to pedal, incompetent in our planning, or too dumb to figure out how to get up there without turn-by-turn GPS instructions."


Who is looking for sympathy? I'm not looking for sympathy. The bill need not address or limit any particular type of recreation regarding bicycles It should address the blanket ban in Wilders, just as they had initially stated. How about access via a tram or chairlift? They (the STC) seem to be over-complicating the issue and inserting a lot of potential restrictions and limitations on use in order to pander to specific personalities, which may or may not be better for the community depending on how they get interpreted.

lol, then you go and put words in their mouth.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Good for you!
> 
> But, how is it relevant to federal regulation in terms of Wilderness if you are simply limiting the manner in which you can ride a bike? There is a whole subset of mountain biking that includes getting to and from trail heads by way of motorized transport. What it means for mountain bikers is rides like Porc Rim and The Whole Enchilada, as well as many types of Enduro races, become subject to permits and/or fines for use outside of an "intended purpose." Plain and simple, the bill need not isolate or identify any particular discipline. It should stay focused on the issue of blanket bans, and possibly some sort of federal funding for reintegrating lost or damaged trails.
> 
> Essentially, what you may end up with (in a very real sense) is "pay to play."


I'm not following you here.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Linktung said:


> You're not barred from going there......uhh yes I am. Not everyone can or wants to hike.
> 
> many places - it's not rare - MTB trail opportunities are expanding......Sooooo, I do not see how that is reassuring to people barred from riding trails close to their homes. Boonie vista getting more trails is irrelevant to people who were just shut out of antz basin. There are many places where riding has been reduced to fire roads and bike parks because of the wilderness ban.
> 
> ...


"Not everyone _want's_ (my emphasis) to hike". You think this would be an effective position to take when arguing for MTB access to wilderness areas? Seriously? There are a lot of things people want to do that are prohibited by law and I don't think saying "change the law because I want" is going to work very well.

Pretty much all your arguments come down to "I want".

I recently had a discussion with a friend who I have worked with on trail projects who has worked for many years on trails and other stewardship projects, both in and out of Wilderness areas on this topic. His question to me was this: The wilderness act was adopted to be the most restrictive use designation and management goal in the federal lands system. The language of the wilderness act is pretty clear that the purpose is to allow natural landscapes to exist _for their own sake,_ not necessarily for human use. The architects of the act - although they had to make some compromises to ensure passage - clearly envisioned human use to be as light and as primitive as possible. In lands under the wilderness act, areas which receive no or almost no human visitation are desirable. In other words, in Wilderness, human recreation is not the primary, or even secondary goal. His question is, "how would allowing people to ride bicycles which let's face it, is something we do for fun (nothing wrong with that either in appropriate places) in these lands further the goals of the wilderness act?"


----------



## icycle (Apr 20, 2004)

zrm said:


> I don't think saying "change the law because I want" is going to work very well.


How about changing the law to consider actual impacts of human uses to the land? How about we use real evidence of impacts, instead of just grandfathering in whatever was in current use at the time for all eternity? Some trails don't make sense for equestrians today and some don't for hiking either, but aren't all Wilderness trails by default open to both today?



> The architects of the act - although they had to make some compromises to ensure passage - clearly envisioned human use to be as light and as primitive as possible. In lands under the wilderness act, areas which receive no or almost no human visitation are desirable.



Clearly primitive use does not equal light use.
The STC movement isn't trying to change the areas visited by humans. If a low-impact hiker can visit an established trail deemed sustainable, then why can't an equally low-impact backcountry mountain biker?
The architects were also seeking to set aside land to ensure people could have places to remain physically fit. This is in the Congressional record during the Wilderness Act discussions.
Let's also not forget that the Act originally prohibited motorized travel. The mechanized rule change, which the agencies adopted, came much later. Who do you think pushed for that?



> His question is, "how would allowing people to ride bicycles which let's face it, is something we do for fun (nothing wrong with that either in appropriate places) in these lands further the goals of the wilderness act?"


Either Wilderness lands are left untouched or they are not. Currently, they are not. The less citizens engage with these open spaces, the more irrelevant the lands become to most citizens. They engage with them when they are allowed to actually see them and dare I say have fun. So, with less interest comes less support for preservation. Do you want more support for real preservation? Then stop fighting the growing group of responsible mountain bikers, the very folks who would otherwise support increased Wilderness. Stop making this a three-way battle between two conservation-minded groups and those that would truly exploit the land for profit.

This is why I support STC. I've already sent them 10x what I've ever sent IMBA.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

zrm said:


> In other words, in Wilderness, human recreation is not the primary, or even secondary goal.


According to the Wilderness Act, providing spaces for human recreation is the secondary goal:



> A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, *where man himself is a visitor* who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; *(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;* (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. - The Wilderness Act of 1964


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

zrm said:


> I'm not following you here.


What is it that you aren't following?


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

icycle said:


> The less citizens engage with these open spaces, the more irrelevant the lands become to most citizens. They engage with them when they are allowed to actually see them and dare I say have fun. So, with less interest comes less support for preservation. Do you want more support for real preservation?


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


> View attachment 1029335


Hear, hear... burp!


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

zrm said:


> You're not barred from going there. You just can't ride a bike. Saying "I am barred, or I am being discriminated against" because you can't participate in an activity is an argument that isn't going to get you anywhere and is easily refuted...


I think your view is a little narrow. I have a friend who has trouble going up or down stairs and struggles to get in & out of his truck due to bad knees but he can ride a bike all day long. He is not alone in that bikes are somewhat of an in-line wheelchair. Tell him he can go into these Wilderness areas, just not on his bike. Does not work that way.



zrm said:


> None of this isn't to say that the MTB community shouldn't be active in Wilderness issues. We've worked together with wilderness folks on a wilderness bill that preserves MTB access on current trails. creates core areas protected under the wilderness act, and creates special management areas for current and possible future MTB use that have most of the goals and management criteria as wilderness. these proposals have the support of the local MTB groups, the wilderness groups and our congressional delegation. We've also fought successfully against wilderness proposals that would cause wholesale closures to MTBs on trails currently open to them. It goes to show what you can do when you have realistic goals.


That didn't work out too well for the folks in Idaho who used to ride in the Boulder-White Clouds area though, did it? There have been as many failures with this approach as successes.


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

NEMBA Writes Open Letter to IMBA Urging them to Support the STC | Singletracks Mountain Bike News

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


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

STC is getting my money, IMBA not so much, until they decide to fight for us.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Shark said:


> STC is getting my money, IMBA not so much, until they decide to fight for us.


 How many trails have they made sustainable? What has Sustainable trails done for you? STC is pretty much a single issue group, correct? How likely do you think it is going to succeed in its narrow mission? How much has it done to better the trail experience in your area? How much has it done to further relationships with local trail managers?

I suppose if your sole priority is changing the wilderness travel restrictions (IMO a _well_ under 50/50 chance of success) than something like STC is for you, but in my world, I see a LOT of issues that need to be dealt with r_ight now_ on the many trails that I ride daily - many of which our local IMBA chapter .org has had a great deal to do with creating - or working to get trails that CAN be built on the millions of acres that aren't included in the wilderness act as a priority. IMBA and affiliate clubs have been doing and continue to do this kind of work. They do the maintenance, they keep the relationships with the local and national land managers, they do all the tough, unglamorous, unrecognised work. They're the one's who show up at trail work days. I'd say before you stomp your feet about the few places you can"t ride, I'd say appreciate those who have done the work for the many places you can ride.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

In my region IMBA has nothing to do with the folks and clubs that build and maintain trail, other than taking their money. You claim IMBA sent you some help on the ground, I would like to hear more about that. We pay through the nose to have any IMBA folks help us, even though we are a chapter and pay 60% of our income to them also. Not beating on IMBA, but let's keep this real... STC seems to be making some progress in an area where IMBA fears to tread. The smart money is on STC at the moment, I sent them my Christmas money this year.  I hope everyone does.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

*No need to create animosity between imba and STC*

I am not sure why everyone is so worked up. The environmental side has many different groups (too many to even list out here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_and_conservation_organizations_in_the_United_States)

Each of these groups can take a different approach. It is common for us to be at meetings where 4 or 5 groups are fighting against us. All with different angles and strategies.

It is not realistic to think that one group can fight so many opponents. We do need to have different groups so that they can take different approaches. This shouldn't be an IMBA vs STC thing. They both can and should coexist.

IMBA is playing the long game, building trails, getting more people rideing, showing the positive impacts of mountain biking. The efforts of IMBA will ensure that in a couple generations mountain biking will have the support that other groups have had in the past.

STC wants to take a different approach. Which is fine.

It is ok to support both.

If you like what STC is doing, then support them.

If the trails you ride on are supported by IMBA chapters, support them.

If the trails you ride on are supported by non IMBA chapters support them.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

zrm said:


> How many trails have they made sustainable? What has Sustainable trails done for you? STC is pretty much a single issue group, correct? How likely do you think it is going to succeed in its narrow mission? How much has it done to better the trail experience in your area? How much has it done to further relationships with local trail managers?
> 
> I suppose if your sole priority is changing the wilderness travel restrictions (IMO a _well_ under 50/50 chance of success) than something like STC is for you, but in my world, I see a LOT of issues that need to be dealt with r_ight now_ on the many trails that I ride daily - many of which our local IMBA chapter .org has had a great deal to do with creating - or working to get trails that CAN be built on the millions of acres that aren't included in the wilderness act as a priority. IMBA and affiliate clubs have been doing and continue to do this kind of work. They do the maintenance, they keep the relationships with the local and national land managers, they do all the tough, unglamorous, unrecognised work. They're the one's who show up at trail work days. I'd say before you stomp your feet about the few places you can"t ride, I'd say appreciate those who have done the work for the many places you can ride.


Not sure why you care where I donate my money to??....
Last time I checked IMBA doesn't show up to do our trail maintenance. I'm heading into the national Forest tomorrow to chainsaw fallen trees. Nobody to do that except local volunteers.

I'm hoping that STC can fix the wilderness act, before more of the areas I ride in turn into wilderness.

Last year we lost Long Canyon (one of the best trails that nobody has ever heard of) in north Idaho because of wilderness. This year was the Boulder Whiteclouds.

What is next? When does it end?

Many people want to ride in remote rugged areas, and these areas could be lost in years to come.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Shark said:


> Not sure why you care where I donate my money to??....
> Last time I checked IMBA doesn't show up to do our trail maintenance. I'm heading into the national Forest tomorrow to chainsaw fallen trees. Nobody to do that except local volunteers.
> 
> I'm hoping that STC can fix the wilderness act, before more of the areas I ride in turn into wilderness.
> ...


The issue is that the STC legislation leaves the door wide open for land managers to continue closing trails. Sure, they would initially have to put forth the effort to do so, but there is nothing stopping them. I would like to see the final version of the bill. I suspect it won't look anything like what was recently distributed.

Has anyone discussed the proposed legislation with local land managers? I think they are staying far away from this debate as far as the public is concerned. You can be sure that they are working up strategies, though. I have forwarded the info. to our local trails manager and no reply thus far. They simply don't have the resources to bring many Wilders trails back to usable condition, and this would put a lot of pressure on them to do so. IMO, this bill would only benefit a few places like Idaho, PCT, CDT, etc... It would likely do nothing to address Wilders designation in close proximity to the Metros, which is what we need here in Albuquerque.

If the bureaucrats in D.C. get enough money, schmooz, and pander(which is what they are doing...possibly to the detriment of other riding experiences if you look at the bill closely) they will probably pass something that would help the STC get what *they *want, but without local FS officially chiming in on the subject, it's literally a crap shoot. I'm not much of a gambler.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Has everyone had a chance to research the the bill? I sense that a few have not...

View attachment Human-Powered Wildlands Travel Management Act of 2015 v13 2015-09-09.pdf


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> In my region IMBA has nothing to do with the folks and clubs that build and maintain trail, other than taking their money. You claim IMBA sent you some help on the ground, I would like to hear more about that. We pay through the nose to have any IMBA folks help us, even though we are a chapter and pay 60% of our income to them also. Not beating on IMBA, but let's keep this real... STC seems to be making some progress in an area where IMBA fears to tread. The smart money is on STC at the moment, *I sent them my Christmas money this year.  I hope everyone does.*


Sad, I can't even afford Christmas this year because of all the taxes I had to pay for starting a fledgling business, and you'd have me gamble what money I do have on some crappy legislation?

