# Mountain Bike Access going backwards? and what to do about it



## Guest (Nov 6, 2009)

*A thoughtful commentary, by one of the great trail builders and pioneers, 
required reading for advocacy * ( and a good link to great trail building info later)

reprinted from Warrior Society - a long-time Orange County CA club, via
San Diego Mountain Biking Assoc, intro by Board President Minette Ozaki, also one of the unsung heroes doing so much for SoCal MTBers:

"food for thought.-see Warrior Society commentary below:
_
I think we are on the right track of convincing militant environmentalists that we are not the enemy.
"Lack" is the enemy, lack of planning and lack of design.
Although we need to stay cautious because "they" are not our friends...unless they ride a bike.

-Minette 
_

> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:00:48 -0700
> From: Warrior's Society
> Subject: 10/19/09 Warrior's Society News
> To: [email protected]_______
>
> COMMENTARY: IS MOUNTAIN BIKE ACCESS GOING BACKWARDS?
>
> I tend to get testy with mountain bikers who act entitled, who think they should be allowed to ride wherever they want, make wildcat trails, build structures without permission and ride trails closed to mountain bicycling. There's a reason for this, and if recent trends are any indication, we need more people to climb up anybody's six who thinks that kind of thing is OK.
>
> I came into mountain biking about 25 years ago, when we were few in number and had to prove ourselves constantly. The term "sweat equity" meant a lot more then. Without the hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours mountain bike advocates put in building and maintaining trails, raising funds and schmoozing with decision-makers around the country
> the riding opportunities we enjoy never would have come into being. It's as simple as that.
>
> We thought that as mountain biking became more popular it would gain more political clout, land managers would become more mountain bike friendly and we'd be over the hump. We may have made it over the hump, but we speeding smack-dab into a wall.
>
> Two factors, one of which nobody I know saw coming, have come around to bite us.
>
> The one that many of us did see coming is the failure of mountain bikers to understand that environmentalists are not necessarily our friends. This doesn't mean we shouldn't support environmental causes or be concerned about the threats to our planet. I happen to think we should. But as mountain bike advocates we need to have the political savvy to know who are our friends are, and who are our enemies. That is, or should be, Advocacy 101.
>
> Wilderness advocates are not necessarily our friends. Organizations like the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society are not friends of mountain biking. They see wilderness as a solution, when in fact it's often overkill -- not necessary and in some cases does more harm to resources than good. They'd rather sledge-hammer us with wilderness
> than work out solutions that allow mountain biking and other activities that have minimal impact.
>
> IMBA, the one national organization that represents mountain bikers, never got this; many in IMBA's leadership felt (and still feel) that we should align ourselves with environmental groups, the very ones who work to deny us access to public lands. I never got that, and was among those whoe tried to get IMBA leadership to see this for years. They wouldn't listen. We weren't saying go to war with the Sierra club, but we did think that cozying up to environmentalists would make it a lot harder to advocate for access. And so it has.
>
> While I applaud much of IMBA's work, this tactical error could prove a serious flaw in terms of costing us access to vast tracts of public lands. IMBA's failure to provide a forceful argument against wilderness restrictions, out of fear of offending their "friends" in the environmental community, has cost mountain bikers critical ground in mountain bike access.
>
> The second factor is the popularity of mountain biking itself, combined with technological advances to bikes.
>
> As mountain biking became more popular, it took over many trail systems, crowding out other users, especially equestrians who are uncomfortable with mountain bikes on the trail.
>
> As more people came into the sport, trails became populated with more mountain bikers who had no clue as to what it took to gain trail access, and with selfish and rude riders who don't care about their effect on anybody else on the trail.
>
> Even before rear suspension, disk brakes and ever lighter materials mountain bikers were considered the "cougars" of the nonmotorized trail users, covering far more ground than equestrians and hikers. Today's bikes can cruise trails once thought impassable to anyone but hikers and equestrians.
>
> Now, with so many mountain bikers on so many trails, and with an unfortunately high number of selfish and irresponsible riders, mountain biking has created a backlash, and the two factors are coming together to create a perfect storm of anti-mountain bike attitudes among land managers and the general public.
>
> IMBA sent out an alert today that exemplifies this problem, an article in the New York Times:
>
> New York Times Says Mountain Bikers Risk Losing Access to Thousands of Trail Miles
>
> "Thousands of miles of alpine singletrack could be closed to bikers by 2013," according to story published Oct. 10 in the print and online editions of the New York Times. Titled "Growth in Mountain Biking May Put Western Trails Off Limits," the piece explores the implications of an evolving U.S. Forest Service Region 5 policy to ban bikes from places that might someday be adopted for Wilderness management. You can read it online at:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/sports/11bikes.html?_r=1
>
> Combine this with recent losses of access in Idaho, Oregon and California, to name just a few, and the writing on the wall is pretty clear: if we don't clean up our act AND become more politically astute and strategic, we can look forward to fewer trails open to bikes.
>
> --mark
>
> > This commentary is written by Mark Flint, a member of the Warrior's Society and our Arizona State Representative.
>
> Mark Flint has been a mountain biking and trails advocate since the early 1990s.
>
> His trail design experience includes trail systems in Oregon and Vermont as well as more than 100 miles in Arizona, including 35 miles of the Arizona Trail (a National Scenic Trail) in Southern Arizona.
>
> In addition to his design work on the Arizona Trail construction project, he has served as project coordinator, event organizer, volunteer coordinator and steering committee co-chair.
>
> For the past three years he has been doing trail design and construction supervision for the Pima County Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation.
>
> Mark participated on the team that developed the Bureau of Land Management National Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan, an advisory document for planners in the United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management.
>
> His awards include being named a FOX/IMBA Hero in 2006 for work on the Arizona Trail and with Saguaro National Park. He was given a Life Member Award by the Sonoran Desert Mountain Bicyclists in 2005, and the Pima Trails Association "Friend of the Trail" award in 2003. In
> 1996 he was named an International Mountain Bicycling "Shimano Action Hero" for trail advocacy, and received the Oregon State Parks Doug Newman Memorial Recreation Trail Award in 1995.
>
> His contact information is:
>
> Mark Flint
> Southwest Trail Solutions
> http://www.swtrailsolutions.com
> Cell: 520-400-2050


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

It doesn't seem like Minette gets it completely, Mark is talking about the bad(horrible really) agreements they got into with groups like the Sierra Club ( see some of the Appendix in the link below) and how it works against us.

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/mtnbike.aspx

Convincing the militant groups may work for awhile but remember their political ilk in DC works against us primarily and long term they still want what they want. The Sierra Club probably isn't considered extreme or militant by most, but not only are they not our friends but really a sworn enemy using the Wilderness Protection Act to beat us into the ground through their political connections(as a lobbying force and political vote delivering machine), while the IMBA apparently makes nincey-nice with them holding up their end of the deal to work for Wilderness protection (Appendix A in above link).

Case in point go the IMBA action alert page, see anything on the Omnibus Wilderness bill from earlier this year that eliminated access all over the West? See anything concerning the Red Rock Wilderness Act(re-written by an environmental lobbying group) that will eliminate access to very large swaths of land around Moab? The last alert is from Febuary, and the only alert concerning the Moab area concerned gas and oil leases using roads there for access. Nothing even on the Bitteroot Travel Plan that I can see, deadline was last night for public comment, would eliminate MTB from areas even being considered for Wilderness.

True to their word here's the IMBA stand on Wilderness, FAIL for mountain bikers, if Sierra Club wants Wilderness they don't fight except perhaps the boundaries...maybe, no evidence from action alerts;

http://www.imba.com/resources/land_protection/wilderness_faq.html

Not inclined join or donate as their policies are a non-starter, they need to start fighting for mountain biking on all fronts, instead of a policy of appeasement.


----------



## m3rb (Mar 6, 2007)

I suggested to Mark Eller, IMBA communications director, that instead of negotiating with the wilderness groups on the content of proposals, there should rather be a statement of contingent support: "We're sorry, though we see the merit in your proposal, we cannot support it because mountain biking is totally banned in all Federal Wilderness. If we could be guaranteed that the enabling legislation includes language which lifts the ban, then we could give our support." And follow through with a "no" getting the most vicious campaign of opposition that can be mustered.

All who favor such an approach should tell IMBA. If you're not a member, perhaps let them know that you would join if they adopted such a policy.


----------



## DoTheWork_RideTheTrail (Nov 4, 2009)

*& where is the love in Marin?*



m3rb said:


> I suggested to Mark Eller, IMBA communications director, that instead of negotiating with the wilderness groups on the content of proposals, there should rather be a statement of contingent support: "We're sorry, though we see the merit in your proposal, we cannot support it because mountain biking is totally banned in all Federal Wilderness. If we could be guaranteed that the enabling legislation includes language which lifts the ban, then we could give our support." And follow through with a "no" getting the most vicious campaign of opposition that can be mustered.
> 
> All who favor such an approach should tell IMBA. If you're not a member, perhaps let them know that you would join if they adopted such a policy.


The Board of Supervisors in Marin County held a workshop on Novemeber 3rd to address the conflict that is particularly bitter and maybe unique in its exclusion of bikes to singletrack. I am sure other areas like Boulder, CO have similar issues, but I don't know of them. IMBA has been pitching in at the state park level and supposedly at the county open space level, but it seems the status quo will remain.

Who here has an idea on putting a fight together for local and national issues of discrimination? Is this some kind of naive idea to gain access where hikers and equestrains are allowed? The local advocates have seemed to be at this for years with piecemeal results. It feels mostly like a lot of handwringing going on as the old gaurd does not want to offend the hiker/eqs/veg lobbies or the BOS. IMBA will not wage the battle openly in fear of being seen as "carpet baggers". "International", not local.

Maybe it is too hard to fight a war with apatheic citizens to back you up..... No votes = no action.

I wish Mark Flint's MTB Access plan would have taken root.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

DoTheWork_RideTheTrail said:


> The Board of Supervisors in Marin County held a workshop on Novemeber 3rd to address the conflict that is particularly bitter and maybe unique in its exclusion of bikes to singletrack. I am sure other areas like Boulder, CO have similar issues, but I don't know of them. IMBA has been pitching in at the state park level and supposedly at the county open space level, but it seems the status quo will remain.
> 
> Who here has an idea on putting a fight together for local and national issues of discrimination? Is this some kind of naive idea to gain access where hikers and equestrains are allowed? The local advocates have seemed to be at this for years with piecemeal results. It feels mostly like a lot of handwringing going on as the old gaurd does not want to offend the hiker/eqs/veg lobbies or the BOS. IMBA will not wage the battle openly in fear of being seen as "carpet baggers". "International", not local.
> 
> ...


