# The Sierra Club supporting extreme mountain biking???



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

I never thought I'd see the day... but perhaps they are using mt. bikers to fend off the oil and gas leases?

Sierra Club's AddUp Campaign: https://www.addup.org/campaigns/blm-keep-historic-red-bull-rampage-venue-free-from-oil-gas-drilling

Worth a read for some background on the issue and insight from a mt. biker who has infiltrated the Sierra Club:

Mountain Bike History For Sale - Pinkbike


----------



## R38 (Nov 9, 2015)

As a casual observer I think the the Sierra Club is mainly against biking in Wilderness Areas and is fine with biking on most other Public Lands. Anyway I signed the petition.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ 
Bay Area lays out welcome mat to once-shunned mountain bikers - East Bay Times
"The Sierra Club opposes the proposal, saying moving bikes will disrupt wildlife and mar the peaceful ambience of natural areas."

https://www.outsideonline.com/1797366/sierra-club-joins-oregon-bike-trails-suit
"The Sierra Club has joined seven other environmental groups that filed a lawsuit last week against a mountain bike park at Timberline Ski Area on Mt. Hood. Plans for the 17-mile trail network have been in the works since 2010 and were approved by Mt. Hood National Forest Supervisor Christopher Worth this past November."


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Most political organizations will use any tool available to them to advance their cause or protect their sacred cow. I suspect the Sierra Club will remain staunchly anti mountain bike in wilderness areas, but I expect to see them use anything and everything as a shield to protect other public lands. After all, if reasoning behind selling off BLM land becomes something like:

We can sell this land off because it's not protected, just public land, you want to hike/camp/etc go to a park or a wilderness area, it becomes a slippery slope. At that point, you want to mountain bike? Yes, we sold off that public land too. Go check out this wilderness area. Oh, a motorcycle? Hmm. Well, you might disturb people driving through this park over here that want to see some nature, but there aren't many people in this wilderness area over here. Why don't you just ride there?

So, yeah. Prepare to see all sorts of outdoors/conservationist/preservationist limited partnerships and strange bedfellows. Folks like the Sierra Club will view all these public lands as buffer to protect their beloved wilderness areas that they'd really like to keep EVERYONE out of to protect the wildlife, rather than just allowing them to be used the way the wilderness act intended: For non-mechanized or primitive recreation.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Utter BS/Horse $hit, whatever you want to call it, that was the only thing they could find to try to legitimize their stance to not have the land sold, but I guess as they say, "The enemy of mine enemy, is my friend" for now at least on this matter :skep:


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

The premise offer by Sierra Club is that Wilderness is only a small part of public land. But then they want bikes out of proposed Wilderness. Then they want bikes out of any land that local Sierra Club members want to be proposed Wilderness. Then the local Sierra Club members show up at local meetings and oppose mountain bike trails on State and Local land.

The Sierra Club is going to need a lot of friends over the next few years and this one cause does change the fact that Sierra club is viewed by many out door recreation groups as being against them. 

The Sierra Club is going to loose a lot of battles the next 2-4 years. The question is whether they will realize that there only chance of winning battles is to have the support of the outdoor recreation and Hook and Bullet communities.

The current Legislator and President could give a **** what the Sierra Club wants. But they do have to care what right leaning outdoorsmen want.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

So the Sierra Club is using what tools they can to protect another area from industrial invasion and this time it's mountain bikers? Well I guess that sucks....

I get that they're not exactly pro-mountain biking but if not for the Sierra Club we wouldn't have Redwoods, and Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Glacier Park etc. wouldn't be the national treasures they are today. Pretty much everywhere I've been in the US so far I've found plenty of great places to ride, and the only places I haven't were areas where all the land was privately owned.

Open spaces have been under assault by money since the beginning and are under more pressure now than ever, so if organizations like the Sierra Club have to fight dirty or use whatever resources available to save chunks or wilderness that's fine by me.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Calling BS on that.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

bsieb said:


> ^Calling BS on that.