Happy Holy Days.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

After reading the crappy legislation, I think it will accomplish a few things even if not passed. First, it moves the issue to human powered vs other source of power, which I think is good. The issue needs to be redefined, and this at least broaches the subject in an intelligent way. The issue of facilitating maintenance is also practical, as is allowing local discretion. I agree with all these things, so it seems a positive way to proceed. I think it will take time to accomplish and may not be perfect but is moving in the right direction.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> The issue is that the STC legislation leaves the door wide open for land managers to continue closing trails. Sure, they would initially have to put forth the effort to do so, but there is nothing stopping them.


That is the issue right now. An area gets designated as Wilderness (or even proposed/future wilderness) and they just go out to install "NO BIKES" signs. End of discussion. Too bad. Quit bugging us.

There are plenty of areas that love to have the MTB community in their area to help maintain trails that nobody else has time to do. It brings tourism $$ into towns that otherwise wouldn't have that happening.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> After reading the crappy legislation, I think it will accomplish a few things even if not passed. First, it moves the issue to human powered vs other source of power, which I think is good. The issue needs to be redefined, and this at least broaches the subject in an intelligent way. The issue of facilitating maintenance is also practical, as is allowing local discretion. I agree with all these things, so it seems a positive way to proceed. I think it will take time to accomplish and may not be perfect but is moving in the right direction.


I agree that it addresses some problems with broad definitions currently in the act, but I think they are pandering in the wrong direction. If passed, it could potentially do more harm than good. It could potentially play right into the hands of those who wish to make things more difficult for mountain bikers overall, with the exception of some areas as I mentioned above. If we want to move in the right direction we should do so first and foremost with an effort to address very specific issues. We need not give FS any more leeway to regulate as they see fit, as history has proven that they will use it to their utmost advantage. Not everyone is dealing with districts that are MTB friendly (like yours and ours), and those are the people that need this the most. A wise man once said that if compromise is inevitable, dream big. We should hit them hard with common sense first, and settle later. A smart gambler will almost always hit the Black Jack (classic strategy) table before he sits down to play Poker. You should not overlook the implications of the things you don't agree with, for the wavering potential of the things that you do.

Even after speaking with our FS trails manager he won't provide an off-record opinion on the matter, and he's a mountain biker. It's that sensitive. He did mention that it's likely on the radar with the higher ups, so one can assume that they are preparing strategies.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Shark said:


> That is the issue right now. An area gets designated as Wilderness (or even proposed/future wilderness) and they just go out to install "NO BIKES" signs. End of discussion. Too bad. Quit bugging us.
> 
> There are plenty of areas that love to have the MTB community in their area to help maintain trails that nobody else has time to do. It brings tourism $$ into towns that otherwise wouldn't have that happening.


Have you been to any of the meetings on recently proposed Wilders inventories? It's a joke. They like Wilders because it's a hands off management strategy. I could get into a long discussion about it, but designating Wilders is actually a very time consuming and resource intensive process for them. This new bill would give them even more judiciary influence without all the red tape. You may not be seeing the trees for the forest, my friend.

Tourism alone is not something that FS takes very seriously. That has been proven time and time again. They are a FEDERAL AGENCY. What vested interests do they have in the local economy? People will pay their taxes regardless. It's nice that they they throw that out there, but their actions don't support it.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

If we are serious about this, I believe there are better strategies. It does not include lining the pockets of people you don't even know, whom you hope are working on your behalf. Past experience has taught me that the majority of the time they are not. You absolutely have to get your hands dirty sometimes, and get informed about who you are actually dealing with.

STC has stated clearly that this is a one and done deal. They hold no obligations/accountability to anyone if/when this bill gets passed. IMBA, OTOH, is a self-fulling organization that relies heavily on donations. I don't have to agree with or send money to IMBA, but I know they would not risk their base membership by putting forth some crappy legislation that would undermine what little progress they do make. We should be careful to consider (insert conspiracy theory) that this is not a play to expand IMBA influence. Ever heard of good cop bad cop; or as a friend of mine put it, the two-headed snake? People just need to get more active in their local communities, IMO.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

It would be interesting if the members of the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society were as divided on this issue as we mountain bikers are.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

If the ban on bikes in wilderness were lifted, then just think how many of us would be fervent wilderness supporters.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Curveball said:


> If the ban on bikes in wilderness were lifted, then just think how many of us would be fervent wilderness supporters.


Which might bother some of the grandfathered in uses/abuses of wilderness by putting further ranging eyes on the public resource. Wilderness is not what most non-users think it is, there are no purple unicorns.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Bill, where would you go to _legally_ ride that you don't ride already? 

Thanks.

Edit: Why won't the Forest Service comment on any of this? Has anyone heard a peep out of them on this issue? You'd think they would welcome the additional support for Wilders, especially with the potential free manpower at their disposal.


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> ...
> 
> Edit: Why won't the Forest Service comment on any of this? Has anyone heard a peep out of them on this issue? You'd think they would welcome the additional support for Wilders, especially with the potential free manpower at their disposal.


Why don't you type Wilderness? There's no such thing as "Wilders".


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Bill, where would you go to _legally_ ride that you don't ride already?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Edit: Why won't the Forest Service comment on any of this? Has anyone heard a peep out of them on this issue? You'd think they would welcome the additional support for Wilders, especially with the potential free manpower at their disposal.


The FS is the agency that _takes_comments. They are governed by law (NEPA, etc) It is their job to implement and manage by the law, not make it.

As far as free manpower goes, that varies widely from area to area and for all the talk from MTBers about how much trail work they do, most ranger districts struggle to get volunteers compared to the amount of work that's needed. Plus, many areas already have groups (non profits) that volunteer time for stewardship projects in wilderness. Would adding MTB to wilderness alienate those groups and dilute the already thin number of MTBers that show up for the trail projects that are needed to take care of the trails that are open to bikes? It's a fair question to consider.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

zrm said:


> The FS is the agency that _takes_comments. They are governed by law (NEPA, etc) It is their job to implement and manage by the law, not make it.
> 
> As far as free manpower goes, that varies widely from area to area and for all the talk from MTBers about how much trail work they do, most ranger districts struggle to get volunteers compared to the amount of work that's needed. Plus, many areas already have groups (non profits) that volunteer time for stewardship projects in wilderness. Would adding MTB to wilderness alienate those groups and dilute the already thin number of MTBers that show up for the trail projects that are needed to take care of the trails that are open to bikes? It's a fair question to consider.


I am familiar with how FS operates. Technically speaking if they are formally issued with a concern in writing, they have a certain amount of time to respond. Even if it means "no comment," which is exactly what I got.

Has anyone tried to discuss the proposed legislation with their local FS ranger? That's all I'm asking.

Thanks.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

radair said:


> Why don't you type Wilderness? There's no such thing as "Wilders".


-ness : state : condition : quality : degree

Because. "humanness."


----------



## Chalkpaw (Dec 28, 2007)

*It's not the bicycle*

I like the humor (quote) below, there is truth to it.

Open space, regardless of designation (Park, reserve, wilderness, ohv zone, research, etc.), receives the same amount of 3rd party human Noise and Light. 3rd party is people going by on various means of transportation (car, train, plane). The people in "our" space, just passing through, the current experience is meaningless. Meaning, noise and light (NL)doesn't care where it goes, rippling equally in all directions.

I'm out trail riding and a Harley Davidson with loud pipes goes by on the highway about a mile away while I'm up riding my bike on a hillside. This noise bothers some, and not others, it's a choice. Five seconds later I ride my mtb quietly by two hikers, we nod at each other. I wonder if they are offended at me or the harley that just went by? Many people are seeking any place to escape these two things (NL), me included. Historically, the best close places to escape the noise was a big National Park, or after 1964, Wilderness, to which today many of us find important. I really like the intent of the Wilderness Act. But out here in the open west, its a bit confusing. Just what the hell is it??

On a big scale, judging open space and its on the ground uses (recreation, extraction, and "fallow" lands) ought to be secondary to the 3rd party affects on plants, animals, and people who temporally go there. In my own back yard, which are in part, the red rocks of sedona, lies a perfect test case of where humanity butts up to Nature and a number of different types of land designations. There are also a lot of different outdoor types who live and visit the red rocks, hikers, bikers, and horses, and on down the line. Its hardly a pristine area, yet a kick butt area. One can't help the awe factor. There is a town, several highways, and an airport. It gets really busy buzzy most of the year now, lots of motors, and lights, but there are times everyday where one can step into nature, even for a few seconds. So where can I go to get "more" nature, the places where noise and light are less so? The answer is, "it depends".

Several hallowed "wilderness" areas in the lower 48 are far away from being actual what I would be considered wilderness. Simply, the space is too close to people. There is just too much N&L. And its not the people scrambling around Bell Rock looking for a vortex complaint. The 3rd party N&L is the complaint. It hinders people of all sorts to experience nature. Bell rock where it stands is not wilderness. Bell rock 25 miles to the Northwest is wilderness. Wilderness should not be exclusive in the human powered world of recreation. I'm happy for human powered activities, would give a vote of support, just as long as folks follow basic LNT lessons. A good job for the USFS is education about nature and how people ought to behave there, considering there are other people in the vicinity who are also getting their groove on. Sharing is good. This other stuff about mechanized is really BS.

I'm curious if anyone knows places where communities manage their light, noise, air, water qualities? Has any community been encouraging planes and helicopters to minimum use? What are the biggest sources of impacts upon land? Can they be managed?



bsieb said:


> Indeed it is which?
> 
> Wildertude...  (sound of flowers blooming, birds chirping, brook babbling, frogs croaking... mtbs cruising silently through spinning off little rainbow vortexes)


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

Chalkpaw said:


> I like the humor (quote) below, there is truth to it....


I hate the sound of squeaky brakes rubbing! 

....then again, there is something magical about the sound of the train up on the Cumbres Pass... and I bet you can hear that up in the San Juan Wilderness at Flat Mountain! And I bet the hikers say;_ "Oh, how quaint!"_


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

DaGoat said:


> I hate the sound of squeaky brakes rubbing!
> 
> ....then again, there is something magical about the sound of the train up on the Cumbres Pass... and I bet you can hear that up in the San Juan Wilderness at Flat Mountain! And I bet the hikers say;_ "Oh, how quaint!"_


True story:

I got kicked out of my camping spot up on the Cumbres near the CDT trailhead this year duegooder. Wanna know why? The director of the convoy of tourons aboard the train said I was too close to the tracks. His argument was that railroad owned 100 yds to either side of the tracks, and that when people stepped off of the dinner train (which includes a 3 course meal and live music under the pavilion) they expect to see an area untrammeled (he actually used that word) by man and in its most primitive state. He did not care that the day before I had spent a considerable amount of time cleaning up the trash left by 3 months worth of dinner trains, and that on that particular day I had been roaming deep inside the Wilders taking on all that it could throw at me, and I was cold and hungry.

I have been setting up camp the last few years where the caretaker (John) used to be until they got rid of him. I miss that old bugger. He used to keep things tidy around there. Now, wood scalpers run their chaisaws until well after dark, the train bellows and chugs in the quite escape every Saturday Night, and one can awaken to sounds of high powered rifles almost every morning.

 Wildertude ™


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Finally got a response from a local FS employee. Just this link.:skep: Some interesting opinions from the author and he's spot on about the process, which makes me wonder who in the heck would send money to the STC having drafted such a poor proposal. Seems this will just push more people towards IMBA, and around and around we go!

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/elistRead/wildly_silly_ideas


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

You seem confused as to the role the USFS plays in all this. They didn't get to draft the Wilderness Act, and their unilateral decision to reinterpret 'mechanized transport' is what kicked bikes out (at the apparent behest of Sierra Club types). Their job is to follow the law, not to draft it - and if you've followed the bike closures that occur in areas merely recommended for POTENTIAL future wilderness designations, you might see why their interpretation needs some guidance.

The link you cite is hardly a credible source when it comes to mtn bike issues. Looks like the typical Sierra Club hiker jihad stuff.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Finally got a response from a local FS employee. Just this link.:skep: Some interesting opinions from the author and he's spot on about the process, which makes me wonder who in the heck would send money to the STC having drafted such a poor proposal. Seems this will just push more people towards IMBA, and around and around we go!
> 
> Latest News | Earth Island Journal | Earth Island Institute


You need to look up Doug Scott's "work" to understand his role in this... and who pays him. 100% paid shill. Bummer that a FS employee thought it was worthy of passing on though!

IMBA became less relevant today. If you're a board member of a chapter, you know what I'm talking about. "Gloves are off". I wouldn't be surprised if Doug Scott made a healthy donation to IMBA today either.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

After looking through some of the other featured articles I suspected that it was a biased source, but I thought it had some good information nonetheless. Gotta look at this from multiple angles to get a clear picture of what is actually going on. When money is involved bias looms, but that's not really the point is it. The FS employee still did not offer an opinion, just passed on some info. I take that for what it's worth.  