At this point I believe the IMBA is a complete waste of time, it's not a fear on their part of being seen as "carpet baggers" but rather due to their automatic concession on the Wilderness Act agenda of the Sierra Club thru a longstanding agreement from the mid-90s to support Wilderness Act legislation. And since the Sierra Club and their alliance of Enviro groups see the MTB as just another ORV and are pursuing a radical agenda of "Wildernessization" of the public lands you might as well join an ORV group that is actually fighting by proxy for your rights and actually has some discernable clout. I'm looking at the American Motorcyclist Assoc right now, they seem to be on top of the legislative threats that are really affecting us, but I'm gonna look a bit more for other options as well.

It may not be so much apathy as many people are under the false impression that the IMBA will fight abuse of the Wilderness Act, they aren't and they won't so better to just join a local MTB organization for local issues and use another group to fight at the national level. It may be money better spent to alter the Wilderness Act itself to exempt MTBs rather than fighting each and every Wilderness Act status bill that comes up.


----------



## m3rb (Mar 6, 2007)

The prolonged lack of success by political efforts in Marin brings to mind the quote "War is an extension of politics, but by other means." The question is, what would "war" look like, in this context? Actual shooting seems a bit inappropriate.  

The approach would be to increase the pain level of your opponents until they are willing to entertain a compromise. Of course, the initial reaction would be for them to get POed and dig in. Success will only come after a prolonged and dedicated effort. Such is the nature of war.

Think Critical Mass. Actions which are nominally legal, or at least relatively immune from enforcement, but that inconvenience and annoy. Just educate yourself on conspiracy laws, and be cautious...this stuff is probably not worth going to jail over, at least not during riding season. Which is always, I suppose, in Marin. Maybe that's the problem!


----------



## vtvirga (Aug 10, 2007)

_The International Mountain Bicycling Association and the Montana Mountain Bike Alliance have offered an alternative. They would forfeit hundreds of miles for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge's 32 most beloved miles and continued access to its section of the Continental Divide Trail. The groups also want to work with the Forest Service on a trail-by-trail basis._(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/sports/11bikes.html?_r=1)

IMBA walks a fine line. I'm an avid biker, but I can also understand the need for areas where access is more restrictive. Unfortuantely, many folks in the purist Wilderness camp have never understood the joy of cycling on singletrack trails, so they look at us like alien invaders, and then inevitably comes across as elitist when talking about the activity. ATV and snowmobile enthusiasts have had this same collective impression of Wilderness advocates for a very long time.
The idea of "Wilderness" requires that we take the long view on it. These are places that we want our influence to be very limited in. In another 100 years, another great fun activity in the woods may come along and want access to these places as well- how will we approach it? Will it fit the "character" of Wilderness? Who knows. Environmentalist groups are only the enemy if we're not trying to find common ground with them. By the way, these folks build and maintain lots of trail too and have a huge core of committed volunteers. Call me idealistic, but I'm confident that there is a way we can all get along. 
Matt


----------



## m3rb (Mar 6, 2007)

The hardest of the hard-core environmentalists would not scar Mother Earth by building...excuse me... "cutting" trails.

Your suggestion that by consorting with the enemy, they are no longer the enemy, brings to mind another aphorism: Divide and conquer.

That inner core will continue to grow old and die. Are their younger acolytes as intransigent, as willfully not understanding, as blindly fanatical as they are? I have some optimism that they are not.

But do not overlook that Marin is a microcosm where nearly three decades of appeasement, negotiation, and compromise have yielded little. However, there the forces of naked, established, self-interest (old wealthy equestrians vs. young punk MTBers) are exaggerated relative to the national scene, where it is primarily a fuzzy-headed idealism at work.


----------



## scoutcat (Mar 30, 2008)

unless you are actively involved in improving access to trails and doing trail work then you shouldnt be bashing IMBA - put up or shut up. IMBA has done a ton of work on a lot of different levels and has funded legal fights to keep access to trails. know the facts before you bash.


----------



## DoTheWork_RideTheTrail (Nov 4, 2009)

*Not sure who your comment is directed too....*



scoutcat said:


> unless you are actively involved in improving access to trails and doing trail work then you shouldnt be bashing IMBA - put up or shut up. IMBA has done a ton of work on a lot of different levels and has funded legal fights to keep access to trails. know the facts before you bash.


I am actively involved and have been for years. I agree IMBA has the brand identity and Pioneer status as an inclusive advocate group. The problem I am having is that I agree with many that balnket exclusions for reasons not really "reasoned" are discriminatory. It seems IMBA is not willing to pick up that/those battles openly.

Call me idealistic or, maybe just an Arizona native that got the shock of entrenched NIMBYS in the Bay Area, and Marin in particlular. The NIMBYS can really wear folks out trying to do it the politic way.


----------



## scoutcat (Mar 30, 2008)

the bottom line is that IMBA is our most powerful champion and it is membership driven. not liking everything they do isnt a reason to NOT join, it is indeed a reason TO join. get involved, talk to land managers, build and maintain trails. IMBA changes its mission and tactics and we can ALL be a part of the process. i hate that we are allied in some places with equestrians but i can also see the good that IMBA does and the logic behind some choices.


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2009)

*politics are local- and you need all the tools in your tool box*

SDMBA meeting at REI Encinitas 1830 Wed 18. 

Best way "to change the system" is from the inside. Thats not popular advice in todays TV culture glamorizing the "fast and furious" gang-banger hip-hop thang, or black hooded ELF tree-hugger wannabe "anarchists", but it works. Boring and hard work too.

Its easy to talk the talk- its much harder to do the walk. One example being the media promotion of "hope and change" with no real word record of actual accomplishments. In comparison, once you dig into what SDMBA has done, you will see some real success, done patiently for many years by humble giants of the sport upon whose shoulders you will be standing to take it to the next steps.

If I had one criticism it would be they dont brag themselves up enough, but that can change too- any PR-social media savvy types out there?

If you've been following SDMBA you'll see they have a new advocacy group, and a couple other new things going on that would be a great way for someone with enthusiasm and energy to make a difference. Some big local stuff for NCounty riders coming up too.

Bottomline- its all talk until you:
*
GET OFF THE PORCH AND RUN WITH THE BIG DOGS.*


----------



## splitter_66 (Oct 19, 2004)

scoutcat said:


> the bottom line is that IMBA is our most powerful champion and it is membership driven. not liking everything they do isnt a reason to NOT join, it is indeed a reason TO join. get involved, talk to land managers, build and maintain trails. IMBA changes its mission and tactics and we can ALL be a part of the process. i hate that we are allied in some places with equestrians but i can also see the good that IMBA does and the logic behind some choices.


I have been a member for 9 years.

Membership to an organization such as IMBA is just another form of consumerism. If people don't know what IMBA does or don't agree with what IMBA does why is that a reason to join. By not joining IMBA, it is a mountain biker's vote that IMBA is not doing a good job.

I like Toyota trucks. My business needs the torque of a diesel engine. I am not going to buy a Toyota truck without a diesel engine hoping that they will change their engine platform.

When IMBA is finally brought up from the minor leagues of advocacy to start the good fight against agro enviros *and* accurately marketing that strategy, IMBA will see an increase in membership.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

This exact article by Mark Flint was printed in another post on MTBR recently. I may be repeating some previous comments. I would like to meet Mark and have a frank discussion on methods to gain more access. It appears I might offend him because I have seen a lot of miles of new trails adopted into the local system of trails that were built without approval of land managers. Over the years, motorcycles have cut a lot of trails and the Forest Service is physically unable to close them all down. The result is a compromise where they adopt the more sustainable trails and hope that users will willingly help close down some of the remaining "wildcat" trails. The message to us locals is the Forest Service, State Land, and Park Service, do not have the resources to build, maintain, and restore the existing trails in Northern Arizona, and while they try to get the message out that only they can legally build new trails, it is obvious that many new trails are appearing out of need and as a result of the slow moving government agancies failing to keep up with needs. 

Mark's bio mentions his involvement on a portion of the Arizona Trail. It is an example of a concept that was quite popular. A Trail that would stretch over 800 miles, from the Utah border to the Mexican border. The day my wife told me she wanted to be one of the first to ride it, I knew what was going to happen. The trail would be somewhat well built and maintained only in sections that ran near populated areas. The more rural sections would be hiking and equestrian trails that would have few water diversion structures and would be eroded and full of loose rocks. That's exactly what the AZ Trail is. 200 miles of multi-use trail and 600 miles of poorly built and maintained trail. 

I mention that because a lot of what IMBA does is PR. They say and do things to win over organizations that oppose mountain biking. Some call it appeasement. A week ago I rode with a couple who are currently working for IMBA on their Mobile Trail Crew. An acceptionally nice young couple who do great things out in the field. I support their efforts. I also understand they cannot offer public support for people or groups of mountain bikers who are using unconventional methods. They can't do much more than visit you once a year and give you some insights and a motivational speech.

I like they way m3br compares our struggles to war. "The approach would be to increase the pain level of your opponents until they are willing to entertain a compromise. Of course, the initial reaction would be for them to get POed and dig in. Success will only come after a prolonged and dedicated effort. Such is the nature of war.

Think Critical Mass. Actions which are nominally legal, or at least relatively immune from enforcement, but that inconvenience and annoy. Just educate yourself on conspiracy laws, and be cautious..."

Folks like Mark assume that even small groups of rogues out making trails illegally will close all trails to mountain bikers. What I see is quite the opposite. We have seen a doubling of miles of new trails, more than half are "social" or user created trails. Occasionally, the Forest Service covers one of them with logs and duff in an attempt to close it to all users. A day later, the trail will be cleared and ridden and hiked again. "If you build it they will come" (both users and land managers). 

In many areas of the country, we have overwhelming numbers. I liken it to the arrival of the automobile. At first the horse and buggy people were in the majority and the laws protected them and kept autos off carriage trails and roads and everyone yielded to the horse traffic. Quickly the numbers changed and all the screaming and shouting in the world wasn't going to change the outcome. Automobile traffic commanded all funding for roads that only they could use. Thier needs were supreme. 