Call it what you want but the history seems to validate its truth.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

There is no denying that the Seirra Club has done good things in the past and even today. But that doesn't give them cart blanch to dictate who is worthy to experience the land owned by the people. They have chosen to exclude many user groups that don't fit their extreme views. That unfortunately will not serve them well the next few years.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

indytrekracer said:


> There is no denying that the Seirra Club has done good things in the past and even today. But that doesn't give them cart blanch to dictate who is worthy to experience the land owned by the people. They have chosen to exclude many user groups that don't fit their extreme views. That unfortunately will not serve them well the next few years.


I pretty much agree but the problem is that the definition of "extreme views" varies wildly. There is a very large group of people who think it's an extreme view to not allow them to go 4-wheeling in Yellowstone. You can't please everyone.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> I pretty much agree but the problem is that the definition of "extreme views" varies wildly. There is a very large group of people who think it's an extreme view to not allow them to go 4-wheeling in Yellowstone. You can't please everyone.


There are Nature Preserves in Indiana that are too sensitive to allow hiking. Should we ban hiking everywhere? There are plenty of places where 4-wheeling should be allow.  Land managers should be free to survey the public and identify need. They review public land in a science base way to determine how to provide the right balance of access and protection.

IMO there should be access for 4x4, hikers, fishing, hunting mountain biking, etc....

When groups like Sierra Club pick favorites within the outdoor rec community, they cause division. In the end their hate of motorized recreation and mountain biking is going to result in far worse losses.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

Historically the Sierra Club was pro-recreation. Of all sorts. They actually operated a ski area. 

Now it's a confused mess. They have a big recreation offering. But also the local groups in particular are pure NIMBYs in many areas.

(E.g. in SF not only are they against allowing any public access to some areas, against mountain bikes in areas with public access (including service trucks), but also against converting a parking lot to housing.)


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

indytrekracer said:


> IMO there should be access for 4x4, hikers, fishing, hunting mountain biking, etc....


But there is access for 4x4, fishing, hunting, mountain biking, etc, do you mean _*everywhere?*_

I agree that their dollars might be spent more wisely but as I said you can't please everyone. Also I believe that by preserving large tracts of land it greatly benefits hunters and fishermen outside of those areas by insuring healthy game populations and watersheds.

I don't really like the word "hate" but I think there needs to be some organized force combatting motorized recreation otherwise there would be no places left where you could escape it.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> But there is access for 4x4, fishing, hunting, mountain biking, etc, do you mean _*everywhere?*_
> 
> I agree that their dollars might be spent more wisely but as I said you can't please everyone. Also I believe that by preserving large tracts of land it greatly benefits hunters and fishermen outside of those areas by insuring healthy game populations and watersheds.
> 
> I don't really like the word "hate" but I think there needs to be some organized force combatting motorized recreation otherwise there would be no places left where you could escape it.


Ultimately motorized recreation will be what saves mountain biking access from entities like the Sierra Club. It will be direct in some instances but indirect in most.

The Sierra Club is tirelessly working to pit loosely bound allies against each other. Splintering the groups makes it easier to attack each one separately and gradually phase out access bit by bit. We've all seen it happen, no motors, then no bikes, then no horses, then no one. Wheeling should not be allowed everywhere nor would I advocate for that but there does not need to be a blanket ban in place across large swaths of land that are suitable for it.

Where the OHV community will help is that it is massive. In both membership and money it dwarfs anything the biking community can currently bring to bear. As such these entities are the primary focus of the antis in many locales. This is taking heat off of bikers and giving them time to better organize themselves. As has been stated necessity breeds strange bedfellows.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

tuckerjt07 said:


> We've all seen it happen, no motors, then no bikes, then no horses, then no one.