Emtpy_Beer, you are just as much of a shill as anyone else. Plenty of reasonable questions have been brought to the table, and you continue tow the same line telling people what they want to hear and offering up very little in the way of an actual discussion. Most of the players are so far ahead of the game, it's hard to play if you can't interpret the rules....


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

I'm an unpaid evangelist, trying to help move the ball forward... not sit around and discuss if the ball is the right size, color, shape, or who made the ball and if the ball should actually be rolled.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Empty_Beer said:


> I'm an unpaid evangelist, trying to help move the ball forward... not sit around and discuss if the ball is the right size, color, shape, or who made the ball and if the ball should actually be rolled.


Nothing in the definition of the word shill that includes monetary compensation, so maybe it's not so offensive to some. It's just way of relieving oneself of any accountability for acting in your own best interest.

shill
SHil/
North Americaninformal
noun
noun: shill; plural noun: shills

1.
an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

The word originated in North America.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Empty_Beer said:


> I'm an unpaid evangelist, trying to help move the ball forward... not sit around and discuss if the ball is the right size, color, shape, or who made the ball and if the ball should actually be rolled.


Yes, unimpressed with the 2nd guessing naval gazers, things never happen like they predict anyway. The only way to move forward is to move forward, play the game (fight the battle) as it happens, never quit, eventually win. I don't think mtbers will ever have as strong a voice or more influence than they have now, while the first gen wisdom is still around.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> Yes, unimpressed with the 2nd guessing naval gazers, things never happen like they predict anyway. The only way to move forward is to move forward, play the game (fight the battle) as it happens, never quit, eventually win. I don't think mtbers will ever have as strong a voice or more influence than they have now, while the first gen wisdom is still around.


Hmmm...so your plan of attack is not to attack at all, but rather to react to whatever is thrown at you. There is a time and a place for such a strategy, and should be considered as part of a much bigger strategy, which is to try anticipate (maneuver around) various actions based on the nature of the people involved.

First generation wisdom alone is what got us here. Indeed it has value, but that value is shared among those of us who have fought and "won" battles on other fronts, using different sometimes questionable/controversial approaches . Maybe the reason that mountain bikers don't have a strong voice is because first generation "advocates" continue to fight a losing battle? They seem to hold onto "traditional" means, as it gives them a sense of identity...better known as ego.  I'm not above ego by any means, but I try to recognize when it's actually getting in the way progress.

You guys seem to think that discussion does not equate to movement, but effective discussion can and does lead to efficient action as long as the needs are being met. I have to ask, are peoples needs being met by just rolling the ball forward?


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

1. It's all a guess anyhow, overthinking is the disease of our time.

2. Not about ego, more about acquired knowledge, credibility, and skill, but also an awareness of how things move over time.

3. The ball should be rolled forward... with much discussion, correction, and wisdom, but always forward. I don't see where correcting an administrative decision will suddenly pull the plug on progress. Other things are happening too, it's a small part of a larger thing going on, which is basically changing demographics and uses of public lands.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> 1. It's all a guess anyhow, overthinking is the disease of our time.
> 
> 2. Not about ego, more about acquired knowledge, credibility, and skill, but also an awareness of how things move over time.
> 
> 3. The ball should be rolled forward... with much discussion, correction, and wisdom, but always forward. I don't see where correcting an administrative decision will suddenly pull the plug on progress. Other things are happening too, it's a small part of a larger thing going on, which is basically changing demographics and uses of public lands.


I never would have thought about saying this to you, Bill, but I think you underestimate the long term strategies of the "agencies" involved, and don't give them enough credit for their Apparent ineptNESS, which I think is a direct result of a purposeful imposition of a misinformation. What it says is that they don't even have to try hard anymore.. I also think that while your wisdom has value it has not evolved with the changing tides, or has done so without a conscious consideration of the information that you are receiving. To put it simply, the hook has been set (finally) and it's just a matter of reeling the old timers in. I will give it to you, though. You fought hard and kept the ball rolling, but the momentum seems to have suddenly changed direction, and it's likely IMO that it has shifted even further away from our favor. Just look at the peace movement from the 60's as an example. Most of the vocal movement has settled in, yet war/division seems to be even more prevalent in american society. Commonality is more rare than it has ever been, and all you can say about it is "oh, the kids these days." So, who actually "won?"

I tell my kids quite often that the best way to make me proud is the day that I realize that they are smarter, wiser, and more capable than me. I look forward to that day. Credibility is a funny thing, ya know. It should be something that is earned, and not forced down our throats.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Off topic:

I was listening to Louis Farrakhan the other night, and while I don't agree with all of his teachings, he said something that rang true to me. I was taught that blacks, mexicans, asians and indians were minorities, but the actual populations and numbers of these people have never reflected that. Think about that for a moment. It was a word that was used to subjugate them in the minds of the actual minority.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> 1. It's all a guess anyhow, overthinking is the disease of our time.
> 
> 2. Not about ego, more about acquired knowledge, credibility, and skill, but also an awareness of how things move over time.
> 
> 3. The ball should be rolled forward... with much discussion, correction, and wisdom, but always forward. *I don't see where correcting an administrative decision will suddenly pull the plug on progress. *Other things are happening too, it's a small part of a larger thing going on, which is basically changing demographics and uses of public lands.


On more point I'd like to make, Bill. You are still working within the confines of a corrupted administration. Where is the wisdom in that?


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Why do you think not acting is accomplishing anything?


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> ^Why do you think not acting is accomplishing anything?


Where did I say that? 
I did not say that at all. If anything, I'm stating the exact opposite.

If you would like to point at something, you need to provide a specific quote. Otherwise, it's just guess work. Stop being lazy, and just answer the question.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^The short answer is I don't believe in theories or conspiracies. That has got me more success. Timely action is what produces results, and you won't know if it's timely until afterward, so get going, think on your feet, be nice. :thumbsup:

Youthful energy has a lot of energy but doesn't know what success looks like in the developing stages. Us more experienced guys have wisdom from trying a lot of things, maybe failing a lot. Much of wisdom is born out of the regret of missed opportunity.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

So, you think sending money to STC is action? 

You didn't even have to lick the stamp, Bill.  

Indeed, your group has done good things locally. But, it was a net result of community involvement and a willing Ranger, not IMBA or similar advocacy groups. Gallup still doesn't have a bike shop! 

I don't think you are tuned into the bigger community being is such a vacuum.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I feel STC could accomplish something, directly or indirectly, and that the subject must be broached at some point to size up resistance. The details are pretty meaningless at this point, in my past observations.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

^ I like the edit.

I agree that there is success in failure, but that does not mean that one should not be weary of it.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Here is a fun detail:

Detail is derived from the latin word talea ("cutting" or "twigs"). In music the talea is very important as it's an ordered duration of rhythms with fixed pattern of pitches. It's very common in India, and is widely used in meditations.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Picture it as more of a dance, where the details develop as the evening progresses. More important to be light on your feet than be adamantine about details.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Ring around the Rosy, or Musical Chairs? Maybe even a Waltz?


----------



## Visicypher (Aug 5, 2004)

If they are, they don't make it as visible.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Visicypher said:


> If they are, they don't make it as visible.


If who is what?

thanks


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

Regardless of how you feel about the STC, please write your Congressman/woman regarding the issue of "Human Powered Access" to the wilderness;

*Dear Donors,

The Sustainable Trails Coalition wants to thank you for your generous financial and in-kind contributions to our effort during this past year and give you an update on what is going on.

From a fundraising perspective, we are doing great. As of today, we've raised nearly $90,000. This will fully fund our DC advisers for another five months. Based on historical giving rates, we should be able raise enough to fund this effort for a full 12 months, if needed.

That leads us to the more exciting and significant part of our update. Over the past three months, through the help of our experienced consultants in Washington, we have been educating and building support for our proposed initiative among policy makers on Capitol Hill. As we enter the new year, we will be working closely with lawmakers and their staff to introduce and advance legislation on our behalf.

Which leads us to what we now need from you. We are now at the point where we need to have each of you, and your friends, write a letter to your legislators in Congress (representatives and senators). Our D.C. advisers recommend physical letters, not emails, as snail mail indicates that someone feels particularly strongly about an issue. They also recommend that we not use a form letter-all letters should be personal and individualized. So we are not going to say anything more than you should tell them how you feel about lack of bike access in Wilderness and on the Pacific Crest and Continental Divide trails.

To get a mailing address for your letter, just click on the big Write Your Congressman button below. That page will help you find the address.

In conclusion, much thanks for your support, we are excited for the coming year, and please write a letter as soon as you conveniently can.

The Sustainable Trails Coalition, Board of Directors*

*
Write to your Congress Representative today!*


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Some *highlights*...



> Dear Donors,
> 
> The Sustainable Trails Coalition wants to thank you for your generous financial and in-kind contributions to our effort during this past year and give you an update on what is going on.
> 
> ...


I think the *WE* they are referring to is *THEM*, and *not US*.  If you think by donating to the STC it will help reduce the amount of potential Wilders introduction, and give you access to such places, I'm afraid you might be fooling yourself. But, I guess you could always commute to the PCT and/or the CDT to thumb your nose at the "authorities."


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Some *highlights*...
> 
> I think the *WE* they are referring to is *THEM*, and *not US*.  If you think by donating to the STC it will help the amount of potential Wilders, and give you access to such places, I'm afraid you might be fooling yourself. But, I guess you could always commute to the PCT and/or the CDT to thumb your nose at the "authorities."


I think your "us" is not we, no fooling ourself here. Investing in a possible opportunity, is my take, and glad someone had the gumption to try. All this lip flapping and back stabbing is just that...


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> I think your "us" is not we, no fooling ourself here. Investing in a possible opportunity, is my take, and glad someone had the gumption to try. All this lip flapping and back stabbing is just that...


Invest all the money you want. I don't think that is going to change anything substantially. I prefer a more direct approach, and would encourage others to do the same.

I don't consider myself a back stabber, nor a lip flapper. Sorry you feel that way.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Kinda like playing the lottery; if you don't buy a ticket you'll never win. Do what you can afford.

@ Mtn.Biker123; you're quite the contrarian.


----------



## feral (Feb 10, 2007)

You've made it pretty clear you aren't US, in fact YOU seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth on this issue and are trying to make it seem like you are an actual MTBr but you're coming across as someone who doesn't really understand the importance of this to the MTB community and MTB actually makes you feel like you have sand in your tender bits.

STC is a worthy effort. All they are trying to do is create the OPTION of allowing bikes in Wilderness-designated areas by land managers. Get over the "wilderness is holy and only the anointed may use it". These are public lands that we have ALL paid tax dollars to establish. It's time to cut the BS and dancing around this.

If you aren't with us...you're against US.



Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Some *highlights*...
> 
> I think the *WE* they are referring to is *THEM*, and *not US*.  If you think by donating to the STC it will help reduce the amount of potential Wilders introduction, and give you access to such places, I'm afraid you might be fooling yourself. But, I guess you could always commute to the PCT and/or the CDT to thumb your nose at the "authorities."


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

pliebenberg said:


> Kinda like playing the lottery; if you don't buy a ticket you'll never win. Do what you can afford.
> 
> @ Mtn.Biker123; you're quite the contrarian.


I don't play the lottery, either.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

feral said:


> You've made it pretty clear you aren't US, in fact YOU seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth on this issue and are trying to make it seem like you are an actual MTBr but you're coming across as someone who doesn't really understand the importance of this to the MTB community and MTB actually makes you feel like you have sand in your tender bits.
> 
> STC is a worthy effort. All they are trying to do is create the OPTION of allowing bikes in Wilderness-designated areas by land managers. Get over the "wilderness is holy and only the anointed may use it". These are public lands that we have ALL paid tax dollars to establish. It's time to cut the BS and dancing around this.
> 
> If you aren't with us...you're against US.


Excuse me? So, you resort to saying that I have female parts just because I question the motives of the STC, and the very real potential that this could end badly for the majority of mountain cylists? I'd report you, but it's not worth the effort. Hopefully, anyone with an intellect will disregard your post anyway. You aren't doing STC any favors.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Fear mongering aside, what do you know about STC that we don't?


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

It seems to me that Mtbiker 123 has been overly skeptical and critical since day 1, but still donated some proceedings from an event, then became a little butt hurt when STC returned his donation. So now he appears to have an axe to grind. Classic trolling to make the discussion about him and not about moving the ball forward.... although Mtb123 appears to be convinced the STC is moving the ball backwards.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> ^Fear mongering aside, what do you know about STC that we don't?