Personally, I use the ten year rule. I play by the rules and attend planning meetings. I visit with land managers and volunteer my time working for them. I also make very reasonable suggestions for connecting existing trails together and where to build new trails and which trails are in need of rerouting. I usually get told those are great ideas, we will see what we can do, but we are short staffed and under funded, so we may not get to it right away. I wait and remind them each year of where they should prioritize their efforts. After ten years, the things they decided to ignore suddenly get done. They get done to very exact standards, very sustainably. They instantly become a hit with riders and hikers, therefore, they always end up staying open. It is very difficult to close a popular trail that was well built. Yes there are risks for those involved. It is not a crime to ride a wildcat trail. It is a crime to get caught building one. Big difference. Some of the people involved view themselves like Rosa Parks. They feel they are doing the right thing and they are better stewards of the lands than government slugs, 10 percenters, people who get the same paycheck regardless of how little they get done. 

Where you live, who you work with, if you have a local bike advocacy group, how much open space is available, the breakdown of trail users (% of bikers vs. hikers and equestrians) all can vary. Some here would never entertain the idea of violating a trust they have nurtured with land managers. I believe you can lead them to water and make them drink, if you know how they are motivated, how they will respond to applied presure, like m3br suggested. 

Remember, in most states, we drive at speeds up to 80mph, legally. It is not a result of asking for higher speed limits and working within the system. It is a result of law enforcements failure to get drivers to comply with posted limits. So many people openly broke the law, the speed limits were raised. Some here made the choice to break those old speed limits and risk getting fined, because they felt it was unreasonable. As riders, we have some choices. We can relocate to places in the U.S. where mountain biking is flourishing, where trails are continually being added to keep up with demand. Or we can live in places where there is conflict, and you have to compromise your passion for riding single track, as well as comstantly attent meetings and listen to lies and distortions made by equestrians and haters of mountain bikers. Life is too short to watch the years slip by while attending meetings and trying to fight the good fight, while getting no results. If you are winning those battles, keep it up. I wish you well. Just don't judge too harshly those that have opened miles of trails for your riding enjoyment by using other methods you might find offensive. After all, you aren't going to protest their methods by refusing to ride those trails they opened for you.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Everything is situational, you can have an operators manual for a car, but it only tells you how to operate that vehicle. Add other drivers and the manual isn't as useful, you can take someone from a rural area thats a great driver, put them in Shanghai traffic and watch the breakdown, someone from Shanghai going rural is going to speed and drive like a fool. 

If you have the relationships and track record of success and results with your riding areas and other stakeholders, you'll have a different approach than where you don't have that track record, or worse have people trying to put you out.

War is an option, but an extreme option, and typically used only when other alternatives have failed. IMBA is an international organization, they operate using a manual/mission statement, their consistency across situations gives them credibility, and b/c they are global they have to be politically calculating in which battles to spend resources on. Local organizations however have more leeway and fewer consequences to the greater cause for trying different approaches(mostly but NOT always), that flexibility is why what works in the SF Bay Area might not apply to AZ or CT.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

Global can also mean part of the global progressive(regressive, statist) movement, just look at Sierra Club's mission statement and IMBA's virtual submission to the Sierra Club. I'm seeing the same thing in Surfing, Surf Rider Foundation sent out an MLPA position urging people to support the IPA, which is the Wilderness version for the ocean, no fishing etc in Marine Preserves by sport fishermen, looked at the email addy comes from democracyinaction.org, funded in part by Open Society Institute one of George Soros' myriad of groups funded to promote a new world order. The progressives(statists) would eventually ban all human interaction in these areas, much like under the old Soviet and Chinese regimes where travel was strictly limited except for the ruling elite. The international movement goes much further but not the space here for that, all I can say is educate yourself, environmental/political groups which you may belong to have been pretty much taken over.

The Sierra club currently has a "Wild Legacy" program to promote Wilderness designation to areas in all 50 states and beyond like Puerto Rico, to see if you're on the list check the link below. Do not expect any help from the IMBA.

http://www.sierraclub.org/habitat/downloads/52placesreport.pdf

I see posts here still maintaining a defense of the IMBA over a "picking the battle" mantra, this is NOT the case, look at the agreements they made on their website, they will not fight Wilderness designation. Try to even find a legislative alert over potential loss of MTB riding on land under Wilderness consideration, won't happen!


----------



## m3rb (Mar 6, 2007)

Google "climategate" and "warmergate" for recent emerging evidence of the religious zeal of environmental extremists getting in the way of legitimate science and rational action.

This same jihad mentality is present on the Wilderness front. Negotiation may be called for in some instances, but only as a necessary evil, and nothing more. The Sierra Club and Wilderness Society are the North Korea and Iran of land-use politics.

IMBA's policy statements on supporting new Wilderness designations and respecting the bureaucrats' misapplication of the Wilderness Act are unacceptable (not to mention the latter being contradictory with the statement that biking is consistent with wilderness values). I, for one, won't be renewing next year if they remain the way they are.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Some of what you guys are saying really hurts. In Montana, the only outside support the locals who formed the Montana Mountain Bike Alliance are IMBA. IMBA is underfunded not because of people like some of you, who are dedicated, pessemistic, well spoken, but overly principled mountain bikers. IMBA is underfunded because the vast majority of mountain bikers out there are simply ignorant of the big picture, and don't realize how much they could benefit if they all joined IMBA, and really started to drive the bus.

Here is a link to a recent Dirt Rag article outlining the struggle we are facing in Montana. And please, remember that before you knock IMBA or the MMBA, realize that you aren't standing in our shoes, facing a virtual nightmare of closure.

http://www.dirtragmag.com/print/article.php?ID=1245&category=departments


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

Skeej said:


> *A thoughtful commentary, by one of the great trail builders and pioneers,
> required reading for advocacy *


Anyone who's experienced any type of advocacy usually understands this to be true, the premise of enviros or any user group in particular are not are friends is valid. But they also should not be thought of as our enemies per se either. i agree with the stance of mt. bikers representing mt. bikers first and foremost when approaching any collaboration. i don't mean to diminish this guys cred or any of that but his argument within this little rant is fatally flawed.

In one sentence...
_They'd rather sledge-hammer us with wilderness than work out solutions that allow mountain biking and other activities that have minimal impact._

Then he goes into a tirade validating the arguments of how our so called minimal impact are indeed much more than minimal.
_
Now, with so many mountain bikers on so many trails, and with an unfortunately high number of selfish and irresponsible riders, mountain biking has created a backlash, and the two factors are coming together to create a perfect storm of anti-mountain bike attitudes among land managers and the general public._

From what little i understand Mark Flint is not in Montana, but IMBA and other advocates are up there still at the table. Why Mark Flint wants to validate arguments that mt. bikers are flooding the backcountry scaring out other trail users, and using a politically charged article from the New York Times is beyond me.

To me this argument in particular is "backwards" and you can forward this to Mark Flint personally. Yes i'm calling him out, have HIM address mt. bikers on here personally and clarify what his views are, don't let him have his disciples do it for him.

And finally i have another big problem with the title of this thread. "What to do about it". There are no solutions brought forth as to any of the issues he raises. So we are left with a subsequent back and forth discontent as to IMBA cavorting with enviros. Yah like that's going to get us real far.

What i want to know is what Mark Flint suggests as to solutions, and he can come here and share. Would love to hear it, otherwise keep the reactionary "durned new generation of mountain bikers and there new fangled disc brake" speak to where it needs to be. In the toilet.


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2009)

*well heres a couple of solutions- San Diego north county*

OK, I will bite:

heres a suggestion. I'm not a disciple of anyone, per se- 
just a dirt-worker whose done a bit here and elsewhere, and learned from SDMBA, what IMBA TRail Crew about 5 years back in first ever SD County sponsored trail work seminar said works-

when you get people from different points of view digging dirt together breaking sweat, they get to know one another as neighbors who share same general sense of stewardship for the land- and learn some good new techniques for making trails more sustainable and erosion proof.

thats WAY more important and gets you past the quibbles about how to get there- boot, wheel, hoof.

That means next step is just get to work- find a place you ride that needs some help where the land manager has discretion and ability for "adaptive land management" ( a fancy bio-science conservation land management term for "try stuff on and see what works").

Whats already been proven in a couple of significant examples, by the some of the areas best conservation science managers (at SD County, SD City, CA Parks, and non-profit land managers) working with the areas most expert trail builders (SDMBA),

is this:

Better, more narrow, more sturdy, more erosion proof trails combined with reveg to reclaim bare dirt that was corrupted by invasives or blown out on a bad route or ORV scar straight up and down the fall line,

will result in "net habitat gain". Thats a big deal for land under HMPs to satisfy work-plans, and its pretty hard work to get done all or mostly for free, too.

So, to keep it simple and straightforward (KISS), heres how to start. Theres tons of places all over and land managers are under more fiscal pressure than ever before. It takes time, persistence and patience, to get things going with approval in their world, and that takes experience and leadership and a trusted relationship, so if you dont already have that, then the best way to help is just get in touch with SDMBA and offer your willing hands, strong back, and open mind, where thats in place or in work and dirt work is needed.

Once you've done the dirt the work a few times, you'll know what you are talking about, have learned a lot from enviros, hikers, bikers and horsers, and the land managers who spend years getting the advanced degrees and work for less than school teachers, because they are as idealistic about taking care of it as you are riding on it.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

Skeej said:


> heres a suggestion. I'm not a disciple of anyone, per se-
> just a dirt-worker whose done a bit here and elsewhere, and learned from SDMBA, what IMBA TRail Crew about 5 years back in first ever SD County sponsored trail work seminar said works-
> 
> when you get people from different points of view digging dirt together breaking sweat, they get to know one another as neighbors who share same general sense of stewardship for the land- and learn some good new techniques for making trails more sustainable and erosion proof.
> ...


Ok sorry about the disciple comment it's not really relevant to the discussion anyways.

And so IF you're telling me we should place trail work, along with a growing comprehensive understanding and proficiency in trail work. i will agree that should be a high priority.

But it's not THE highest priority, to me it's a piece of the pie.

Me i'm of a slightly different stance. You can have absolute harmony with trail users and you can establish good rapport with land managers and still get sideswiped with politics that ignore the good-will effort. Usually where environmentalists wanting more protection where mt. biker access is of no consequence.

Kind of like Montana which is raised with the email, where any stewardship work that doesn't get alot of hype is just brushed aside.

So with that pretense, you can't really slot that into the highest of importance imo.



Skeej said:


> That means next step is just get to work-...........


i'm not going to discount your example, i have no problem at all with what you're saying. i have slightly different view on how to get people to get to work, and who you're trying to attract. But if i am or you are successful in getting numbers then it's all good.

So the only place i diverge from you is looking at advocacy and stewardship from "on the ground with shovel in hand" and placing it in the highest pedestal. i don't buy it, and if i get time and someone actually wants to read it i'll find time and illustrate my take.