I've never seen that happen, and the only places I've been denied access was either on private or military land. IME it's relatively difficult to escape civilization and machines whereas opportunities for motorized recreation are nearly limitless.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> I've never seen that happen, and the only places I've been denied access was either on private or military land. IME it's relatively difficult to escape civilization and machines whereas opportunities for motorized recreation are nearly limitless.


Honest answer, you haven't been paying attention nationally. There have been several such closures inside Wilderness Areas in recent years, not just to mechanized or motorized being banned but all access. As to not being able to get away from motorized access? I suggest hitting up the Gila Wilderness Area or any of the other four such areas in New Mexico.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Honest answer, you haven't been paying attention nationally. There have been several such closures inside Wilderness Areas in recent years, not just to mechanized or motorized being banned but all access. As to not being able to get away from motorized access? I suggest hitting up the Gila Wilderness Area or any of the other four such areas in New Mexico.


Ha, the Gila Wilderness is pretty much in my back yard!

Honest question, what wilderness areas have been closed off to humans? I understand that "core zones" in wilderness areas are sometimes closed but those affect very few people.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

The word is tokenism; the SC will use this (which ever way it goes) and say "look, we gave (tried to give) you the Red Bull holy lands so you bikers get the f*ck back to Palestine".

When I found out IMBA was sleeping with the SC on the Wilderness issue I quit them both. I had been a SC supporter for many years but the "look at all the good things they've done" finally wore out.

Every MTB advocate should read the Park City Agreement and see where that's gotten us. (IMBA sold us out on Wilderness access with an "understanding" the the SC would "allow" ST access elsewhere---to the best of my knowledge that's never happened)


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Ha, the Gila Wilderness is pretty much in my back yard!
> 
> Honest question, what wilderness areas have been closed off to humans? I understand that "core zones" in wilderness areas are sometimes closed but those affect very few people.


If it's in your backyard aren't you being a bit disingenuous saying you can't get away from mechanized access?

Honest answer, I said "inside Wilderness Areas" you answered your own question.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Ultimately motorized recreation will be what saves mountain biking access from entities like the Sierra Club. It will be direct in some instances but indirect in most.
> 
> The Sierra Club is tirelessly working to pit loosely bound allies against each other. Splintering the groups makes it easier to attack each one separately and gradually phase out access bit by bit. We've all seen it happen, no motors, then no bikes, then no horses, then no one. Wheeling should not be allowed everywhere nor would I advocate for that but there does not need to be a blanket ban in place across large swaths of land that are suitable for it.
> 
> ...


 Ugg, what chu been smoking? Motor sports saves mt biking? Yikes. Great, except no will want to mt bike after all those ******** have ripped the trails to shreds. Or hike. In my area( MA) the mt bike community( Nemba) some local conservation groups, plus the AMC along with a 25K grant for REI( Sweet) put togther a bridge connecting 2 parcels along a ridgeline. It went over a swamp with a beaver dam and had some conservation issues too. One big happy family.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

tuckerjt07 said:


> If it's in your backyard aren't you being a bit disingenuous saying you can't get away from mechanized access?


I was speaking in broader terms, when I said me I meant everyone. Also I've lived in a lot of other places besides NM, try getting away from it all in Iowa. I was only saying that generally it's a whole lot easier to find machines and crowds than solitude and nature. Just my humble opinion and experience.

I'm still curious about the core zones, I know they exist but I've never run into one and I'm guessing they're relatively few and isolated? I can't imagine that a lot of people are affected by them but I'm all ears if the truth is otherwise.


----------



## BeDrinkable (Sep 22, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm still curious about the core zones, I know they exist but I've never run into one and I'm guessing they're relatively few and isolated? I can't imagine that a lot of people are affected by them but I'm all ears if the truth is otherwise.


Such closures certainly exist, but are usually temporary. Protecting, for example, migratory bird habitat. I've never actually encountered one myself either ...