I don't know much about the STC other than what I read on their site, and what followed in the way of the bill. I'm not the only one who thinks it is a bad idea, though. I simply disagree that this is the best way to move forward. It just so happens many people have been fooled into believing that it is the only way forward. I've made suggestions on how I think it could be better directly to the STC, and asked them politely to respond to a few concerns, yet they failed to respond to any open communication other than to thank me for the donation. A donation that I made in good faith prior to reviewing the bill. Instead they returned the donation, no questions asked. I respect that, and have no axe to grind with them other than remaining vocal about my concerns.

I guess some people would consider that classic trolling, but I have addressed these same issues elsewhere so it's not about me....although the decision will affect me.

Initially, I was very skeptical based on the information (or lack of) from their website, and having had a bad experience with IMBA as a "third party" representative. But again, I made donation in good faith that they would act in the best interest of the mountain cyclists community. This does not appear to be the case, as they left the door wide open for business as usual and even engaged a dialogue for potentially more restrictions on the trails that we already ride. I guess we shall see how it all pans out, and I do look forward to the day that they prove me wrong. Could be a long time coming, though. 10 years is a lot of donations....


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Bill, remember that conversation we had about Abney? Do you agree with his conclusion that things will get worse before they get better? If so, do you think that we have seen the worst of it with regard to bike access, regulation, and restrictions? I think you made if perfectly clear how you feel about "fancy stuff" in the other thread. So this Bill and the STC are right up your alley since they haven't officially adopted their definition of "sustainability, which I would have to assume follow IMBA standards, and could potentially further restrict other activities/building techniques that you find distasteful and/or unsustainable. Unfortunately, you also made it pretty clear that you are unwise to how sustainable the "fancy stuff" actually could be. I understand it's not your thing, but why not just focus on the aspect of getting bikes in The Wilders, rather than concealing a bunch of additional management authority behind it? Does not make sense to me. I guess the real question is, what do you know that I don't?

One more question, what would be the first Wilder trail that you would go ride (legally) if this Bill were to get passed? I know immediately where I'm gonna go. Hopefully, before FS gets a chance to put up signs that say "No Bikes Allowed."

Of course, I don't expect you to answer to all the questions I've put forward here. It's just your way. Just know that I respect what you have been able to accomplish there in Gallup, but also realize that there are many aspects of bike riding that people find enjoyable. 

Peace, and good luck to you all.

Bryan


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

If the bill were to get passed, it would still be up to the local govening authority, in my case the FS. So the thing it would do is allow bikepackers to access a spring that is reliable year round, just as hikers, and horseback riders, will be able to. That's what it means in my world. What would it mean in yours? Personal relationships and track record, politics, and other factors would still prevail. In essence, the idea is to remove a blanket administrative restriction, and let other more local situations be decided on their merits. So it won't make it easy, just possible where it makes sense.

We all know that nothing is certain, or even probable. I work with what I have to work with, because the alternative is to do nothing. I also think I have more wisdom than you do.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Does anyone else on the planet refer to Wilderness as "the Wilders"... and that might be where you lose a lot of us? (BTW, I refer to the Wilders as "My Precious") ut: I think one reason STC returned your $ is they are focused on an end goal and explaining/convincing/debating things with the vocal minority isn't worth it. You realize the draft bill you likely read has and will be revised at least a couple dozen times, right?

/face-in-palm


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


> I think one reason STC returned your $ is they are focused on an end goal and explaining/convincing/debating things with _*the vocal minority*_ isn't worth it...


Hear, hear... burp!


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Take the time to listen to this.
Trail Cast ? Rant On Ep 12 ? MBR


----------



## icycle (Apr 20, 2004)

Everyone on both sides of the issue should become familiar with the history:
History ? FIX AMERICA?S TRAIL SYSTEM

STC has done an amazing job at digging up documents and posting them online, pointing out to all how the USFS interpretations of the Wilderness Act have both oscillated over time and have settled on what key Congressmen involved with the original Wilderness Act have repeatedly said are unnecessarily strict and against the intent of the act.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

This just happened.

FORMER IMBA CHAIR JOHN BLISS JOINS STC BOARD : Uncommon Communications

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Boulder, Colo. - January 21, 2016 - Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC) is pleased to announce the addition of Boulder, Colorado's John Bliss to the organization's board of directors. He joins current board members Jeff Barker, Jane Ragan, Jackson Ratcliffe, David Simon and Ted Stroll. A fervent endurance athlete who competes in long-distance mountain bike events and cyclocross competitions across the country, Bliss served as President of the International Mountain Bicycling Association's (IMBA) board of directors from February of 2009 to September, 2010.

Bliss's Beltway resume includes roles as Minority Chief Counsel to the Technology and Law Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee as well as Chief Counsel to U.S. Senator Hank Brown (R-Colo.). He has also functioned as executive director of an international trade association headquartered in Washington, D.C., facilitating the passage of more than 22 state laws and two pieces of federal legislation during his tenure.

"We're delighted to add John to the team. His background in mountain biking advocacy, his interaction with the federal-government and his considerable experience in the legal arena bring invaluable expertise to STC's board," offers Ted Stroll, co-founder of STC. "His addition is particularly well-timed as it coincides with our group's introduction of the Human-Powered Wildlands Travel Management Act of 2016."

"Mountain biking and cycling advocacy are topics for which I have great passion," states Bliss. "As STC's legislation nears introduction, I feel that my operational experience at the intersection of law, politics, technology and policy on or around Capitol Hill will prove particularly useful to the group."

He is currently General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer for the technology company Atigeo Corporation, of Bellevue, Wash., whose flagship software is the intelligent Big Data platform, xPatterns. The co-holder of three U.S. patents, Bliss is a graduate of the University of California, San Diego, and the Georgetown University Law Center. He is also a member of the District of Columbia and Hawaii State Bars.

For more information regarding The Sustainable Trails Coalition and the Human-Powered Wildlands Travel Management Act of 2016 or to donate to the cause via credit card, Fortua or PayPal, please visit FIX AMERICA'S TRAIL SYSTEM. Media inquiries may be directed to [email protected].

###


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Ah, yes. One big happy family.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Ah, yes. One big happy family.


Unfortunately, not really. 

OPEN LETTER TO MTB COMMUNITY FROM FORMER IMBA CHAIR

Dear fellow mountain bikers:

I'm honored to accept the invitation of the Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC) to serve on its Board. There's been much discussion of late about the relative pros and cons of STC and IMBA, so I thought it appropriate to offer a civil, yet transparent explanation for why a former IMBA Chair such as myself would choose to dedicate his efforts exclusively to STC's mission.

1. STC's mission is clear, straightforward and reasonable: to remove needless access restrictions and address the poor state of our trail system. STC proposes to address these concerns with modest, reasonable legislation: the Human-Powered Wildlands Travel Management Act of 2016 (HP-WTMA).

2. HP-WTMA would, among other things, reform the blanket nationwide bicycle bans in Wilderness by allowing each National Forest or other public land unit to decide on bicycle access at the local level. I stress: local input from mountain bikers and local decision making! Importantly, neither STC or HP-WTMA advocated for a blanket right to ride in Wilderness.

3. IMBA has historically and consistently demonstrated disinterest in seeking changes to current Wilderness law. During my chairmanship of IMBA and certainly well before it, the organization consistently displayed a lack of enthusiasm for joining this fight. Given the clear choice between seeking this modest right for mountain bikers and potentially jeopardizing relationships with agencies and land managers (which IMBA regards as critical to its mission,) IMBA has opted to side with the status quo, preferring relationship preservation over the potential to reinstate mountain biker access where appropriate. Regrettably, this "play nice" approach with regulators hasn't worked so well recently, particularly in Idaho where recent loss of mountain biking access in the new Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness near Ketchum and Stanley lead Idahoans to donate $5,000 to STC through the Southwest Idaho Mountain Biking Association (SWIMBA).

4. STC's legislative efforts are timely and professionally guided by smart, tested government relations experts. Never has there been a better time politically to seek these proposed legislative changes.

5. IMBA is structured as a 501 (c)(3) so it can't lobby without jeopardizing this particular tax status. STC is a 501(c)(4) which is designed to permit lobbying.

6. As bureaucracies age they ossify. At 28 years old, IMBA is increasingly bureaucratic; STC isn't. Bureaucracies are characterized by inertness, slowness to action, and preoccupation with administering overgrown organizations. By contrast, STC is nimble, lean-and-mean, singleminded and laser focused. This "startup" approach will serve mountain bikers well.

7. IMBA has been invited but has declined to support STC. On Dec. 29, STC's Founder Ted Stroll sent a letter to IMBA's Executive Director Mike Van Abel asking whether IMBA would publicly support STC and its efforts. This lack of formal response to a sister advocacy organization is disappointing given IMBA's admission that it can't lobby and is a disservice to all mountain bikers, including the growing numbers who support STC.

8. In politics, when you disagree on tactics but support the objective, the takeaway too often is akin to "You're not with me, you're against me." IMBA has repeatedly said that it shares STC's larger vision about mountain bikes but differs on tactics. Let's be very clear what that means. This is simply polite bureaucratese for: "we don't support you; please go away." In my humble opinion, that stance is unnecessarily short-sighted.

In summary, given IMBA's history of studied intransigence on Wilderness, its unwillingness to support STC publicly, and the justness and ripeness of this cause, I felt it was time to place my support behind this "little engine that could". That engine is STC. They're making a difference for mountain bikers in the halls of Congress. And they aren't going away.

With STC's help, I look forward to a day where my right to seek solitude on a bike doesn't take a back seat to similar solitude-seeking rights of hikers or equestrians, whose trail impacts are widely regarded as more impactful than our two human powered rubber wheels.

I hope you'll join me in supporting STC's reasonable and limited efforts.

Thanks for your consideration.

John Bliss
Current Board Member, STC
Former IMBA Chair 2010
IMBA Board Member 2006-2010
Former IMBA member


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Ah, yes. One big happy family


I think he is being sarcastic...



Empty_Beer said:


> Unfortunately, not really.
> 
> OPEN LETTER TO MTB COMMUNITY FROM FORMER IMBA CHAIR
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting this @ Empty; Bliss' letter is very informative.

Pretty much what I suspected.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

So I have been wondering something. Why is this .org calling itself the "sustainable trails coalition"? If I understand it correctly, it's a one issue advocacy group, which is fine in itself, but it has nothing to do with trail maintenance, or designing sustainable trails, or keeping (sustaining) access to trails where bikes are currently legal. Why not call itself "bikes belong in wilderness" or something like that? "Sustainable Trails" IMO, takes a page from the right wing industry groups that have "green" sounding names but advocate for extractive industry.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

zrm said:


> So I have been wondering something. Why is this .org calling itself the "sustainable trails coalition"? If I understand it correctly, it's a one issue advocacy group, which is fine in itself, but it has nothing to do with trail maintenance, or designing sustainable trails, or keeping (sustaining) access to trails where bikes are currently legal. Why not call itself "bikes belong in wilderness" or something like that? "Sustainable Trails" IMO, takes a page from the right wing industry groups that have "green" sounding names but advocate for extractive industry.


In my humble opinion, they are two sides of the same coin. It's just a different style of pandering. The relationship between these two orgs is pretty obvious to me, but that is secondary to the way I feel about the overall approach. I think the legislation, as currently written, could open the door for more heavy handed regulation for the price of POTENTIALLY riding your bike in the Wilders, so I'm not supporting it until I see the final bill, if at all.

I have asked repeatedly what they mean by Sustainable Trails Coalition. I think they plan on being around for a while, but their legislation is extremely short sited for the long game with regard to actual conditions of the Wilder trails that they are proposing to ride, and that is why they actually need IMBA, or some form of local "startups" that will carry out the necessary tasks of building relationships.

Considering all the indignation that IMBA has recently been getting from the pro-core community, they really needed to diversify their interests. However, their hands were pretty tied by an even larger following with deeper pockets, many of them tied to Wilders advocacy. I suspect that these two playing each other the way they are serves a few different strategies; one being to distance themselves from each other as much as possible, which ironically further divides us as a user group - politics as usual. In any case, it will be interesting to see how quick they get this thing done. That will be the tell.

Point is, the big issue is not whether we get to ride in Wilders. It's how we can promote more trails for a growing number of users. Here, we have a willing manager but people seem content to donate their money rather than muscle and brain matter.


----------



## The Sagebrush Slug (Jan 12, 2004)

zrm said:


> So I have been wondering something. Why is this .org calling itself the "sustainable trails coalition"?


I'm not allied with STC in any shape or form other than general agreement with their approach, but I think they have a fair name for a number of reasons.

However, most important reason is that the more types of trail users a trail supports the more sustainable it is.

IMHO, hiker-only wilderness trails are not a sustainable approach to protecting nature any more.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

...