But simply there are so many tools and skills people can use to give back besides digging. i think there is an abundance of skilled trail builders within the ranks of mt. biking already out of necessity. i agree that countless folk become frustrated and leave the ranks of local and international groups. Fine but if you take your marbles and go home, it doesn't really help anything, other than your sanity haha.

i admit i'm likely missing something on what you guys are doing in California in relation with IMBA. But Mark Flints email didn't impress me as something relevant, other than a gripe, and bad examples to support the gripe.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

Skeej said:


> when you get people from different points of view digging dirt together breaking sweat, they get to know one another as neighbors who share same general sense of stewardship for the land- and learn some good new techniques for making trails more sustainable and erosion proof.
> 
> ... land managers are under more fiscal pressure than ever before. It takes time, persistence and patience, to get things going with approval in their world, and that takes experience and leadership and a trusted relationship...
> 
> Once you've done the dirt the work a few times, you'll know what you are talking about, have learned a lot from enviros, hikers, bikers and horsers, and the land managers who spend years getting the advanced degrees and work for less than school teachers, because they are as idealistic about taking care of it as you are riding on it.


Dragging a couple equestrians out to join bikers and hikers doing volunteer trail work makes a great photo op. A day later mountain bikers will encounter those same morbidly obese equestrians turning our favorite hard packed trail into powder and leaving piles of horse manure all along the way. Getting brownine points by showing up for a couple hours once a year does very little to solve problems that land managers refuse to address because they want to remain comfortably neutral.

When you build trails for a living, you know exactly where the grant money is and how much is available to the local land managers. Most of the time they think we'll believe them when they say they are short on manpower and funding. Very often, the truth is they failed to apply for free grants that required very little adminstrative involvement by them and very often they release their summer trail crews to go make double pay on a fire crew. For those of us who have been employed by the Forest Service in the past, it is shameful how much time they waste and how much funding they pass over and how little they actually accomplish in a given season. I drove by the local FS district office an hour ago. It was closed because it snowed last night. Others, like my wife who does not work for the government, had no trouble getting to work and earning her salary. She has to produce results to keep her job. The land managers can do 10% of what they should be doing and nobody will question them or ask for results.



> It takes time, persistence and patience, to get things going with approval in their world, and that takes experience and leadership and a trusted relationship...


I know few people more persistent then me. I have shown years and years of patience, trying to get things done in "their world". I have over 4000 hours of experience and worked hard to form trusted relationships. Those relationships were not honored by the FS. They never showed passion for the trails and lost motivation while seeking only the next higher pay grade. I continue to hope they will come around. I stay in contact with them regularly, reminding them of opportunities for new trails and even providing them with funding sources and labor crews.

Over the past dozen years, I can quantify the results the FS has achieved vs. what they could have achieved with minimal effort. It is less than 10% of what could have been. The list of excuses is not particularly long, yet quite familiar. We don't have enough staff. We don't have enough funding. That would upset someone and we don't want to upset anyone. We've had some people leave that department and we'll need a couple years to get the new staff up to speed. The trail crew left for the next month to go fight a fire 500 miles away. We are waiting for the wildlife study to be completed in a year or two...

What works? What solutions do I offer?

I offer radical solutions at this point. Much different than the ones I took part in a dozen or more years ago. Think of the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80's. A Mujahid is a "struggler" or "justice fighter". They were able to overcome insurmountable odds in their struggle because they were willing to take risks, employ commando tactics, and make necessary sacrifices. You have to be willing to offend people, often land managers. You might shame them and they may react by stepping up and admitting they could and will do more, but they more likely will shut you out. You will need to identify problems and put a list together of where trail construction is most needed and where trail maintenance is most needed. You can hand this list over to land managers and ask them if they will address those issues in a timely manner. You can offer to volunteer your time to accomplish some of those goals. How can they refuse to accept your volunteer service? Get other riders involved. Ask them where they thing a new trail connector should be built. If the distance of a connector is less than a mile and there are no large structures that are needed, plan to do it yourselves. Walk the proposed new trail a few times to find the best lines and then when ready to begin, start work in the middle section without giving away your work until the ends of the new trail at cut in. Make sure you have dozens of people committed to riding that new trail a lot when you finish, in order to make it popular and well broken in. It makes it much more difficult for land managers to cover it up or close it off if people think it was built by them or if it is a great solution to an existing problem that has not been addressed despite years of efforts by local riders and their clubs. Some people will never participate in building a trail without the blessing or permission of land managers, yet they will gladly join you riding such a trail once it is built. Land managers have little time and energy to patrol areas looking for unauthorized trail building. If you are worried, work on their days off, work on holidays, work on days when there is a volunteer trail work day going on elsewhere and most everyone is at that location. You can even work after dark.

The results can shock you. Land managers rarely express much concern about well built trails. They don't use these trails 3-4 times a week like mountain bikers do. Some never go out on the trails. The local community often embraces well thought out new trail corridors. In only a few weeks, local riders can focus their energy on riding this new trail over and over until it appears to have been there for many years. In instances when the new trail does get covered up by either civilians or land managers, treat it like you would grafitti. Remove it as quickly as you can and repeat doing so if need be. They will give up after a week and the trail will essentially be adopted into the trail system. I've watched youngsters doing this for years and never thought it would be successful in the long run. Now I know better and see it as a justifiable, yet somewhat risky method of accomplishing goals for the mountain biking community in a fraction of the time it would take by patiently waiting for government worker to get motivated to serve our needs.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Skookum said:


> Ok sorry about the disciple comment it's not really relevant to the discussion anyways.
> 
> And so IF you're telling me we should place trail work, along with a growing comprehensive understanding and proficiency in trail work. i will agree that should be a high priority.
> 
> ...


I agree with Skookum. Here in Montana we have worked trails along side of people that have turned around and sabatoged our advocacy efforts only the next month. The model of holding hands and working hard together just hasn't paid yet.

Our many hundreds of hours of labor, while impressing land managers at the District level, just hasn't translated to the Forest headquarters or the Regional level at all. Bikers in Montana are just a pesky detail to brush aside in the quest for wilderness.

We worked hard on a trail with the MWA, who then put together a video and really played up the hype of the efforts of diverse stakeholders working together. Our group provided the majority of the workers. We were excluded from getting any credit on the video. It's as if we were never there.

If IMBA had a huge and overbearing presence in each state, then a level of professionalism, ethics, and follow-up that is now missing could be an ever present part of the advocacy picture. How do we get there? Only one or 2 percent of bikers belong to IMBA (my guess) Join IMBA. Change IMBA. No change without joining first!


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

The Prodigal Son has presented a model that would not work here in Montana. We are dealing with the wilderness machine, and while we don't oppose most of it, we don't care for being brushed aside while people persue more and more of it.

One of the quickest ways to nullify our efforts would be to build a trail without permission. The grassroots environmental community is looking hard for any mistakes from bikers at all. There will be plenty of mistakes in the future, and it is enough of a struggle to put out those fires. We can't do anything illegal on purpose. Uh uh.

This is very different than trying to get a new trail.


----------



## bigbeck (Feb 15, 2004)

GregB406 said:


> If IMBA had a huge and overbearing presence in each state, then a level of professionalism, ethics, and follow-up that is now missing could be an ever present part of the advocacy picture. How do we get there? Only one or 2 percent of bikers belong to IMBA (my guess) Join IMBA. Change IMBA. No change without joining first!


 Yes, join IMBA in addition to a local organization. About 8 years ago one of my favorite places to ride was saved from closing because of IMBA's hard work! One must remember that you can' t always hit a home run.

One percent is pitiful. Makes me wonder if the other 99% should be banned from the trails.:thumbsup: It's funny,my son asked me the other day, "how can you tell if someone is a real dedicated mountain biker?" I said," look for an IMBA stiker or club sticker on their car or bike rack".:thumbsup: We counted 43 cars and trucks in the parking lot. All had bike racks, but no stickers. "Are they all imposters?",he said. I just laughed. Some people just don't care about anything but themselves - that's pitiful too.

When all is said and done, more is said than done.

Oh, there was one horse trailer in the parking lot - no IMBA sticker there either.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

GregB406 said:


> . We can't do anything illegal on purpose. Uh uh.


Totally agree, part of effectively getting trail projects moving is organizing more and more people. Having people that do grant work, having others attend meetings. If you can organize a group that can pay a person to do this type of thing, the sky is the limit. Our local Washington clubs have done a great job so far, and we're still grassrooting a bunch, but we're really close to getting paid people to do even more.

It's so much about getting more people organized, like the Unions. Alot of somewhat innovative stuff i do in advocacy is absolutely wrapped up with the premise the more people with different skills and contacts you have in the circle, the better.

Local clubs can be more effective in for everyday local advocacy, there's no doubt about it. But i shudder to think of diminishing the "calvary" strength of IMBA as a national and international source of support. Can it be better, sure, which is why i don't absolutely discount Flints argument altogether. But still each region has different back-stories, so even though the song is the same there is usually always a different rythym to the song too.

While on the topic i'll validate my statements by handing out links of stuff i've done or things our club are doing that help the biking community.

People attend races to get to know other people, and they get em sponsored. Why not have an "event" for trail work, ones that unite different groups.

http://reviews.mtbr.com/blog/2009-kettle-crest-advocacy-fest/

The Trail Wiki itself is an outstanding resource for creating informative hubs of information. Thanks to Evergreen.

http://evergreenmtb.org/wiki/index.php?title=Advocacy_Festivals

http://evergreenmtb.org/wiki/index.php?title=Kettle_Fest

The Fest is already paying dividends as there is a nice network of riders now actively involved in a collaboration concerning Forest Service revisions for the Colville National Forest which is within Division One. This guaranteed would NOT have happened had it not been for the Fest.

i think rides can be very influential as you can actively be a part of influencing proper ettiquette and raising advocacy issues if the questions are raised, never good to be push...
http://evergreenmtb.org/recreation/

The education part of our group is really expanding but boot camp is great for not only teaching riding but also the importance of stewardship/ettiquette.
http://evergreenmtb.org/education/

My sig is a new forum i helped create, and i hope it get's support because i really believe in the long-term benefits of the format, and ideals behind the attempt.

These are some of the solutions that i would like to present to the discussion...


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2009)

*Skookum, Greg thanks great info*

I completely agree with both of you- and sincere thanks for your long commitment-

1. DONT NEED TO REINVENT THE WHEEL
just copy the multi-pronged strategy of the wilderness movement,

2. YOU NEED ALL THE TOOLS IN YOUR TOOL BOX:
activism, advocacy, fund-raising, lobbying, local grassroots, dirt-work, technical expertise development, legal, etc.