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Ugg, what chu been smoking? Motor sports saves mt biking? Yikes. Great, except no will want to mt bike after all those ******** have ripped the trails to shreds. Or hike. In my area( MA) the mt bike community( Nemba) some local conservation groups, plus the AMC along with a 25K grant for REI( Sweet) put togther a bridge connecting 2 parcels along a ridgeline. It went over a swamp with a beaver dam and had some conservation issues too. One big happy family.


The multiple ad hominems and blatant colloquiumisms help identify why you aren't able to grasp the concept but I'll try again.

Offroad lobbies, such as the BRC, are so massive and well funded that antis cannot ignore them and cannot split resources to launch multiple large scale attacks on any other group due to this. The focus and persistence of those lobbies are keeping the antis from being able to home in on other user groups.

Also, you and many others on this forum, take an extremely elementary approach to cooperation. Most offroaders, and their lobbies, do not advocate for total motorized access in all scenarios. There is an understanding of conservation with many users. Granted all user groups have bad representatives.

If you want to see a history of how loss of bike access follows loss of motorized access just look at the access history of the aforementioned Wilderness Areas.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The multiple ad hominems and blatant colloquiumisms help identify why you aren't able to grasp the concept but I'll try again.
> 
> Offroad lobbies, such as the BRC, are so massive and well funded that antis cannot ignore them and cannot split resources to launch multiple large scale attacks on any other group due to this. The focus and persistence of those lobbies are keeping the antis from being able to home in on other user groups.
> 
> ...


Everywhere I look bike access is expanding while motors are getting their collective asses handed to them and have for years. When (not if) bikes gain access to wilderness areas the resistance to working with the motor crowd will become crystal clear.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

tiretracks said:


> Everywhere I look bike access is expanding while motors are getting their collective asses handed to them and have for years. When (not if) bikes gain access to wilderness areas the resistance to working with the motor crowd will become crystal clear.


And I would argue that "if" bikes get access to Wilderness Areas you'll have the "motor crowd" partly to thank for directing opposition elsewhere.

You're looking at this in an extremely short sighted manner. This is Go not checkers. If motors are "getting their collective asses handed to them" with their larger, user and monetary, bases what do you think will happen when the entities challenging them are able shift to directly focus on bikes? The big parties in play here all support revocation of mechanized access and in some cases all human access as well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The multiple ad hominems and blatant colloquiumisms help identify why you aren't able to grasp the concept but I'll try again.
> 
> Offroad lobbies, such as the BRC, are so massive and well funded that antis cannot ignore them and cannot split resources to launch multiple large scale attacks on any other group due to this. The focus and persistence of those lobbies are keeping the antis from being able to home in on other user groups.
> 
> ...


 Red neck offend you? My bad. Here in MA, probably a much different story than in places with wilderness, large swaths of open land, and a lot less people. We threw out almost all of the motors for bad behavior, breaking the law and trashing the trails. Not coming back anytime soon. There are maybe 6 legal places to throttle twist in the state. The thought that mt bikers need the dirt bag motor heads( better?) and can't gain trails without them is laughable. Been doing great for 20-25 years now. This is a mt bike forum, so yes we are all biased, take your motor preaching elsewhere. In this area, mt bikers have become the go to resource for trail work, repair, design and bridge building. Land managers, stakeholders ,elected officials and mt bikers all sit at the same table with similar views and goals. Cooperation takes place with conservation groups, the AMC, park rangers and land owners. Anti's? Attacks? Lobby? Maybe some on the latter, but we just keep digging dirt, making trail and making friends, year in year out. And some sweet singletrack, no motors allowed.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Red neck offend you? My bad. Here in MA, probably a much different story than in places with wilderness, large swaths of open land, and a lot less people. We threw out almost all of the motors for bad behavior, breaking the law and trashing the trails. Not coming back anytime soon. There are maybe 6 legal places to throttle twist in the state. The thought that mt bikers need the dirt bag motor heads( better?) and can't gain trails without them is laughable. Been doing great for 20-25 years now. This is a mt bike forum, so yes we are all biased, take your motor preaching elsewhere. In this area, mt bikers have become the go to resource for trail work, repair, design and bridge building. Land managers, stakeholders ,elected officials and mt bikers all sit at the same table with similar views and goals. Cooperation takes place with conservation groups, the AMC, park rangers and land owners. Anti's? Attacks? Lobby? Maybe some on the latter, but we just keep digging dirt, making trail and making friends, year in year out. And some sweet singletrack, no motors allowed.