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

The Sagebrush Slug said:


> I'm not allied with STC in any shape or form other than general agreement with their approach, but I think they have a fair name for a number of reasons.
> 
> However, most important reason is that the more types of trail users a trail supports the more sustainable it is.
> 
> IMHO, hiker-only wilderness trails are not a sustainable approach to protecting nature any more.


It would be if more people actually hiked. That said, I generally agree with your second paragraph.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

...


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

What is this 'Wilders' you speak of? Is ts THAT difficult to use an actual complete word?


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

Same ol' same ol' from IMBA!

https://www.imba.com/news/2016Advocacy

_"IMBA believes bicycle-friendly designations are better for the long-term conservation of our public lands, since they encourage mountain bike enthusiasts to advocate for conservation of public lands alongside other recreational users who share wildland values. IMBA will continue to respect both the Wilderness Act and the federal land agencies' regulations that bicycles are not allowed in existing Wilderness areas. This 2016 position strategically aligns with our well-established and relevant mission to create, enhance and preserve great mountain biking experiences."_


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

Keep on giving... if you don't agree that Mt. Bikes just need to stay out of the Wilderness!

_"We (STC) started raising $ on July 28th 2015 and as of 1/27/2016 we have raised $103,791 and are 83% of the way to our goal."_


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

DaGoat said:


> Same ol' same ol' from IMBA!
> 
> https://www.imba.com/news/2016Advocacy
> 
> _"IMBA believes bicycle-friendly designations are better for the long-term conservation of our public lands, since they encourage mountain bike enthusiasts to advocate for conservation of public lands alongside other recreational users who share wildland values. IMBA will continue to respect both the Wilderness Act and the federal land agencies' regulations that bicycles are not allowed in existing Wilderness areas. This 2016 position strategically aligns with our well-established and relevant mission to create, enhance and preserve great mountain biking experiences."_


They've made it pretty clear now with this press release, I guess my support for IMBA must cease.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

Hear hear!


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

*The wilderness cannot be ridden...*



zrm said:


> ... I think I'll support maintaining the hundreds of thousands of miles of trails that we have access to that need maintenance.


Yes! How many trails that you ride need work? I have never ridden a trail system that wasn't in need of work. Is it not better strategy to improve and refine what we have before spreading our maintenance needs even further?



zrm said:


> ...I think I'll support continuing education of MTBers, many of whom take their cue on trail manners and environmental ethics from "action sports" and rad brah bike porn....


Indeed! How much damage do these self-absorbed users cause! My experience suggests that the ones who lack respect for other users are the same ones who don't respect the trail; users who make the job of building community support next to impossible; because they want what they want, with no consideration of others. Spoiled brats is how I would say it if I weren't more restrained.



zrm said:


> ... I think I'll support planning and building new trails on the millions of acres of public and private land that have no use prescription restrictions that prohibit using bikes that won't require a long drawn out, contentious, messy and expensive, legal battle ...


It's called strategic thinking. Why fight for the one thing that will pit millions of people against MTBers by association?



zrm said:


> ... I think there are better, more productive, more beneficial ways to spend my time and money.


I couldn't agree more!

I just can't get over the feeling that the idea of biking in the wilderness is being discussed by people that don't understand wilderness. For the most part, wilderness is impassible by bicycle. You can't ride in most wilderness, except perhaps here in the desert. If you understood wilderness you would understand why mountain bikers who DO understand wilderness don't think bikes belong in the wilderness. I have a hard time believing that the most vocal participants of this discussion have ever been in true wilderness. In most places, if it really is wilderness, riding a bike couldn't be done. I'm not sure why so many people think otherwise?


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

ki5ka said:


> I just can't get over the feeling that the idea of biking in the wilderness is being discussed by people that don't understand wilderness. For the most part, wilderness is impassible by bicycle. You can't ride in most wilderness, except perhaps here in the desert. If you understood wilderness you would understand why mountain bikers who DO understand wilderness don't think bikes belong in the wilderness. I have a hard time believing that the most vocal participants of this discussion have ever been in true wilderness. In most places, if it really is wilderness, riding a bike couldn't be done. I'm not sure why so many people think otherwise?


I agree with ALMOST everything you said, but this stands out the most. Special interest groups are now going after parcels, and inclusions for Wilder inventories by NFS have been extremely far reaching lately. As someone has stated, "historical use" is no longer being appreciated. They don't even maintain their own guidelines for what has historically been considered for Wilders.

I am one of those 'wildcatters,' but circumstances here are a little different. I will save the long explanation, and just leave it as I prefer to hash those differences out at the local level.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Wilders.


Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness. Wilderness.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Let me add that anyone who has spent any appreciable amount of time building trail will recognize that many game/predatory animals utilize man made trails, if it suits their migratory/hunting patterns. Believe it or not, we actually have a lot in common with animals. Hard to believe, I know. 

I might go so far to say that mountain bikers, once they have been recognized as a non-threat (unlike a human walking with a stick in his/her hand), would not affect the natural patterns of the Wilderbeasts. 

For instance, this mule dear let me get within 20 foot (no zoom) of he and his family (one doe and two fawns). I didn't chance trying to get any closer.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

ki5ka said:


> I just can't get over the feeling that the idea of biking in the wilderness is being discussed by people that don't understand wilderness. For the most part, wilderness is impassible by bicycle. You can't ride in most wilderness, except perhaps here in the desert. If you understood wilderness you would understand why mountain bikers who DO understand wilderness don't think bikes belong in the wilderness. I have a hard time believing that the most vocal participants of this discussion have ever been in true wilderness. In most places, if it really is wilderness, riding a bike couldn't be done. I'm not sure why so many people think otherwise?


Wow. Good to know you are the expert on all trails in the 109,129,657 acres of Wilderness! Was Castle Divide or Ants Basin in the Boulder White Clouds impassible by bicycle for the past 30 years?


----------



## skiracer88 (Mar 10, 2014)

ki5ka said:


> I just can't get over the feeling that the idea of biking in the wilderness is being discussed by people that don't understand wilderness. For the most part, wilderness is impassible by bicycle. You can't ride in most wilderness, except perhaps here in the desert. If you understood wilderness you would understand why mountain bikers who DO understand wilderness don't think bikes belong in the wilderness. I have a hard time believing that the most vocal participants of this discussion have ever been in true wilderness. In most places, if it really is wilderness, riding a bike couldn't be done. I'm not sure why so many people think otherwise?


This post makes me think you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Wilderness areas are usually designated due to the absence of roads and other existing infrastructure, there is no magical variance in the landscape or singletrack trails that makes them impassible to bikes just because you cross an imaginary boundary line.

Just about every trail that I have hiked in wilderness (a lot of them), in the rugged ROCKY MOUNTAINS (not desert) would be very fun on a bike. Take the Colorado trail....do you really think that the areas designated as wilderness are markedly more rugged and impassible than the places that don't have that designation?

Would there be some level of hike-a-bike...sure, but for me and many others, that is part of the adventure that we seek out. We don't want to ride easy flow trails, we crave a true, difficult backcountry experience on a bike. Unfortunately, that type of experience is in grave danger in many parts of the country.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

skiracer88 said:


> ....do you really think that the areas designated as wilderness are markedly more rugged and impassible than the places that don't have that designation?


 I guess that's my point... when I think wilderness, it's not about a designation, it is a condition and yes, what I know as wilderness is largely impassible on a bicycle. Perhaps you are right, I don't know what kind of wilderness you are talking about. I live in the desert now where wilderness travel is indeed possible, but everywhere else I have lived, that would not be the case. Maybe I just need to get out more.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

skiracer88 said:


> ...that is part of the adventure that we seek out. We don't want to ride easy flow trails, we crave a true, difficult backcountry experience on a bike. Unfortunately, that type of experience is in grave danger in many parts of the country.


Riding off trail in untouched country is my favorite kind of riding. I've never biked overnight in the wilderness though I have canoed in the BWCA, Quetico and Isle Royale, and sailed offshore. These "wilderness experiences" have been some of the best of my life. It sounds like you understand that. If I read more comments that sounded like yours, I might think differently about this conversation.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

Empty_Beer said:


> Wow. Good to know you are the expert on all trails in the 109,129,657 acres of Wilderness!


 As you and Skiracer point out, I guess my experience is limited.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*I'm on a mission...*

...to get this gem out:










(arrow mine)


----------



## ryanxj (Sep 9, 2011)

ki5ka said:


> As you and Skiracer point out, I guess my experience is limited.


Most obviously.

But, lets take a hypothetical and say you were spot on...

As the 'need' for more Wilderness grows to curb urban sprawl, resource extraction, etc., is there anything to make you believe that trails commonly currently used by masses of bike users would not become more and more frequently designated as off limits to bikes in the future?


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

Not sure what I did to deserve the snarky quip, but to your question, no, that has not been my experience; perhaps your experience has been different. 

If there are masses using the trails I would expect there to be masses of public support, especially if those users are politically involved and take advantage of organizations like IMBA who supports efforts to keep trails open. 

I suspect that most trails get closed when the people who use them don't invest in keeping them up, don't support the organizations who do, and especially, those bikers whose actions make a negative impression on the rest of the world and make it so very difficult to project a responsible, grown-up image of our sport. 

BTW, I like your tagline


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

kiSka I have to disagree about trails closure. I am not sure how far back your awareness of trail closure goes. Historically trails get closed, or get certain user excluded, by people who have the political influence to close them. Historically we have not been able to overcome them in spite of spending more time taking care of trails.

The lack of involvement, however, has alway been a strong factor. Secondarily, weak involvement is often function of not believing that existing organizations support the variety of mountain biking desires. This has always been the achilles heel of IMBA; well-earned in some cases, not so much in others.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

Mike, the more I explore this issue, the more I think the issue is very different depending on where you live. Does that make sense?


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

ki5ka said:


> Mike, the more I explore this issue, the more I think the issue is very different depending on where you live. Does that make sense?


Indeed, and TB&A is not an accurate cross-section of the whole community of mountain biking or userships. You should consider that as well.


----------



## skiracer88 (Mar 10, 2014)

ki5ka said:


> I guess that's my point... when I think wilderness, it's not about a designation, it is a condition and yes, what I know as wilderness is largely impassible on a bicycle. Perhaps you are right, I don't know what kind of wilderness you are talking about. I live in the desert now where wilderness travel is indeed possible, but everywhere else I have lived, that would not be the case. Maybe I just need to get out more.


I am glad you have an open mind, and I am sorry for being a bit disrespectful of your opinion previously. Just know that there are those of us out there that want to experience wilderness on a bicycle in its truest and rawest form. We will push our bikes uphill for miles if we have to just for the chance of seeing some of the most remote and beautiful places imaginable from the saddle. We have no interest in "taming" any wilderness trails to make them more rideable, but live for the challenge and beauty that these places provide in their current form.

check this out:

Bike Ride Profile | Williams Fork Loop near Parshall | Times and Records | Strava

https://www.facebook.com/skiracer88/media_set?set=a.10102563762990313.1073741838.10238856&type=3

This area is located in the Williams fork mountains north of Silverthorne Colorado. It is surrounded by wilderness on three sides and the only reason that it escaped the designation is because Denver water has some infrastructure and access roads back there. Nestled in this area is a beautiful 26-mile backcountry loop of rugged, beautiful singletrack that sees such little use that it is essentially disappearing above treeline.

It took me 7.5 hours of moving time to complete the 26-mile loop (about 3.5 miles per hour). Much of that time was spent pushing my bike up a very steep grade topping out at over 12,000 feet. This is the type of experience that I live for and that I daydream about. This is not about flow trails or screaming downhills. This is about truly connecting with some of the most beautiful parts of the world from the seat of my bicycle in the same way that a backpacker does.

These are the types of rides we are losing left and right all throughout the west. I don't want to lose more rides like this one. I would like to gain access to more rides like this one in areas where it makes sense. This is why I support the Sustainable Trails Coalition.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

skiracer88 said:


> This is not about flow trails or screaming downhills.


Exactly!

My kind of guy. Even though I have a couple of big-name F.S. bikes my go-to bike is a Chinese carbon 29er hardtail because it's light, easy to push/carry and cheap so I don't have to worry about scratching it. (It climbs well, too)

Over half of my GPS tracks never make it to public Strava because where one trail peters out I may carry/push my bike to the next ridge over to where I can re-join a trail. I don't post them because I don't want to imply the route is following a trail. Making loops like this is what I consider fun. (If I do post them I'll clearly label them "hike-a-bike")

To each his own.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I will guess that most of you haven't seen this letter yet from Wilderness.org (not wilder.org hahaha)












Sorry, I could only figure out to attach as photos. It infuriates me that they are using IMBA's position as ammunition in their own case. I also can only guess that their reference to the future use of motorized vehicles being allowed in due to STC's bill is due to e-bikes.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Silentfoe said:


> I will guess that most of you haven't seen this letter yet from Wilderness.org (not wilder.org hahaha)Sorry, I could only figure out to attach as photos. It infuriates me that they are using IMBA's position as ammunition in their own case. I also can only guess that their reference to the future use of motorized vehicles being allowed in due to STC's bill is due to e-bikes.