3. USE THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE JOB. Like Gregg says, some places at some times a "midnite trail building" activity would absolutely ruin years of work.
Others, it might crack open the problem.

4. National AND Local- I honor and defer to your years of experience, Skookum, as I do to Mark in AZ. What we need is more of that, housed and focused in one place, the tool box if you will, and the wise mentors to teach how to use tools, to raise money, to do PR and lobbying, and to go raise money to pay for it all, to apply it as in #3, locally.

That would be IMBA, imperfect as they are. I'm a believer in the idea that you can best change an organization from the inside.

It takes time, but if you dont get started, and stick with it, then who will?

Skeej


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

The IMBA has already conceded the fight on Wilderness other than trivial boundary adjustments and has also conceded that MTB=ORV for the purposes of wilderness designations. That said they can probably offer good advice on starting your own local MTB associations to help fight, SDMBA does a good job locally but they are not faced with a Wilderness designation fight around here. 

To fight one or more of the 800 pound guerillas like the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society or the myriad of groups the so called "progressives" have sprouted up to fight a guerilla war to re-designate virtually all federal land as Wilderness whether it's roadless or not, you'll need a national organization that is willing to fight at the national level on these issues. For the IMBA to do so would require it breaking agreements with organizations they presently have in place, probably a tough sell. The path of least resistance might be for the IMBA keep the promise not to fight Wilderness Designation in return for revoking the recognition of MTBs=ORVs(which was not the original interpretation of the Act in the first place). Although the Sierra Club makes it quite clear they still think MTB=ORV.


----------



## Wild Wassa (Jun 4, 2009)

The United Nations/UNESCO programmes, 'Man and the Biosphere Programme' and 'Sustainable Environments' should be read to help gain an understanding of why we are being shut out of wilderness world wide. 

Before anyone says, the US are not signatories to the various agreements like the Rio and Seville accords, ... it doesn't matter. US agencies like the US Forest Service and State Legislatures are doing UNESCO's dirty work for them ...(starting way back in 1964?).

At UNESCO Earth Summits, like Seville, Rio and Johannesburg, was the IMBA involved the way the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society have been? Is the IMBA at Copenhagen? There is reported to be 445 US delegates currently at Copenhagen ... how many are from the IMBA?

There are 50 Biospheres Reserves now in the US and over 500 Biospheres Reserves world wide. In the early '90 the US had only 3 Biosphere Reserves? The 50 Reserves in the US now need to be linked if the Sierra Club's intentions are implemented, so expect to loose more access. The IMBA is not a 'witting' player in UNESCO's defacto land grab but they are complicit because of past agreements with conservation groups. 

This progressive shutting out of we riders and other user groups from wilderness is happening world wide (above the token peace offerings), and is thanks to UNESCO, and not just due the lack of clout from small players like the IMBA or only because of the US's Wilderness Acts. The US is going along with the flow. 

The way things are progressing, eventually, access to wilderness will only be for wildlife managers and researchers, even walkers will be given the bullet ... so ride the wilderness today while we still can. Where we still can? 

Warren.


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

Here in Canberra Australia where I (and Wild Wassa) are based, there's a policy of no bike access in our Nature Parks except on management trails. These Nature Parks abut the urban fringe right the way around our city. Walkers can go where they like, on and off trail, but bikes are prohibited.

The result of this is a massive amount of wildcat trailbuilding with at best little and in most cases no rider compliance of the prohibition. Riding takes place on walking trails which are poorly designed for the purposes of riding (blind corners, skid zones, fall line, no armoring etc) or on wildcat trails built to whatever standard the guy with the spade happened to be using that day. Some of the trails Warren and I use are stunningly well built, many arelittle more than erosion just waiting to happen.

Frankly, anyone with a view towards protecting wilderness would be well served to look at the effects of the alcohol prohibition legislation back in Al Capone's day and see how effective prohibition is at modifying behaviour when there is a publice desire for the activity being outlawed. It simply does not work and massive dollars get expended on enforcement and damage control as the situation gets out of hand.

Even in wilderness, trails can be manufactured that are sustainable. The best bit is that *a well constructed properly designed trail that is fun to ride enables land managers to concentrate the user impact into the areas best able to tolerate it*. Given the choice of riding a kick butt trail that's a hoot to ride and that is legal or a half baked one that's wildcat, the majority of riders will opt for the legal choice.

MTB trail advocates need to stop approaching the debate as if they are asking for a favor when they request access. *We're not asking for a favor, we're offering the land managers a sustainable solution*.

Ride access to all areas should be decided on a case by case basis with the land manager in light of the environmental needs of the particular area and the trail building/maintaining facilities available. It's far too easy to trot out "trails cause erosion" when you take trails that were built (as opposed to designed) 10 or 15 years ago as your example. IMBA standard trails of today are not the same and do not have the same impact as unplanned trails did "back in the day". I agree that we should stop riders from using most walking trails, but that's primarily because most walking trails are not suitable, not because riders should be banned from an area.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

I read the post about the changing of speed limits;

"Remember, in most states, we drive at speeds up to 80mph, legally. It is not a result of asking for higher speed limits and working within the system. It is a result of law enforcements failure to get drivers to comply with posted limits. So many people openly broke the law, the speed limits were raised. Some here made the choice to break those old speed limits and risk getting fined, because they felt it was unreasonable. As riders, we have some choices. We can relocate to places in the U.S. where mountain biking is flourishing, where trails are continually being added to keep up with demand. Or we can live in places where there is conflict, and you have to compromise your passion for riding single track, as well as comstantly attent meetings and listen to lies and distortions made by equestrians and haters of mountain bikers. Life is too short to watch the years slip by while attending meetings and trying to fight the good fight, while getting no results. If you are winning those battles, keep it up. I wish you well. Just don't judge too harshly those that have opened miles of trails for your riding enjoyment by using other methods you might find offensive. After all, you aren't going to protest their methods by refusing to ride those trails they opened for you."

This sounds like a call to arms for riders to start poaching wilderness trails to push the USFS to reconsider opening wilderness trails to bikes. I'm all for this type of action, and really think that if the IMBA will not support discussion about opening wilderness to bikes, another organization should be developed to push open trail acess for bikers. What I would want from such an org. is help fighting whatever penalties came from this civil disobeadence. Not so much money or lawyers, but a stratgedy for pressing the issue nationwide, and making the land managers see that bikes do belong and are in the sprit of the wilderness act.

What do you think of this type of approach, and do you think an organization like this could make an impact on the discussion or just give land managers a reason to further restirct mtbike use? or both?


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

> This sounds like a call to arms for riders to start poaching wilderness trails to push the USFS to reconsider opening wilderness trails to bikes.


Hmm, nasty two edged sword there. On the one hand wildcat building and poaching trails clearly demonstrates a community need which is beneficial from a lobbying point of view. There endeth the good aspects. (aside from getting to ride where you want)

-Walking trails are not built with riders in mind and are usually not sustainable once bikes are brought into the mix.
-Wildcat trails are normally not constructed to IMBA best practice and are usually not sustainable. They also often traverse sensitive ecosystems where it's appropriate for bikes not to be present.
-Riding wherever we want makes all mountain bikers look irresponsible and paints us as an undesirable user group who should remain excluded from largely undamaged natural areas.

We really want to try and appear as legitimate users who have a right to be there and who are ready to work in a sustainable manner rather than as a pain in the butt and a group to be locked out.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

Yes, it is going backwards.. it seems these groups are going out of their way to stop people from getting outdoors and enjoying the wild. :madman: 

They claim they are protecting "nature" - a laughable proposition which reeks of idealism and hubris - they are simply pursing their own egotistic desire to protect their "precious" (cue Gollum). If they exclude everybody then who will be around to stand up for the forest in the future? By excluding groups which have low-impact you severely increase that forest's chance of destruction at a later date. Why would people waste potential resources on something that is meaningless to them since their disenfranchisement at the hands of environmentalist groups? The real enemy, who some call progress, is just waiting in the shadows for the day when the last of the environmentalists is now alone in her precious forest basking in the glow of her proverbial pot of gold. By then it will be too late, I can hear the diesel engines now!

So i would like to warn the foresty management in the states, wilderness is great but if nobody can enjoy it then you will lose your political battles and the war to keep the forest standing.

I plan to continue riding in forests and supporting trail efforts until i am booted off the very last one, then perhaps i will work to see everybody else booted out, which will be an easy task since those self-effacing environmentalists will have laid a nice slippery slope for me to push them down.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Jsut as an example, I know of wildcat trails that were put in to give riders the same route that exists just a mile or two away, but inside the wilderness. If there was a way to lobby for some trails inside wilderness to be opened to mtbikes, those wildcat trails would never had been built, and more of our forrest would remain untouched. Now the USFS in this area wants to talk with the local rider group about incorporating those wildcat trails into the system, when IMHO they should be condidering opening the wilderness system trails to bikes and close the too steep for two way travel wildcat trails.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Not here. Because the MTB community has worked hard on education, developing relationships with land managers, and trail work we continue to have great trail access and have gained new trails. It has taken time, patience and a willingness to compromise on occasion, but we have it pretty good in Summit County Colorado. 

We would not have such a great situation if we had followed what I see as quite foolish strategies that some who have posted on this thread.


----------



## schaarschmidt (Aug 20, 2007)

IMBA does a lot of good, but I think it is time they withdraw from their agreement with SC. The simple fact is SC is pursuing having as much public land as possible declared Wilderness. They don't care if there are existing mountain bike trail on the property that have been maintained by mountain bikers for years. This is an anti-mountain bike agenda which IMBA should simply move away from. 

The next 15 years are the most important. If IMBA could help push off additional Wilderness efforts for that long the problem will basically resolve itself. This is because the old, dare I say "original" trail advocates are aging out. Seriously, take a look at the boards of these organizations, including your local hiking organizations. Their are filled with aging members, especially their board, who grew up before mountain biking took off. They are in their mid-60's or older, and the average life expectancy is about 75. 

As they age out, they are being replaced by younger members who have known mountain bikes their entire life. Many of the younger members in environmental and hiking clubs often mountain bike. 

The same is doubly true for park managers. Many take an anti-mountain bike approach due primarily to their age or close associations with a local hiking club who spreads rumors of trail erosion and degradation should they allow mountain bike access. The difference is these land managers are aging out even quicker, in that they are retiring now and the newer park managers are often mountain bikers themselves, who don' t have the preexisting ties to the old school anti-bike hikers and know better than to believe their lies. 