We've been through this. You look really dumb when you try to apply your local situation as an absolute to a national discussion.

I could do the same and say why should I support any access fight. No battle will be fought in my state for access. 95% of all motorized access is privately held and our best biking trails are sponsored by the Walton Foundation.

However, that does not reflect the reality that a large swath of the country faces. I'm sorry you're too narrow minded, short sighted, intentionally obtuse, or whatever to grasp that your trails are not being attacked in the same manner. That's a you problem not an everyone else.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Perhaps less obvious is that the Sierra Club gets to portray MTB'ing as a gnarly fast high-impact activity which is obviously not compatible with other trail uses. We're falling on our own sword by helping the SC with their focus on this "cause".

From that SC link:


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> Perhaps less obvious is that the Sierra Club gets to portray MTB'ing as a gnarly fast high-impact activity which is obviously not compatible with other trail uses. We're falling on our own sword by helping the SC with their focus on this "cause".
> 
> From that SC link:


That's exactly what they are doing. As I said it feels like many in this community are playing checkers while the Sierra Club is playing Go.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> And I would argue that "if" bikes get access to Wilderness Areas you'll have the "motor crowd" partly to thank for directing opposition elsewhere.
> 
> You're looking at this in an extremely short sighted manner. This is Go not checkers. If motors are "getting their collective asses handed to them" with their larger, user and monetary, bases what do you think will happen when the entities challenging them are able shift to directly focus on bikes? The big parties in play here all support revocation of mechanized access and in some cases all human access as well.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


I guess my 30 + years of advocacy has been "short sighted" then. You can deny the many successes of Mountain Bikers and the efforts they have achieved all you care too, but it just sounds like sour grapes from a motor guy that's mad because MTB'ers see the fallacy in the argument of "you need us to succeed". Go sell it somewhere else.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> We've been through this. You look really dumb when you try to apply your local situation as an absolute to a national discussion.
> 
> I could do the same and say why should I support any access fight. No battle will be fought in my state for access. 95% of all motorized access is privately held and our best biking trails are sponsored by the Walton Foundation.
> 
> ...


 Hmmm, interesting perspective. I do get the national issues, really. But to say that the mt bikers would be better by siding the with the motos than the hikers? Far fetched at best. A lot of this may be for not with the new potus, time will tell.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Hmmm, interesting perspective. I do get the national issues, really. But to say that the mt bikers would be better by siding the with the motos than the hikers? Far fetched at best. A lot of this may be for not with the new potus, time will tell.


Again, you're looking at it as an all or nothing. When issues align side with them, when they don't don't. If you work with them on some issues then working against them on others becomes easier as there is a relationship is built. Instead of actively opposing a quick conversation can be had to resolve issues keeping both sides from expending resources to fight each other.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

tiretracks said:


> I guess my 30 + years of advocacy has been "short sighted" then. You can deny the many successes of Mountain Bikers and the efforts they have achieved all you care too, but it just sounds like sour grapes from a motor guy that's mad because MTB'ers see the fallacy in the argument of "you need us to succeed". Go sell it somewhere else.


The fact that you have to call out your "30+ years" tells me all I need to know about your short-sightedness. Thank you for all you have done but if you don't adjust to the changing landscape of the world you are going to get left out in the cold. You're fighting a more organized, better funded, more long game strategy enemy at this point in time than any point in the past.