I got the link via STC FB and gave it a glance; STC commented that WS was quoting the STC draft proposal so hopefully STC will rebut with a more refined version.

My take is that WS is extrapolating the "minimum tool" provision to include e-bikes. I am sure STC meant no such.

FWIW CA Parks just revised their wilderness regulations to include "minimum tool" but this is in regards to maintenance activities not public users. In the CSP case it would now allow for the use of such things as chainsaws (or a helicopter) if that was the best way to get the job done within a state wilderness. (BTW this was the same legislation that now means that all trails in State Parks are closed to bikes unless declared open)


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

lol, the only agency that stands to benefit from all of this is IMBA. It's a fantastic strategy by them, just when their memberships were beginning to decline as they have been dropping the ball left and right. On top of that, they even made a few bucks.  The bill is so poorly written, that it's quite telling the lack of intellect for anyone that actually takes it seriously. Who are the lobbyists in D.C., and who are they talking to? Where does the FS stand on this? Time to put up, or shut up IMO.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ Every time I read one of your inane comments, I thank the good Lord above that I don't live in the same area as you. I'd walk away from advocacy if I did.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

ki5ka said:


> I just can't get over the feeling that the idea of biking in the wilderness is being discussed by people that don't understand wilderness. For the most part, wilderness is impassible by bicycle. You can't ride in most wilderness, except perhaps here in the desert. If you understood wilderness you would understand why mountain bikers who DO understand wilderness don't think bikes belong in the wilderness. I have a hard time believing that the most vocal participants of this discussion have ever been in true wilderness. In most places, if it really is wilderness, riding a bike couldn't be done. I'm not sure why so many people think otherwise?












Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ Every time I read one of your inane comments, I thank the good Lord above that I don't live in the same area as you. I'd walk away from advocacy if I did.


That's just silly. On the contrary, I'd welcome a face to face you. The proof of what I said is all in black and white, if you'd just remove your goggles. Just because you can't see it now does not mean it isn't there.

PS: It's a good to know that you put your faith in "the good lord above."


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

ki5ka said:


> Not sure what I did to deserve the snarky quip, but to your question, no, that has not been my experience; perhaps your experience has been different.
> 
> If there are masses using the trails I would expect there to be masses of public support, especially if those users are politically involved and take advantage of organizations like IMBA who supports efforts to keep trails open.
> 
> ...


This is utter nonsense, and shows a severe lack of understanding of what's happening in areas outside of the desert you live in.



ki5ka said:


> I just can't get over the feeling that the idea of biking in the wilderness is being discussed by people that don't understand wilderness. For the most part, wilderness is impassible by bicycle. You can't ride in most wilderness, except perhaps here in the desert. If you understood wilderness you would understand why mountain bikers who DO understand wilderness don't think bikes belong in the wilderness. I have a hard time believing that the most vocal participants of this discussion have ever been in true wilderness. In most places, if it really is wilderness, riding a bike couldn't be done. I'm not sure why so many people think otherwise?


More utter nonsense. You certainly don't speak for me and I resent the implication that I do not understand wilderness. Idaho? Montana? Kettle Crest of Washington.... maybe YOU can't ride a bike up there but I sure can.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

formica said:


> This is utter nonsense, and shows a severe lack of understanding of what's happening in areas outside of the desert you live in...
> 
> More utter nonsense. You certainly don't speak for me and I resent the implication that I do not understand wilderness. Idaho? Montana? Kettle Crest of Washington.... maybe YOU can't ride a bike up there but I sure can.


+1, "utter nonsense".



Empty_Beer said:


> ^ Every time I read one of your inane comments, I thank the good Lord above that I don't live in the same area as you. I'd walk away from advocacy if I did.


+1, you are a lucky man, for sure!


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

+1 to both your points.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

In an attempt to get the thread out of the gutter; this is what STC says about it's goals:

*WHAT ARE YOUR GOALS?*

Undo the 1984 blanket ban on bicycles in federal Wilderness areas. (See below for an explanation of what these are.)
Undo the 1988 Forest Service ban on bicycles on the Pacific Crest Trail.
Stop the Forest Service from banning bikes on more sections of the Continental Divide Trail.
Stop the Forest Service from creating faux versions of Wilderness such as so-called "recommended Wilderness" and banning mountain biking in those areas. This practice is starting to close off vast tracts in Montana, for example.
Free up federal government employees and volunteers to use modern equipment like chainsaws and wheelbarrows to maintain trails in Wilderness areas.


Pretty easy to follow IMHO.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

"Who are the lobbyists in D.C., and who are they talking to? Where does the FS stand on this? Time to put up, or shut up IMO."

The STC keeps throwing out bones with no meat on them. Minus my little conspiracy theory, there are still plenty of important questions that have not been answered. The idea that STC has stimulated a "conversation" with IMBA and access issues leads me to assume (for the moment) that IMBA, and it's membership, will finally start practicing what they preach. Whether or not this is an attempt for them to save face is beside the point. The fact that people are discussing these issues in the open (it has been a taboo subject for a very long time) is a step in the right direction. They are holding their own feet to the flame, IMO, which is fine by me as long as there is some progress. I plan on attending one of their free summits over the weekend, which will focus on these specific subjects. Should be interesting if I can make. I see that bsieb is signed up as well.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

pliebenberg said:


> In an attempt to get the thread out of the gutter; this is what STC says about it's goals:
> 
> WHAT *A*RE YOUR GOA*L*S?
> 
> ...


You obviously haven't read the subliminal message hidden within!


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Empty_Beer said:


> You obviously haven't read the subliminal message hidden within!


Riiiight; play it backwards at 78 speed.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

skiracer88 said:


> ...
> check this out:
> 
> Bike Ride Profile | Williams Fork Loop near Parshall | Times and Records | Strava
> ...


Looks like some epic riding! 



skiracer88 said:


> ... This is about truly connecting with some of the most beautiful parts of the world from the seat of my bicycle in the same way that a backpacker does.


 I sure can relate to this.



skiracer88 said:


> These are the types of rides we are losing left and right all throughout the west. I don't want to lose more rides like this one.


 I wouldn't want to lose them either.



skiracer88 said:


> I would like to gain access to more rides like this one in areas where it makes sense.


 Sounds reasonable.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

formica said:


> .... maybe YOU can't ride a bike up there but I sure can.


I'm sure you're right.


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

*Hey IMBA shills and critics!... Divide and get conquered much?*

Dudes,

The clock is ticking and we're still behind the usual anti mtb suspects.

No doubt, discussion is important. Sometimes the point/counterpoint from knowledgeable, wise, and witty folks here is educational, entertaining, and informative, but geeze!... Where is this going?

As for the STC, if memory serves, the existing mtb advocacy communities/groups of old did not collectively attack/criticize IMBA when it was first formed? I'm pretty sure Berkeley Mike could illuminate. Point being...

*Why not collectively help 'the new kid' (STC) give their innovative approach a fair shot?
*
For sure, there are a lot more details I'd like to know about the draft, the team, etc. Some of what I've read IMHO could use massaging. That said, whatever you do, for love of trails PLEASE stop pushing the fear button and throwing out the dismissive comments. At the current rate of loss of mtb back country access, there won't be much to loose in the near future.

Just imagine our dominant future advocacy organization's acronym N.F.U.C.A the National Front Country and Urban Cycling Association... cause mountains will have NOTHING to do with it if we keep doing the same things the same way.

What I believe, is that we can all agree that we MUST continue to protect these wonderful 'wild' places...

as humans, not competing users.

CB


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

CANADIANBACON said:


> Dudes,
> 
> The clock is ticking and we're still behind the usual anti mtb suspects.
> 
> ...


This is the real problem with being locked out of the wilderness: we are the only one in the room who don't support a wilderness designation.

Please be patient for just a few more days. I promise you wont be disappointed.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

By not actively questioning IMBA we are where we are now. For a long time saying anything negative about IMBA was met with the same types of "hostility," (as was anything to do with Wilderdebates) now all of the sudden it seems like the right thing to do. 

I have approached "the new kids" directly, and they seem to want to fly under the radar as much as possible, while kindly accepting donations. Forgive me for being a little suspicious. 

Now ^the post above. We are nothing less that trained monkeys. 

Carry on.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> We are nothing less that trained monkeys.


Or narrow minded, self centered trolls who cannot think outside the box or communicate with common language. :nono:


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> By not actively questioning IMBA we are where we are now. For a long time saying anything negative about IMBA was met with the same types of "hostility," (as was anything to do with Wilderdebates) now all of the sudden it seems like the right thing to do.
> 
> I have approached "the new kids" directly, and they seem to want to fly under the radar as much as possible, while kindly accepting donations. Forgive me for being a little suspicious.
> 
> ...


You do realize that getting a bill sponsored takes some secrecy correct?

Never in my life could I have imagined that the IMBA would host a press release in which they would reaffirm their stance to not try and open one single mile of wilderness trail and also announce their partnership with the Wilderness Society.

It is because of issues like this that we need to maintain secrecy at least for a few more days. I hope personally that I can share any tidbit of information with you that would make you feel better. Until then I can only say:

Since you are implying that we are taking donation money in an unethical way I'd like to say that personally I have never used one penny of donation money. None of it has ever reached me in any way. It all goes directly to the lobbyists.

I've made a large donation to STC myself.

All members of the board have as well and we are all unpaid volunteers.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

"Flying under the radar" is a political necessity at times; STC is employing (to a degree) that tactic currently but IMBA has used it to excess more than once.

BTW I have a hunch that *Mtn. Biker123* is a double agent planted by STC to keep interest in these threads bumped up.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Davey Simon said:


> You do realize that getting a bill sponsored takes some secrecy correct?
> *
> Never in my life could I have imagined that the IMBA would host a press release in which they would reaffirm their stance to not try and open one single mile of wilderness trail and also announce their partnership with the Wilderness Society.*
> 
> ...


Really? They have been doing it for years, and from what I understand the members of the board of STC have been directly (or indirectly) associated with forming/supporting/promoting IMBA, some since the beginning. I've been actively questioning IMBA strategies for about 10 years, now.

As far as secrecy goes, STC had to let the cat out of the bag in order to procure the necessary funds for your lobbyists. I wonder if the Wilders folks (your "opponents") have more information than STC donors at this point.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

pliebenberg said:


> "Flying under the radar" is a political necessity at times; STC is employing (to a degree) that tactic currently but IMBA has used it to excess more than once.
> 
> BTW I have a hunch that *Mtn. Biker123* is a double agent planted by STC to keep interest in these threads bumped up.


That's a decent hunch. You're on the right track.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Really? They have been doing it for years, and from what I understand the members of the board of STC have been directly (or indirectly) associated with forming/supporting/promoting IMBA, some since the beginning. I've been actively questioning IMBA strategies for about 10 years, now.
> 
> As far as secrecy goes, STC had to let the cat out of the bag in order to procure the necessary funds for your lobbyists. I wonder if the Wilders folks (your "opponents") have more information than STC donors at this point.


Yes a former staff member of the IMBA joined STCs board. There was a press release issued, you may want to read it. OK scratch that. Please read it if you continue to make such misinformed statements about STC.

Your second statement makes no sense at all. Did we let the cat out of the bag to get funding? OK how are you trained monkey then? Who has more information? Donors or the IMBA/Wilderness Society?

Seriously give it a few more days and things will be abundantly clear.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Davey Simon said:


> You do realize that getting a bill sponsored takes some secrecy correct?
> 
> Never in my life could I have imagined that the IMBA would host a press release in which they would reaffirm their stance to not try and open one single mile of wilderness trail and also announce their partnership with the Wilderness Society.
> 
> ...


And of course, as a 501(c)(4), STC will file a Form 990 which will be subject to public inspection, just as IMBA's Form 990 currently is. I asked questions of STC prior to contributing and received prompt and complete answers. Seems as transparent as you could be given the arena in which you are operating.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

ACree said:


> And of course, as a 501(c)(4), STC will file a Form 990 which will be subject to public inspection, just as IMBA's Form 990 currently is. I asked questions of STC prior to contributing and received prompt and complete answers. Seems as transparent as you could be given the arena in which you are operating.