I suspect that we are seeing the last great wilderness push. That if we can fend this off for the next 5 years that it will drop to a tickle, and after 15 years we might have the political clout to pressure our elected officials to revisit the Wilderness Act and the comments made in the hearings just before its passage and have them pass a bill clarifying that mountain bikers were never intended to be banned from Wilderness areas in the first place.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

schaarschmidt said:


> IMBA does a lot of good, but I think it is time they withdraw from their agreement with SC.....


i'm not disagreeing with what you're saying so much, but i had a conversation with a good pal and longtime advocate when i raised the point that mt. biking becoming more mainstream, and people having a better understanding through their own experience or through the works of organized mt. bike groups/stewards/ambassadors.

But he raised the point that old misconceptions can still be handed down to younger generations.

i guess i'm not really adding or detracting to your statement, so much as just saying i'm not all that comfortable or confident that the new guard will inject more common sense approach to access issues than the old guard?


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Maybe it's time to infiltertrate the SC and put mtbike members into the club to show that we share their values for preservation but think that bikes belong. How big is the SC membership? and What would it take to hijack the organization and turn it pro mtbike?


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

sbsbiker said:


> Maybe it's time to infiltertrate the SC and put mtbike members into the club to show that we share their values for preservation but think that bikes belong. How big is the SC membership? and What would it take to hijack the organization and turn it pro mtbike?


Infiltrate? :lol: Sounds like some kind of bad spy movie. How about just join and participate with an open and honest mind? That's what I did. In the very least you learn that all the people who you have disagreements with don't have devil horns or eat newborn babies for lunch or want to ban Mtn bikes from all trails. You might also find some of your misconceptions changed and change some of those that others might have about you. Depends on how tightly you wrap yourself in your own preconceived notions and hubris.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

zrm said:


> Infiltrate? :lol: Sounds like some kind of bad spy movie. How about just join and participate with an open and honest mind? That's what I did. In the very least you learn that all the people who you have disagreements with don't have devil horns or eat newborn babies for lunch or want to ban Mtn bikes from all trails. You might also find some of your misconceptions changed and change some of those that others might have about you. Depends on how tightly you wrap yourself in your own preconceived notions and hubris.


i agree with you, there are alot of good people in the ranks of conservation groups. And they certainly don't have devil horns or eat newborn babies. But if you scan the websites, and peruse the literature, the information is certainly filtered, and the opinion is most certainly bias and on occasion baseless.

This is perpetuated by representatives within the public and political process, and ultimately and inevitably leads to loss of access for mt. bikers. Unnecessarily so.

Perhaps some of the opinion sound fantastical, but truth is often stranger than fiction. Although i stop short of thinking that Sierra Club members are spawns of Satan, no i think they are more akin to a cult of insane tree druids.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

zrm said:


> Not here. Because the MTB community has worked hard on education, developing relationships with land managers, and trail work we continue to have great trail access and have gained new trails. It has taken time, patience and a willingness to compromise on occasion, but we have it pretty good in Summit County Colorado.
> 
> We would not have such a great situation if we had followed what I see as quite foolish strategies that some who have posted on this thread.


"Foolish" is subjective. In Flagstaff the strategy has worked. In Summit County Colorado it hasn't been tried or needed. That doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Take a mountain bike road trip to Sedona or follow Sedona threads in the AZ forum and you would find out that 90% of Sedona trails are "wildcat" trails. Most of the builders of these trails also have a legit relationship with land managers. They sit down and work with them, when it is useful. When it isn't useful, they find other methods to connect different trails together.

What I would call foolish is for any mountain biker to be a member of the Sierra Club. For most of my life they had a charter that clearly spelled out that mountain bikers were indeed the enemy and were viewed the same as motorcycles. Ten years ago or more, they learned a lesson from the PLO and decided it was better not to openly advertise how you wanted to destroy your sworn enemy. Instead they decided to write different language into their charter and make it appear they welcomed mountain bikers out on the trails. The truth was and is that their actions have not changed. They still pursue the removal of mountain bikers from "their trails" and continue pushing for more wilderness designation.

It should also be noted that not all wildcat trails are being built by young inexperience trail builders. Most of what I am seeing is very well built and sustainable trail. The most common fault is the lack of adequate brush work. If I could summon the Jack Nicholson character from "A Few Good Men", he would tell you that you might not like to admit it here on this forum or in publc but you need those people out building wildcat trails...you want those people out building wildcat trails. We all ride those trails and enjoy them and are not about to quit riding them on principle. So why not just say thank you and go on your way.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

The Prodigal Son said:


> "Foolish" is subjective. In Flagstaff the strategy has worked. In Summit County Colorado it hasn't been tried or needed.


Cause and effect...

Where did all the trails come from in the first place. Around here the term "grey" trails have always been used. But mt. bikers are not historically exclusive to the practice that's for sure. The groups that have political clout have no problem with trails being "grandfathered" in so to speak.

All the same, while i do understand that many of us throughout the states are in situations over the last few decades where people have built a place to ride for lack of option, i can personally attest that locally there are many success stories. But each success story has a steep price tag of alot of advocacy work, alot of work having a well organized group/club, the ability to secure grants, and working without absolute freedom on the builds.

It's not easy, nor cheap, and it takes a tremendous amount of patience, work, and follow through.

So by that as well as the political hoops we jump through (because we are at the beck and call of other stakeholders in almost any plan), i do feel there is cause to rationalize and justify such actions, but now what do you have? You have people who give a rat's ass not involved in the process of creating something on the up and up. Why? well because they are don't feel that there is need. We can just build "wildcat", there is no reason to properly organize... And the few that are left to carry the weight burn out and stop, or join the bootleg build...

So what happens when this tactic falls short, and do you even care if other projects that could probably be better, ESPECIALLY if you and others were to join the process. Do you care if these projects never cease to be...

My opinion is yes grey trails get results, and really has been a necessity from the hardline stance on epic closure of trails we should have every right to be on over the last 20 years.

BUT to me it's fools gold, and we are cheating ourselves long term. At some point we all should be united in working towards true legitimacy. And yes i'm quite aware of the concession and weakness of the mt. bike community nationally as a whole, which makes this proposition the long row to hoe.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

Skookum said:


> Cause and effect...
> 
> Where did all the trails come from in the first place. Around here the term "grey" trails have always been used. But mt. bikers are not historically exclusive to the practice that's for sure. The groups that have political clout have no problem with trails being "grandfathered" in so to speak.
> 
> ...


The premise that mountain biking access is going backwards is false for most every place I have ridden in the last few years. The numbers of riders is growing. The need for more access and more trails is obvious to land managers. They also know that this particular user group is glad to volunteer in large numbers to get more trails to ride. They are passionate and highly motivated. There is ample funding to get the work done. There are any number of professional trail crews available to assist in the work. The problem is how slowly the process works and how unmotivated the land managers are. At some point, some riders will display a pioneer spirit and get out there and solve the problems on their own. We all agree this type of behavior is not for everyone. You have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions, if caught. Each individual must decide if the cost outweighs the benefits. What I see is there is almost no risk and substantial benefit.

Maybe it is a type of MTB Tea-Party, made up of people who have waited long enough and decided to take action to make changes to the system.


----------



## Fullrange Drew (May 13, 2004)

And in so doing "This is what I want and I'm going to do it and I don't care a hoot for your rules." they make all mountain bikers look irresponsible, unwilling to work within any management framework and precisely the type of people that the land management authorities ought to ensure remain banned from wilderness areas.

Win / Lose situation as far as I see it.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

Fullrange Drew said:


> And in so doing "This is what I want and I'm going to do it and I don't care a hoot for your rules." they make all mountain bikers look irresponsible, unwilling to work within any management framework and precisely the type of people that the land management authorities ought to ensure remain banned from wilderness areas.
> 
> Win / Lose situation as far as I see it.


What you "see" is not what you get. Land managers want help from volunteers. They get most of their volunteer work from the mountain bike community. They know all those riders who keep showing up at meetings and showing up on volunteer days. I'm one of them. They even issue some of us Forest Service uniforms and various paperwork to keep track of volunteer work that can be used as a match for grants. They even offer us tools. We work hard for them and for the trails we love. The land managers are benefitting greatly from our hard work. They won't turn their backs on all that free labor, regardless of a small group of trail builders who may or may not be mountain bikers.

You should not automatically assume the land managers will then turn around and say something like; Sorry guys, we'd really can't use your help any more because someone has been building trails without out consent, and it might even be a mountain biker. It doesn't happen. Land managers work with those who want to work with them. They have always known there are hikers and equestrians and bikers who are unwilling to work with them and some even but branches and move rocks and do other trail alterations without their blessing. Some go a bit further. Oddly, when illegal trail work is done really well, the land managers find reasons to adopt that work into their legal system of trails. Why not? By your logic, those land managers are condoning illegal trail work by agreeing to adopt those trails.

Don't associate wildcat trail building with Wilderness bans for mountain bikes. Wilderness was taken from us by 70-year-old Washington politicians catering to 70-year-old members of the Sierra Club who reminded them they are registered voters and were willing to donate to their re-election campaign. That's something that can't simply be undone with a little good will. Politicians don't understand good will. It's cold hard cash they understand.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*An easy solution...*

The answer to mountain biking access issues is no different now than when Mark and I worked together at MBAccess: Cash. Lot's and lots of cash.

The Sierra Club is effective because they're founded and funded by old east coast money. They're now fantastic at marketing and their cashflow comes in almost in perpetuam through memberships and their endowments. Mountain biking advocacy is under funded and fairly horrible at strategic marketing.

The problem with Mark's approach is the same problem that IMBA has: There's no simple, black and white answer. A solution that works in California won't always work in the Pacific NW. What works in the Pacific NW won't always work in the Midwest. What works in the Midwest won't always work on the East coast.

IMBA's funding is hand to mouth. They can't effectively market or lobby because all they can afford to hire is passionite advocates who are not always high functioning professionals. They do the best they can with the resources they have. They're trying to regionalize and partner with local organizations. They're trying to focus on national (international?) issues.

Mountain biking advocacy has traditionally been grass roots volunteers, not paid professionals. Volunteers are passionite but they burn out. There's little or no continuity.

What's the solution? In my opinion, a cohesive business plan that involves angel funding for endowments that focuses on long term access, including changing the 1984 Wilderness legislation ammendment. Membership may or may not be part of the plan.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

Last years Omnibus Public Lands Management Act? 2.1 million acres across the West? There was a thread last year on this site, many people lost *legal* access to favorite trails.