I'm not the one with the prejudice. Read the post above this for context. If you cannot fathom or acknowledge that diverting the antis resources away from a cause helps a cause then I don't know what to tell you. It's basic reasoning skills.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Again, you're looking at it as an all or nothing. When issues align side with them, when they don't don't. If you work with them on some issues then working against them on others becomes easier as there is a relationship is built. Instead of actively opposing a quick conversation can be had to resolve issues keeping both sides from expending resources to fight each other.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


 WE don't align with you, ever. No common ground.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The fact that you have to call out your "30+ years" tells me all I need to know about your short-sightedness. Thank you for all you have done but if you don't adjust to the changing landscape of the world you are going to get left out in the cold. You're fighting a more organized, better funded, more long game strategy enemy at this point in time than any point in the past.
> 
> I'm not the one with the prejudice. Read the post above this for context. If you cannot fathom or acknowledge that diverting the antis resources away from a cause helps a cause then I don't know what to tell you. It's basic reasoning skills.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


 Tucker, we don't call them the enemy or Anti's, just hikers who have not pedaled yet. Mt bikers ARE the changing landscape. A whole new generation of hikers who also bike. Mt bikers are seen as a cash cow, economic resource for areas with lots of trails and not much traditional industry. Hikers and bikers, for the most part have more in common with each other than with motorsports, fact. Whole economic revitalization areas are due to the surge in popularity of mt bikes. Low impact, happy folks who like to drink beer, eat a lot and need places to sleep. Hmmm. Get the spend money part? Pubic officials and land managers are keen to this. A rising tide lifts all boats. Look at all the ski areas who now do summer mt biking. Using the lifts that would sit all summer. Staying in lodging doing family outings. That is the NEW landscape. Seems the motos should adjust to the changing landscape. Food for thought.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Tucker, we don't call them the enemy or Anti's, just hikers who have not pedaled yet. Mt bikers ARE the changing landscape. A whole new generation of hikers who also bike. Mt bikers are seen as a cash cow, economic resource for areas with lots of trails and not much traditional industry. Hikers and bikers, for the most part have more in common with each other than with motorsports, fact. Whole economic revitalization areas are due to the surge in popularity of mt bikes. Low impact, happy folks who like to drink beer, eat a lot and need places to sleep. Hmmm. Get the spend money part? Pubic officials and land managers are keen to this. A rising tide lifts all boats. Look at all the ski areas who now do summer mt biking. Using the lifts that would sit all summer. Staying in lodging doing family outings. That is the NEW landscape. Seems the motos should adjust to the changing landscape. Food for thought.


What do you call the anti-hiker groups? Hikers who haven't hiked yet? But seriously, offroad is moving in the same direction, series like WeRock, Ultra-4 and others are working to monetize the sport and bring in huge amounts of cash where they host major events. You have fringe elements on both sides. However, for the most part advocates on the motor side are just as conservation minded. Their disdain for morons is just as high, trust me.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> WE don't align with you, ever. No common ground.


I just saw this and it is ridiculous. There are countless shared use areas where interests align and both groups coexist in a symbiotic relationship.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

leeboh said:


> WE don't align with you, ever. No common ground.


Not exactly true:
http://flatheadbeacon.com/2016/12/30/groups-file-lawsuit-bitterroot-forest-recreation-plan/

... although this collaborative lawsuit raised my eyebrows in discomfort due to age-old thoughts that we can't ever be aligned with ORVs. Maybe the times are changing... maybe ebikes are forcing things to change.