Thank you! Look for more transparency soon. I'll post it here.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

http://reviews.mtbr.com/letter-to-every-imba-member-from-the-angry-singlespeeder

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gravitylover (Sep 1, 2009)

Davey I'm looking forward to the statement you keep mentioning. There has to be a good way through this mess.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Davey Simon said:


> Yes a former staff member of the IMBA joined STCs board. There was a press release issued, you may want to read it. OK scratch that. Please read it if you continue to make such misinformed statements about STC.
> 
> Your second statement makes no sense at all. Did we let the cat out of the bag to get funding? OK how are you trained monkey then? Who has more information? Donors or the IMBA/Wilderness Society?
> 
> ...


Everyone, or everyone that I'm aware of, on the BOD has been tightly associated with IMBA. I've read the "reports." Sorry if I seem a little suspicious that there were that many people who continued to do their due diligence with IMBA, while secretly opposing one of the main strategies that inevitably led to the mess we are in now. Now, I should believe that this new organization will continue to work to sustain our progress, while at the same time systematically attacking IMBA, your former employer (an organization that at least attempts organize and build trails), and offering zero strategies in continuing that EFFORT. Why call it the Sustainable Trails Coalition? Who are you collaborating with?  And, what is your plan for building sustainable trails? Are you going to adopt IMBA standards? Why wasn't this address during the last year of the Bush administration? It would have been a whole lot easier, and cheaper.

Coalition:

"an alliance for combined action, especially a temporary alliance of political parties forming a government or of states."

PS: I look forward to this "new information," and thank you for participating in this dialogue.:thumbsup:


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

You made a Big Lebouski reference so +1

But also you asked a bunch of questions and while some of it was insightful other stuff was just wrong/insane 

I'll address one glaringly wrong/insane item you rattled off:

I've never worked for the IMBA. Did a few trail days with different trail crews over the years. I was a member for two years total - easily separated by a decade for the rejoin. Never an employee, certainly not. I did apply for the NorCal director job tho. Resume probably went in the round file.

If you bother to poke around you can find some of the projects I've helped with. 

But yea dude never got a 1099 or W2 from the IMBA so you are just way way off.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Davey Simon said:


> Letter to every IMBA member from The Angry Singlespeeder - Mtbr.com


Kurt's piece is eloquent and should be read by all.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Davey Simon said:


> You made a Big Lebouski reference so +1
> 
> But also you asked a bunch of questions and while some of it was insightful other stuff was just wrong/insane
> 
> ...


And, you are on the board of directors? Like I said, the one's I'm aware of have a long history with IMBA in one fashion or anther. At least three, IRC.

I don't make a habit of poking around into people's personal lives, particularly if they prefer to remain anonymous, and I did not ask you what projects you have been involved with.

Thanks.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> And, you are on the board of directors? Like I said, the one's I'm aware of have a long history with IMBA in one fashion or anther. At least three, IRC.
> 
> I don't make a habit of poking around into people's personal lives, particularly if they prefer to remain anonymous, and I did not ask you what projects you have been involved with.
> 
> Thanks.


Can you back up that claim of STC BoD deep involvement with IMBA with the links to the facts? All that is public and on the Internet. I just wonder where you get your info that is so different than what my research found.

A few clicks here on eMpTy BeeR will show you Davey's involvement.

Of course, actually looking up facts makes your hairbrained opinions harder to defend.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

slocaus said:


> Can you back up that claim of STC BoD deep involvement with IMBA with the links to the facts? All that is public and on the Internet. I just wonder where you get your info that is so different than what my research found.
> 
> A few clicks here on eMpTy BeeR will show you Davey's involvement.
> 
> Of course, actually looking up facts makes your hairbrained opinions harder to defend.


Out of the 6 there are two, which happen to be the most vocal of the 6 (besides possibly David). Prior to just a few minutes ago all the reports I had seen and read indicated that there is a lot of history between the two. Admittedly, it's been a few months since I've visited the website.

Sure, it's easy to cherry pick the stuff that they can easily defend (gotta throw a bone every now and again  ), while completely avoiding the ones that aren't so easily explained. I'm not a professional reporter, nor should I have to be if they are as transparent as they say they are.

Anyway, let's put it to bed for a few days, huh?

Like I said, put up or shut up. And, unless they have a good plan on how we are going to continue to make meager progress in the trail building department, I'd suggest that they stop nipping at the heals of IMBA. It does not look good. It's petty. Certainly I'm not above such things, but I'm not trying to defend my reputation either.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

The profile pic for JB reminds me of that famous guy from Apple...what's his name again? 

It's god some curb appeal, I'll give him that.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Why does anyone owe you an explanation, you're just talking crap hoping something will stick. You haven't provided any details either, just hearsay from a couple months ago? I suggest YOU put up or shut up, you haven't provided any useful info thus far, you just demand it.

I consider former experience with IMBA a plus, btw, it means they saw the light. 

All ******** 123... and stale at that.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Out of the 6 there are two, which happen to be the most vocal of the 6 (besides possibly David). Prior to just a few minutes ago all the reports I had seen and read indicated that there is a lot of history between the two. Admittedly, it's been a few months since I've visited the website.
> 
> Sure, it's easy to cherry pick the stuff that they can easily defend (gotta throw a bone every now and again  ), while completely avoiding the ones that aren't so easily explained. I'm not a professional reporter, nor should I have to be if they are as transparent as they say they are.
> 
> ...


I guess yes you're serving the purpose of keeping this bumped up but your raison d'etre RE some sort of conspiracy in dumbfounding. So what if the STC BOD members have past connections with IMBA; I'll bet most of them are US citizens and drive cars.

I'm still an IMBA member until my membership expires. So what?

And why bring up trail building??? STC is only interested in getting access to (and the maintenance of) of existing trails.

And from what I see it's IMBA that's "nipping at the heals" (of SC and WS) and furthering pettiness.

I've got a lot of rant left in me so bring it on...


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Out of the 6 there are two, which happen to be the most vocal of the 6 (besides possibly David). Prior to just a few minutes ago all the reports I had seen and read indicated that there is a lot of history between the two. Admittedly, it's been a few months since I've visited the website.
> 
> Sure, it's easy to cherry pick the stuff that they can easily defend (gotta throw a bone every now and again  ), while completely avoiding the ones that aren't so easily explained. I'm not a professional reporter, nor should I have to be if they are as transparent as they say they are.
> 
> ...


Nice double evasion, lost more cred with that. No proof of your claims and then asking to take it to bed for a few days. Take the heat off the troll, back under the bridge.



Mtn. Biker123 said:


> The profile pic for JB reminds me of that famous guy from Apple...what's his name again?
> 
> It's god some curb appeal, I'll give him that.


Hey! Look over there, is that a free dinner buffet?


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

What I meant was, let's put it to bed until after we get the Big News.

Coincidence? I think not!


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Before I get locked out of another thread for "trolling", I'm just gonna bow out. You guys win. 

Looking forward to the BIG News in a few days. 

I'm ready for my Wilders Pass.


----------



## DaGoat (Sep 1, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ Every time I read one of your inane comments, I thank the good Lord above that I don't live in the same area as you. I'd walk away from advocacy if I did.


Now you know what I've had to put up with over the last 10 years I've been trying to be an "advocate" in NM. Bryan's an ol' bootlegger that seems to think you can get things done outside of the system. He's not a bad guy, just a bit misguided! 

*EDIT:* OK, Bryan has tried through the years to change the course of Mt. Biking advocacy in a direction that differs from what IMBA has been all about. As a previous IMBA Chapter Pres, I myself always tried to play by the rules, but I too have become disillusioned with IMBA's strategy over the last few years.

I guess what I'm saying is Bryan is a good hearted individual and although he tends to be a bit of a troll, he's really not a bad guy! But I stand by my _"Ol' Bootlegger"_ comment!


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

...


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

lol


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> I remember talking to Doug on the phone just after all his attempts to "advocate" were starting to crumble and after he had completely turned a successful group on it's side, and then quit as president. He was making a big push to bring in IMBA as the lead. I think he felt IMBA would come to his rescue, and I warned him that it was probably a waste of money. Of course, he would never admit that to anyone here, but if anyone wonders why I'm suspicious of these orgs you can thank him.
> 
> When I watched others who were so easily sucked in by someone like Doug because he was "doing the right thing," I began to question the system itself. Here we are years later, and who is the first person to bring the STC to my attention? Yep, you guessed it. Now, I'm faced with a real dilemma. The STC, outside of the fact that they appear to differ on the details of a single purpose, still operates much the same as IMBA did. I'm also faced with an entire forum of "doogooders." lol
> 
> Anyway, I sent Doug a PM and he did not respond. I'm not defending myself, but what he has implied is dishonest. He's using me as a scapegoat. If he were a man, he'd own up to his own mistakes.


Dude. Being an advocate is hard. And you are making it harder.

Also STC operates exactly the opposite as the IMBA. Starting with zero paid staff.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Davey Simon said:


> Dude. Being an advocate is hard. And you are making it harder.
> 
> Also STC operates exactly the opposite as the IMBA. Starting with zero paid staff.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree. It's difficult, and the worst part is that many friends become enemies. It takes a pretty special person to advocate for their supposed enemies, doesn't it. Hang in there, Davey.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

SDMBA supports the Sustainable Trails Coalition - Bikes in Wilderness!

Written by Kevin Loomis on March 3, 2016. Posted in Board Blog, SDMBA Blog

The San Diego Mountain Biking Association (SDMBA) is disappointed with the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA's) decision not to pursue appropriate bicycle access in Designated Wilderness through changes to the Wilderness Act or other means. SDMBA fully supports the goals and mission of the Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC) in their common sense approach to end the blanket ban on bicycles and needless tool restrictions in Federal Wilderness. We support the idea that bicycle use is consistent with maintaining the Wilderness character of lands and that bicycle use is appropriate on some, but not all, trails in Wilderness.

With over 42% of all Federal Wilderness (lower 48) residing in CA, OR and WA, we experience the vast majority trails closures due to designation of Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness. Lands proposed for these designations tend to be pristine backcountry areas, the very areas mountain bikers as well as other trail users care about and want to recreate in. Mountain bikers have already lost access to vast tracts of land in the west, and in areas such as Southern California we have virtually no access to long distance backcountry routes. New Wilderness proposals are being brought forward continuously. Introduction of the Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule requires every National Forest to inventory lands with Wilderness Character and consider designating such lands as Recommended Wilderness.

SDMBA is very concerned that we will continue to lose access to our most cherished riding areas. Recent closures in Idaho and Montana prove that IMBA's strategies are not working, and we are not optimistic that IMBA will be able to halt the losses. Bicyclists simply do not have the same clout as other interest groups when it comes to influencing land management plans. SDMBA feels the only way to level the playing field is to change the rules.

SDMBA supports the concept of environmentally sustainable muscle-powered recreation in Wilderness areas. This goes beyond the environment, as bicycling is a healthy means of recreation that will help address the issue of childhood obesity which is currently at an all-time high. SDMBA believes true leadership is needed from IMBA on this critical issue. SDMBA asks IMBA to reverse its out of touch anti-bike stance within Wilderness and form a partnership with STC based on their common sense approach. We urge IMBA to embrace and advocate for the 96% of MTB riders who loudly proclaimed their desire for bikes to be included within strategically agreed upon Wilderness trails - 96% of Mountain Bikers Think Wilderness Should Be Opened to Bikes | Singletracks Mountain Bike News.

SDMBA understands there are potential downstream consequences but remain focused on upstream opportunities. We strongly believe all user groups - equestrians, hikers and cyclists - should enjoy and cherish the pristine back country experience promised them in 1964 for all generations. We no longer believe IMBA has our back on this extremely important issue for our Chapter and we accordingly support STC's legislative efforts and encourage our brethren IMBA chapters to do the same who share our concerns about reasonable access to Wilderness.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Boulder Pilot said:


> SDMBA supports the Sustainable Trails Coalition - Bikes in Wilderness!
> 
> Written by Kevin Loomis on March 3, 2016. Posted in Board Blog, SDMBA Blog
> 
> ...


Wow!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

SDMBA's neighbors to the north (CORBA in Los Angeles) published an extremely reasonable take.

http://corbamtb.com/news/2016/03/03/presidents-message-the-wilderness-debate/


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^I agree, good to hear a level head speak up!


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

SDMBA's stance I support; CORBA is still high on IMBA Kool-aid. Nuanced my a$$.

I'll still support my local IMBA clubs with direct donations; no more membership.

IMBA does not represent my views on the Wilderness subject and we have been mislead by IMBA since the Park City agreement.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

I believe, as well as countless others, believe our take is extremely reasonable. I also respect CORBA's position. SDMBA took many issues into consideration before deciding how to move forward. 