Lots more Wilderness bills in the works right now. Red Rocks Utah, San Juans Colorado



The Prodigal Son said:


> The premise that mountain biking access is going backwards is false for most every place I have ridden in the last few years. The numbers of riders is growing. The need for more access and more trails is obvious to land managers. They also know that this particular user group is glad to volunteer in large numbers to get more trails to ride. They are passionate and highly motivated. There is ample funding to get the work done. There are any number of professional trail crews available to assist in the work. The problem is how slowly the process works and how unmotivated the land managers are. At some point, some riders will display a pioneer spirit and get out there and solve the problems on their own. We all agree this type of behavior is not for everyone. You have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions, if caught. Each individual must decide if the cost outweighs the benefits. What I see is there is almost no risk and substantial benefit.
> 
> Maybe it is a type of MTB Tea-Party, made up of people who have waited long enough and decided to take action to make changes to the system.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

Used to be a member of SC quit about a dozen years ago as the national organization went full tilt. And yes as their web page says they do want to eliminate all MTB usage in "Wilderness" areas whether those are roadless or not no matter what the local chapter may be feeding you.



zrm said:


> Infiltrate? :lol: Sounds like some kind of bad spy movie. How about just join and participate with an open and honest mind? That's what I did. In the very least you learn that all the people who you have disagreements with don't have devil horns or eat newborn babies for lunch or want to ban Mtn bikes from all trails. You might also find some of your misconceptions changed and change some of those that others might have about you. Depends on how tightly you wrap yourself in your own preconceived notions and hubris.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

socal_jack said:


> Last years Omnibus Public Lands Management Act? 2.1 million acres across the West? There was a thread last year on this site, many people lost *legal* access to favorite trails.
> 
> Lots more Wilderness bills in the works right now. Red Rocks Utah, San Juans Colorado


It sort of reminds me of when housing developments are built where bikers use to access the woods. They have to find a new route to the trailhead. Some times we are forced to adapt.

What kind of numbers are you suggesting when you say "many" people lost legal access to favorite trails? I ride in Durango from time to time and I've not heard of trail closures of any kind. I'll be riding in Red Rocks Utah later this year to see what has been affected in that area. Certainly not Thunder Mountain? I travel a lot around the west and I had such a great road trip last September, I had to make a new top 10 list. In fact, I think I came up with almost 40 trails I have really enjoyed riding. Not one of them is threatened. Most of the areas where those trails exist are expanding their trail system; Bend, Oakridge, St. George, Hurricane, Hood River, several other areas in Oregon, southern Washington. I remember riding the Flume Trail years ago when there was only a fraction of the single track there is now. Downieville trails are expanding rapidly. Sedona's mountain bike trails have doubled in the last 10 years. Flagstaff and Tucson are developing more trails for mountain bikers. Phoenix riders have more options now that the Black Canyon Trail is being expanded. Just look at all the trails on the MTBR trail reviews.

Given a choice of riding and maintaining what we already have and spending countless hours and day and weeks trying to organize to fight Washington politicians who are already in the hip pocket of special interest groups who out number us and have been buying off political favors for generations, I choose to ride. Ride as often as possible and do volunteer trail work to maintain the trail, as often as 3 times a week. Plus join in some of the volunteer days where new trail corridors are being built.

I'm not so sure the sky is actually falling. There may be some patchy clouds hovering around some parts of the country but I'm thinking our glasses are mostly full.

Like Americans who have been frightened into thinking the world was coming to an end if we didn't increase government spending ten fold, the truth of our situation as mountain bikers is not nearly as bad as some would want us to believe. I leave you with the following thought...

*"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

-- Henry Louis Mencken *


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

Using large fonts does not carry your point. Whether the sky is falling depends on where you ride or live. Some places will likely never get affected, but even locally I just found a new Wilderness Bill in SD county.

Individual Wilderness bills rolled up in last years Omnibus Act are listed below, do a search on MTBR to find examples of trails shutdown or Thonas.gov and read, not a matter usually of finding a new trailhead, legally you're out.

Beaver Basin Wilderness Act (S. 3017) 
California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act of 2008 (H.R. 3682) 
Copper Salmon Wilderness Act (S. 2034) 
Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Area Act (H.R. 6162, S. 3065) 
National Landscape Conservation System Act (S. 1139) 
Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act of 2008 (S. 3088) 
Owyhee Public Land Management Act of 2008 (S. 2833) 
Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act (S.1380) 
Sabinoso Wilderness Act (H.R. 2632) 
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Wilderness Act (H.R. 3022) 
Spring Basin Wilderness Act of 2008 (S. 3089) 
Virginia Ridge and Valley Act (S. 570)

Here's a clickable Map of what they're after in the Red Rocks Bill, there are areas directly around Moab

http://www.suwa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ARRWAclickablemap

You can read the latest San Juan Wilderness addition bill here, Durango appears safe .... for now.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3914

This is by no means a comprehensive list of what's coming, go on thomas.gov and search wilderness.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

socal_jack said:


> Used to be a member of SC quit about a dozen years ago as the national organization went full tilt. And yes as their web page says they do want to eliminate all MTB usage in "Wilderness" areas whether those are roadless or not no matter what the local chapter may be feeding you.


MTBs are already illegal in Wilderness areas. Roadless areas are different from designated wilderness, Roadless areas encompass a wide range of land use designations and not all, or even most is candidates for inclusion into the wilderness act. While the SC certainly supports the ban on bikes in designated wilderness and supports bringing some roadless areas into wilderness designation (thus banning bikes) I'm not aware of any official position that supports a blanket exclusion of MTBs from roadless areas.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

I guess I was too subtle with the quoted "Wilderness" as a point of sarcasm and the phrase "roadless or not", this is in reference to their working towards WIlderness designation of areas that are clearly not in the spirit of the original act to wit the "Definition of Wilderness" in the 1964 Act, many areas being proposed are marginal at best in fitting to it both in size and pre-existing human imprint on the land. Originally only truly roadless areas were considered but now even the "roadless" areas have roads.

Local example of that is the Jacumba Mountains Wilderness basically on the border, can't ride MTB or OHV but the Border Patrol gets to jet up and down the access roads all day and night chasing down illegals.

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
(c) 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.



zrm said:


> MTBs are already illegal in Wilderness areas. Roadless areas are different from designated wilderness, Roadless areas encompass a wide range of land use designations and not all, or even most is candidates for inclusion into the wilderness act. While the SC certainly supports the ban on bikes in designated wilderness and supports bringing some roadless areas into wilderness designation (thus banning bikes) I'm not aware of any official position that supports a blanket exclusion of MTBs from roadless areas.


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

GregB406 said:


> Only one or 2 percent of bikers belong to IMBA (my guess) Join IMBA. Change IMBA. No change without joining first!


Greg, you are so right. But your guess is way off. As quoted by MTBR member and IMBA rep. "Dancing bear" last year, only *.*2% (two tenths of one percent) of mountain bikers are IMBA members. If bikers are looking for someone to blame, most don't have to look any farther then their mirror. 
We are IMBA, if IMBA fails or wins, it will be _our_ just reward.

Perhaps we should infiltrate IMBA to see how it goes before we infiltrate the SC. :thumbsup:


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

Kind of a Catch-22 situation really, IMBA's stated position is not to fight Widerness designation probably the largest national issue for mountain biking trail loss, hard to get new members to fight that if your stated position is not to fight that. If IMBA even made an attempt like a poll of MTBers here who would join if they changed their stance, maybe.



Shelbak73 said:


> Greg, you are so right. But your guess is way off. As quoted by MTBR member and IMBA rep. "Dancing bear" last year, only *.*2% (two tenths of one percent) of mountain bikers are IMBA members. If bikers are looking for someone to blame, most don't have to look any farther then their mirror.
> We are IMBA, if IMBA fails or wins, it will be _our_ just reward.
> 
> Perhaps we should infiltrate IMBA to see how it goes before we infiltrate the SC. :thumbsup:


----------



## cbeets (Oct 20, 2005)

IMBA's reluctance to accept the wilderness lobby for what it is and to fight it aggressively are the reasons I am no longer a member. I joined Blue Ribbon Coalition.

I do not own or ride an ATV, motorcycle, snowmobile, or jet ski. I _may_ take my 4x4 on some trails once or twice in a year, compared with approximately 50 mtb rides. However, I have found that I have more in common with motorized user groups than I do IMBA.

Wilderness=no access=riding the road bike or worse, the trainer.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

cbeets,

Thanks for bringing that group to my attention, had been considering ama-cycle.org, but the BRC actually mentions saving MTB trails unlike the IMBA website. Think I may join that one also, the rest of the folks on this thread wondering what they can do should take a look at the Public-Lands and Action Alerts pages to see what IMBA's should look like(or ama-cycle.org).

http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/?alert=1109

http://www.sharetrails.org/public-lands/

I was perusing Thomas.gov last night and found HR 980 Norther Rockies Ecosystem Protection act (no action pending right now) 24 million acres!!!! Designates the following lands in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming as wilderness and components of the National Wilderness Preservation System (System): 
(1) Greater Glacier/Northern Continental Divide ecosystem; (2) Greater Yellowstone ecosystem; (3) Greater Salmon/Selway ecosystem; (4) Greater Cabinet/Yaak/Selkirk ecosystem; (5) Greater Hells Canyon ecosystem; (6) Islands in the Sky Wilderness; and (7) Blackfeet Wilderness. Designates: (1) specified wild land areas as Biological Connecting Corridors to protect the life flow of the Northern Rockies Bioregion; (2) the inventoried roadless areas identified as part of the Corridors as wilderness and components of the System; and (3) certain biological connecting corridors as special corridor management areas. Amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of specified rivers and creeks in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Establishes the National Wildland Restoration and Recovery System and the National Wildland Recovery Corps.



cbeets said:


> IMBA's reluctance to accept the wilderness lobby for what it is and to fight it aggressively are the reasons I am no longer a member. I joined Blue Ribbon Coalition.
> 
> I do not own or ride an ATV, motorcycle, snowmobile, or jet ski. I _may_ take my 4x4 on some trails once or twice in a year, compared with approximately 50 mtb rides. However, I have found that I have more in common with motorized user groups than I do IMBA.
> 
> Wilderness=no access=riding the road bike or worse, the trainer.