Jason S.
Director, SDMBA


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I think the argument between the two groups is self-defeating. I'm not an IMBA booster, but I'm not targeting them either. And as far as I know, they intend to circulate the Montana Bicycle Guild's comments on our local forest's wilderness inventory across their entire membership, so that's a positive.

http://www.montanabicycleguild.org/wilderness-inventory-comments/


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Davey Simon said:


> Dude. Being an advocate is hard. And you are making it harder.
> 
> Also STC operates exactly the opposite as the IMBA. Starting with zero paid staff.


"starting"

Can't wait to see the STC financials.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

richde said:


> "starting"
> 
> Can't wait to see the STC financials.


There's nothing wrong with paid staff, and in many cases it's preferable to volunteer efforts that burn out and have to constantly restart from zero.

I hope you're as critical of IMBA financials.


----------



## Gardner (Oct 11, 2007)

Wilderness is a big deal for us here in California. What isn't often pointed out is that there is a State Wilderness designation used in state parks too. For the sake of simplicity and consistency across fed/state borders State Wilderness comes with the same blanket ban on bikes. Of course this means that even more trails are off limits than first meets the eye when looking at the Wilderness issue. 
I will continue to support the work IMBA does, my local chapter, and the STC.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

ACree said:


> There's nothing wrong with paid staff, and in many cases it's preferable to volunteer efforts that burn out and have to constantly restart from zero.
> 
> I hope you're as critical of IMBA financials.


I can't tell what he is getting at. I'm not worried but please let's do a thorough investigation of everyone's financials.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Gardner said:


> Wilderness is a big deal for us here in California. What isn't often pointed out is that there is a State Wilderness designation used in state parks too. For the sake of simplicity and consistency across fed/state borders State Wilderness comes with the same blanket ban on bikes. Of course this means that even more trails are off limits than first meets the eye when looking at the Wilderness issue.
> I will continue to support the work IMBA does, my local chapter, and the STC.


The interesting thing here is that when the State of California loosened up their restrictions on "minimum tool" usage in State Wilderness areas IMBA was opposed to that too. WTF???

If interested in connecting the dots http://forums.mtbr.com/california-norcal/imba-action-alert-state-parks-wording-905073.html is a good starting point.

IMBA's main focus was the change in 4360 (from all trails are open to bikes unless closed to the opposite; all trails in State Parks are closed to bikes and horses unless open) which BTW I thought IMBA's proposal was very good (too bad their proposal was ignored).

In hindsight I can now see RE the 4351 regulation change in that IMBA was very interested in maintaining the _status quo_ of the Wilderness concept as promulgated by the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society.

Here's IMBA's letter to the State RE that rule-making change (which was approved and became effective last April 1st): https://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/StateParksRuleMakingIMBAfinaldraft.pdf


----------



## icycle (Apr 20, 2004)

Davey Simon said:


> Seriously give it a few more days and things will be abundantly clear.


I didn't miss the big announcement, did I?


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

icycle said:


> I didn't miss the big announcement, did I?


Nope. You have not. Trust me I feel a bit like an ass.

I can't tell you publicly why our original plan fell through because it would put our current plan at risk.

There is so much happening that I want to share but if I do I would be putting things that all of us at STC are working very hard at, at risk.

So I humbly apologize for now and promise that when I can explain I will.

Rather than that I hope our current plan works and we are all on the same page soon.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Davey Simon said:


> Nope. You have not. Trust me I feel a bit like an ass.
> 
> I can't tell you publicly why our original plan fell through because it would put our current plan at risk.
> 
> ...


The book about how mountain bikers changed the world -- and all the twists and turns the story took --will be a mindblowing book! I hope ya'll are along for the ride!


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

I'm curious if and how this new recreation bill might effect the STC dealings?

5 Questions for Senator Wyden about the New Recreation Bill ? Outdoor Alliance


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Vernon addresses an international audience:

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/banned-in-the-usa-part-1-2016.html


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

slocaus said:


> I'm curious if and how this new recreation bill might effect the STC dealings?
> 
> 5 Questions for Senator Wyden about the New Recreation Bill ? Outdoor Alliance


Personally I think the other bill is great. It shows that restrictions on public land are too great and that there is a lot of overreach out there in the conservation community.

If anything I see it as positive 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

slocaus said:


> I'm curious if and how this new recreation bill might effect the STC dealings?
> 
> 5 Questions for Senator Wyden about the New Recreation Bill ? Outdoor Alliance


I like how Mike Van A jumps in with a comment.

There has been recent discussion of potentially pushing for more Wilderness in the Ochoco's (NE of Bend, Oregon) which has getting a LOT of local pushback. Good to see a senator doing something that appears consistent with local desires.


----------



## trailnimal (Mar 1, 2004)

The New Golden Rule of Playing Outside: Place First | Outside Online


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

trailnimal said:


> The New Golden Rule of Playing Outside: Place First | Outside Online


God that was hard to read.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

Davey, not sure what you mean?

I'm a strong supporter of mountain bikes and of STC. And IMBA. And NEMBA. And VMBA for that matter. I also am an AMC member. But, I also am a scientist/engineer.

And frankly, I enjoyed the article because yes, as with all our issues, numbers is the problem. Too many people. There are too many people who want 4000 SF homes, too many people want iPhones, too many people want cars, want cheap food, want this, want that, and yes want to use wild areas.

Its a real issue that with human population growth and the trend of people getting outside raises many questions.

I'm not discounting STC, or mountain biking, or outdoor recreation. But the point of the article, _that place should come first_, is a very good idea in my opinion.

I'm involved in water resources work, specifically stormwater management and stream restoration, its quite amazing what changes in a watershed can do. Even a trail. I mean cascading effects. To have a firm grasp on ecology is to really worry about every little thing that happens.

My girlfriend is involved in biology, specifically bird biology, more specifically shorebird biology. The act of just people using the beach is detrimental to these birds. Traveling thousands of miles to loaf on a beach and eat bugs to regain strength, they fear for their lives and waste precious energy they can't recoup through eating. Now add dogs, add kite surfers (whose kite shadows trigger raptor sighting reflexes in birds). It is a real issue. And I'm not saying I support environmental issues more than recreational ones. I firmly believe we need more outdoor recreation, that people need the woods (or the desert, or the ocean, or whatever) more than ever. But it is much more than that.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

iceboxsteve said:


> Davey, not sure what you mean?
> 
> I'm a strong supporter of mountain bikes and of STC. And IMBA. And NEMBA. And VMBA for that matter. I also am an AMC member. But, I also am a scientist/engineer.
> 
> ...


I was simply referring to the part of the article that had to do with STC. We don't want to introduce a new form of recreation into the Wilderness. We want to reintroduce cycling into the Wilderness. Cycling was permitted for the first 20 years of the Wilderness Act.

As far as what you are saying I agree somewhat. Environmentalists like to attack the low hanging fruit like mountain bikers. When I would say the real problem is that a guy can hop in his private jet and fly across the country burning 2000 gallons of fuel, 450 gallons the first hour of the trip. To go from one massive home to the next.

Somehow some conservationist is going to tell me that my bike is the problem when I ride the 3/4 of the mile from my home to the trail?

And the Falcon 900 private jet I used to fly is screeching overhead?

Sorry man but while I agree that everything does have an impact the article completely ignores the benefits of exposing people to the outdoors.

And the environmental community is going after very small issues while huge ones loom completely uncontested.

At the last Marin County Open Space Commission Barbara Salzman of the Marin Audubon Society says that while the Norther Spotted Owl population is doing great, the few new multi use trail projects need to be stopped. Why because HER interpretation of the Endangered Species Act is not being followed. The arrogance is astounding but it wont stop the threat of a lawsuit brought on by the Marin/SF elite.

Meanwhile there are some very big issues that the Audubon Society could be taking on but they choose to slam the cycling community. Why because we are low hanging fruit easy for the picking.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

Davey Simon said:


> I was simply referring to the part of the article that had to do with STC. We don't want to introduce a new form of recreation into the Wilderness. We want to reintroduce cycling into the Wilderness. Cycling was permitted for the first 20 years of the Wilderness Act.
> 
> As far as what you are saying I agree somewhat. Environmentalists like to attack the low hanging fruit like mountain bikers. When I would say the real problem is that a guy can hop in his private jet and fly across the country burning 2000 gallons of fuel, 450 gallons the first hour of the trip. To go from one massive home to the next.
> 
> ...


You make excellent points about us being the low hanging fruit. I wasn't trying to attack you, came off that way certainly. I just have a lot of friends in the moutnain biking circle (and outdoor rec) who seem to forget we do have impacts.

The author did mention "Outside has written about how standing knee-deep in powder on a high ridge is a salve for mind and body. We need more of that, as we spend our days bent in prayer over our iPhones."

But I agree, the fights people pick with us as users are trivial compared to many others. I guess I wanted to remind people that outdoor recreation has very real consequences.

Trust me, my girlfriend was educated as a conservation biology major (who graduated university in 2014) that as a land manager the first thing you do is ban mountain bikers. She had no issue with us, it was simply what she was taught. Its taken years to show her we are no more a danger to the environment on those trails than a hiker with his dog.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

iceboxsteve said:


> You make excellent points about us being the low hanging fruit. I wasn't trying to attack you, came off that way certainly. I just have a lot of friends in the moutnain biking circle (and outdoor rec) who seem to forget we do have impacts.
> 
> The author did mention "Outside has written about how standing knee-deep in powder on a high ridge is a salve for mind and body. We need more of that, as we spend our days bent in prayer over our iPhones."
> 
> ...


Damn I am sorry to read that but I am not surprised. Sadly. Never thought you were attacking me. It is just disappointing to read another uneducated rant on Outside. Cyclists were allowed in the Wilderness for ages. If you don't believe me check out the 1973 edition of the Marin Horse Council newsletter page 5:


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

Davey Simon said:


> Damn I am sorry to read that but I am not surprised. Sadly. Never thought you were attacking me. It is just disappointing to read another uneducated rant on Outside. Cyclists were allowed in the Wilderness for ages. If you don't believe me check out the 1973 edition of the Marin Horse Council newsletter page 5:


Oh I believe you. I read everything STC puts out. And I saw Jim Hasenauer give a talk at the Northeast Mountain Bike Summit in 2014 and subsequently talked to him about bikes in wilderness, which I've always believed in.

And yes, I was *terrified *when she told me that. It was 2014 when she graduated from a state university and literally they were teaching kids (many who had no idea about mountain biking nor cared) that mountain biking was evil and as potential land managers and biologists/ecologists, bikes should be banned.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

If anything I admire the HOHAs tenacity. They are so small in number yet seem to have a lock on key positions. I had not even considered the university system. 

Seems like something the IMBA could help a lot with.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Credit to IBMA for linking this on their FB page:

Mountain Biking Has an Identity Crisis? And it Affects Us All | Singletracks Mountain Bike News










I'll take issue with the _"Yet, this is how we allow the bike industry to portray us."_

_"Allow"?_

_"We"???_


----------



## icycle (Apr 20, 2004)

Davey Simon said:


> Cyclists were allowed in the Wilderness for ages. If you don't believe me check out the 1973 edition of the Marin Horse Council newsletter page 5:


Couldn't find anything on page 5. Page 11 has a bit about Pt. Reyes Nat'l Seashore, is that what you meant? From my reading of that, however, it sounded like hiking, biking, and horseback riding was allowed only outside the 5k acres of wilderness designated within?


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

pliebenberg said:


> Credit to IBMA for linking this on their FB page:
> 
> Mountain Biking Has an Identity Crisis? And it Affects Us All | Singletracks Mountain Bike News
> 
> ...


I'll bet most "non mountain bikers" see Redbull rampage in their minds when thinking about mountain biking....


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

I was interviewed by Drew of Trail Cast on Mountain Bike Radio:

Sustainable Trails Coalition on Trail Cast | Mountain Bike Radio

Big ups to Drew for keeping me talking for so long and allowing me to dispel a few of the myths regarding STC, Wilderness and other issues.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Davey Simon said:


> I was interviewed by Drew of Trail Cast on Mountain Bike Radio:
> 
> Sustainable Trails Coalition on Trail Cast | Mountain Bike Radio
> 
> Big ups to Drew for keeping me talking for so long and allowing me to dispel a few of the myths regarding STC, Wilderness and other issues.


Thanks for taking the time with me Dave. I just hope clearing things up helps move the community forward.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Cotharyus said:


> Thanks for taking the time with me Dave. I just hope clearing things up helps move the community forward.


Thanks. It was a lot of fun!


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Bump...

And a new Senate bill has been introduced. Keep fighting the fight! Support with letters and phone calls to your reps asking for their support, $ to STC to continue lobbying, writing Letters to the Editor or Op-ed pieces.... stay engaged!

https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/5/sen-lee-seeks-biking-access-in-wilderness-areas


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Yes, I see it as an encouraging development. The bill seems very focused and simple, a big plus.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Excellent news!


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Great job STC


----------