----------



## RYNOFREERIDE (Feb 26, 2004)

One of the biggest problems that mountain bikers have is that we as a whole are not an organized lot. We are basically a bunch of independent local advocacy groups that are loosely connected via our affiliation with IMBA. If your local group is anything like mine, it is also very small compared to the actual number of local mountain bikers in your area. We have no power to fight the Sierra Clubs and politicians of the world because of our lack of organization and power. I hear a lot of negativity in this thread towards IMBA's efforts and I think most people don't realize how small an organization IMBA really is. They only have about 30 paid staffers and I am sure the worldwide membership is a drop in a bucket compared with what the membership numbers of a group like SC has. Everyone expects IMBA to be able to take on all comers and protect every last loss of trails due to wilderness expansion, but that is a lot to ask for a group IMBA's size. What I am saying, if mountain bikers want the power that groups like NRA, Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, or any number of organized outdoor groups have, we need to finally band together and stand as one. We need to show the politicians that we are indeed a powerful lobby. Until we all grow up and work together as one group, we will get nowhere. We need a higher percentage of our riders being members of their local advocacy group and more need to become members of IMBA. We have enough people, we just need these people to finally show up and support the cause. We also need to have our local groups more united on a national level. We can't all be independent and expect results on the national level. IMBA is starting to trend this way with some local groups becoming an IMBA chapter like SORBA. We need run our power structure on the local and national level much like the other successful groups. Sierra Club has local clubs, but they are all united under one national group. The still have the local feel, but together they have national power. Mountain bikers need to get organized like this. 

People in this thread need to come up with ways to unite to become more powerful rather than finding excuses to separate from the group. Mountain bikers are an extremely independent bunch by nature. This must end. We need to work together, period.


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

socal_jack said:


> Kind of a Catch-22 situation really, IMBA's stated position is not to fight Widerness designation probably the largest national issue for mountain biking trail loss, hard to get new members to fight that if your stated position is not to fight that. If IMBA even made an attempt like a poll of MTBers here who would join if they changed their stance, maybe.


True as the sky is blue!
IMHO
I honestly don't think that would be their position if we had greater membership in IMBA. But, like I said IMBA is who we are, mountain bikers. IMBA can only rely on mountain bikers for support. But just like IMBA, this advocacy page which contains the most important issues for us as bikers gets viewed by (my guess) .2% of MTBR members. The rest would rather be involved in a bitter flame war about 26 vs 29 or spandex vs baggies or some such crap.
Am I frustrated with the leadership of IMBA? You bet! I mean WTF they sponsor this page in a world wide forum dedicated to the people who they are suppose to represent and they don't even take advantage of this huge platform by taking polls or asking for our input or driving up membership. I challenged their way of thinking in this thread, and look what happened after my post. http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=476965 Was the lesson learned? NO! or they'd be here today.

Oh, by the way, Ken in KC, my nomination still stands.

(edit) I just noticed my post came in after a fine post by RYNOFREERIDE. Well put brother.


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

Good points, but it is hard to find people to join an org for something that is so individualistic.

The local club has made some inroads, they've offered a first year free membership with purchase of a bike from some of the local shops to introduce people to the organization and what they do at no charge.

They've also increased the social aspects of the club to get people involved too... social rides, clinics, races, camping, etc. Got to have people to organize those too though.

But organizing like this has to be done on the local level. I'd like to see a single membership that makes me a member of local, state, and national. I don't always have the appetitie to cut three different checks, or want to pay that much. That alone could help numbers on all levels.

The SC can appeal to what people want to think about themselves. 'Awww look, I swupport the wittle animals', and I get the nice calendar too! The few people that I know that admit to being SC club members it is about being seen/known as a member than fully being behind all their inititiaves. With IMBA we're more like the BRC, but smaller, or a trade group. We're not as big, we will never be as big as SC unless something big trips them up. 

JmZ


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

The Sierra Club was founded in 1892, IMBA was founded in 1988. The Sierra club has generations of members, many of whom left endowments which have built up the Sierra Club's financial position. So expecting mountain biking to be where the Sierra Club is today is not reasonable. You can get upset that we are not as organized and fund as Seirra Club, or you can be excited about all that we have accomplished in a few decades.


----------



## RYNOFREERIDE (Feb 26, 2004)

JmZ said:


> Good points, but it is hard to find people to join an org for something that is so individualistic.
> 
> The local club has made some inroads, they've offered a first year free membership with purchase of a bike from some of the local shops to introduce people to the organization and what they do at no charge.
> 
> ...


Yep, I agree. I actually do see the mountain bike advocacy numbers and organization growing and growing. It will take time. My club actually voted to become a chapter of IMBA. We are currently working on completing this process. Our members now sign up on the IMBA site and become members of our local group and IMBA all at once. One check for local and national. Same system SORBA has. We think it will be great for our local group and IMBA. This may be the future of mtn bike advocacy. We shall see. Our group is pretty excited about the opportunity.


----------



## RYNOFREERIDE (Feb 26, 2004)

indytrekracer said:


> The Sierra Club was founded in 1892, IMBA was founded in 1988. The Sierra club has generations of members, many of whom left endowments which have built up the Sierra Club's financial position. So expecting mountain biking to be where the Sierra Club is today is not reasonable. You can get upset that we are not as organized and fund as Seirra Club, or you can be excited about all that we have accomplished in a few decades.


I choose to be excited about the future. I think we will get more organized and be stronger and stronger over time. In the 10-15 years my local group has been active, we have grown and become more successful. We now work with and are respected by many land managers at the city, county, and state level. I think the move to being an IMBA chapter will only increase our success along with IMBA's success.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

IMBA is doomed to fail as long as they accept the SC position, look at the IMBA action alert page - NOTHING! There is a ton of really bad legislation that will affect mountain biking but the IMBA remains silent so as not to offend the SC. You would have to be delusional to think the IMBA will lead a fight on these issues when they've already said they won't. Their numbers will remain small as long as they maintain that position, 0.2% or less.Since the SC considers a mountain bike the same as an OHV might as well throw in with them, at least they are willing to fight.

You can probably get some good organizational and trail building tips from the IMBA but that appears to be all.


----------



## Shelbak73 (Nov 10, 2007)

socal_jack said:


> IMBA is doomed to fail as long as they accept the SC position, look at the IMBA action alert page - NOTHING! There is a ton of really bad legislation that will affect mountain biking but the IMBA remains silent so as not to offend the SC. You would have to be delusional to think the IMBA will lead a fight on these issues when they've already said they won't. Their numbers will remain small as long as they maintain that position, 0.2% or less.Since the SC considers a mountain bike the same as an OHV might as well throw in with them, at least they are willing to fight.
> 
> You can probably get some good organizational and trail building tips from the IMBA but that appears to be all.


I agree with 98% of what you've said. IMO to throw your hat in with the moto crowd is a huge step backward. One thing I think you may have over looked is, IMBA worked with the BLM and FS to get us out of the ORV class. Like it or not we are now part of the hiker, equestrian group, and I for one am happy to be there. This allows the FS and the BLM to make case by case (trail by trail) decisions as to our access, not congress. This of course doesn't apply to *W*ilderness areas but may include national parks. This should allow us to pettition our local BLM or FS offices when it comes to our access, But, this would allow them to shut down trails if we bikers cause to many problems.
Organizational skills? I don't know if you took advantage of the link for the "IMBA's regional councel program." thread I posted earlier, but if you did you would have see where an IMBA rep chided another rep for bringing that discussion to an open forum insted of just contacting him through e-mail so they could discuss it one-on-one. If their organization feels it's easier to spread the news about the restructuring of the organization that represents us world wide, one person at a time, one e-mail at a time, that's some piss-poor organizational thinking. This also leads me to be suspicious of IMBA's leadership. Are the top people in IMBA, members of the Sierra Club? Has IMBA been infiltrated?


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

I'd rather not be backed into throwing in with the ORVs( although the BRC as the name implies is more of an umbrella lobby more inline on Wilderenss deisgnation with MTB interests) but at this point they and the ORV groups have much more clout in both money and numbers and the important thing to me is to nip the Wilderness designations in the bud. Already the SC and Wilderness groups are trying to get any area that's only under consideration to be treated as if it were already designated. They have large scale letter writing campaigns already going after that with the Sec of Interior Salazar, who appears to be a friendly ear to them.

Locally we have trouble with the horse folks, they seem to want it all for themselves wherever it is, so I'd rather not throw in with them. They probably have the most $ per person and yet seemingly never do any trail work while far and away causing the most trail damage. I think the hiking and biking groups are roughly equivalent in trail hours worked.

I've gone over a bunch of the IMBA site trying to find what they were actually doing for the sport including your link and didn't find much at all good, Saw a few disturbing exchanges on there I think that's why only said *probably get some*, not sure what they could do but other threads seem to indicate they've helped local groups get started at least.

I found interesting this opinion piece from 5 years ago wondering whether IMBA should re-focus like the NRA did and start fighting;

http://www.imba.com/news/opinion/04_05_imba_nra.html

Sadly that appears to be the end of it, at least someone there was on the right track instead they have 5 lost years and membership apparently dwindling.

You may be right about who has been infiltrated, it sure seems that way.



Shelbak73 said:


> I agree with 98% of what you've said. IMO to throw your hat in with the moto crowd is a huge step backward. One thing I think you may have over looked is, IMBA worked with the BLM and FS to get us out of the ORV class. Like it or not we are now part of the hiker, equestrian group, and I for one am happy to be there. This allows the FS and the BLM to make case by case (trail by trail) decisions as to our access, not congress. This of course doesn't apply to *W*ilderness areas but may include national parks. This should allow us to pettition our local BLM or FS offices when it comes to our access, But, this would allow them to shut down trails if we bikers cause to many problems.
> Organizational skills? I don't know if you took advantage of the link for the "IMBA's regional councel program." thread I posted earlier, but if you did you would have see where an IMBA rep chided another rep for bringing that discussion to an open forum insted of just contacting him through e-mail so they could discuss it one-on-one. If their organization feels it's easier to spread the news about the restructuring of the organization that represents us world wide, one person at a time, one e-mail at a time, that's some piss-poor organizational thinking. This also leads me to be suspicious of IMBA's leadership. Are the top people in IMBA, members of the Sierra Club? Has IMBA been infiltrated?


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

If your main focus is getting MTB access to designated wilderness or fighting any and all new wilderness designation, then yes, you probably will think IMBA sucks. If, however, you take a broader view of MTB access and put in the context of how many new miles of trail have become legally available to MTBs on Non wilderness lands due to the efforts of IMBA and IMBA affiliated clubs, I think a much better picture emerges. Personally, I prefer the latter and enjoy very much all the great trails we have legally preserved, maintained and built around my neck of the woods. :thumbsup:


----------