And in the legendary Downieville area near me, mt. bikers and moto folks work together on those epic trails... which are all multi-use including motorized.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I just saw this and it is ridiculous. There are countless shared use areas where interests align and both groups coexist in a symbiotic relationship.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


 Like where? Beside Moab. Take a poll of mt bikers. Who likes to pedal rutted jeep trails, giant, mud filled whoops on a road and torn up singletrack poached by dirtbikes? You're picturing some happy nirvana that doesn't exist. Show up on your dirtbike to some Sierra Club meeting, let me know how that goes. But you're getting off track here from the subject at hand.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Like where? Beside Moab. Take a poll of mt bikers. Who likes to pedal rutted jeep trails, giant, mud filled whoops on a road and torn up singletrack poached by dirtbikes? You're picturing some happy nirvana that doesn't exist. Show up on your dirtbike to some Sierra Club meeting, let me know how that goes. But you're getting off track here from the subject at hand.


^^^

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Like where? Beside Moab. Take a poll of mt bikers. Who likes to pedal rutted jeep trails, giant, mud filled whoops on a road and torn up singletrack poached by dirtbikes? You're picturing some happy nirvana that doesn't exist. Show up on your dirtbike to some Sierra Club meeting, let me know how that goes. But you're getting off track here from the subject at hand.


You really should have read the post after mine before you quoted me...

As to being off topic. Not at all. The ORV community's interest are much more aligned with bikers than those of the Sierra Club and it is not even close.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Ok great, 1 example. A guess will agree to disagree.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

The 'motos destroy trails and my experience on the trail' is exactly the argument the anti-mtb people use.

e-motos will change things, for better or for worse.

there's no reason not to have common cause, even if the trail systems should often be different. around here the OHV people have been more screwed than the MTB people, and they don't even want shared trails--they want areas which they've paid for (via a special tax) for decades to open. but the NIMBYs have been fighting for decades, and I think (though haven't checked) that the Sierra Club is on their side.

(history and current usage is also interesting. lots of mtb on old private moto trails, and not-exactly-sanctioned shared use on other trails.)


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Ok great, 1 example. A guess will agree to disagree.


Well that would technically be two and I haven't even provided one yet...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Moe Ped said:


> Perhaps less obvious is that the Sierra Club gets to portray MTB'ing as a gnarly fast high-impact activity which is obviously not compatible with other trail uses. We're falling on our own sword by helping the SC with their focus on this "cause".
> 
> From that SC link:


Bingo!


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

leeboh said:


> Like where? Beside Moab. Take a poll of mt bikers. Who likes to pedal rutted jeep trails, giant, mud filled whoops on a road and torn up singletrack poached by dirtbikes? You're picturing some happy nirvana that doesn't exist. Show up on your dirtbike to some Sierra Club meeting, let me know how that goes. But you're getting off track here from the subject at hand.


one of the best parks in austin is emma long park, which is a dedicated moto park that allows mountain bikers. Mountain bikers do the majority of maintenance, but the trail is fine for mountain bikes.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Given some of the recent discussion in the e-bike forum I wanted to bump this back up as a reminder why we as bikers (of all types) need to stick together.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> Given some of the recent discussion in the e-bike forum I wanted to bump this back up as a reminder why we as bikers (of all types) need to stick together.


E-motorbikes aren't bicycles and should not be lumped in with bicycles.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

KenPsz said:


> Given some of the recent discussion in the e-bike forum I wanted to bump this back up as a reminder why we as bikers (of all types) need to stick together.





life behind bars said:


> E-motorbikes aren't bicycles and should not be lumped in with bicycles.


The irony of the response to the first quote in a thread discussing the Sierra Club is palpable. That is EXACTLY the attitude they want you to have it and it plays right into their hands. They have a textbook on divide and conquer strategies.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The irony of the response to the first quote in a thread discussing the Sierra Club is palpable. That is EXACTLY the attitude they want you to have it and it plays right into their hands. They have a textbook on divide and conquer strategies.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


The Sierra Club is not a bicyclists ally. Nor is the Blue Ribbon Coalition or People for Bikes.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

To add some more info on those that seem to want to help the Sierra club with their divide and conquer strategy.

https://www.adventure-journal.com/2015/06/the-sierra-club-weighs-in-on-bikes-and-wilderness/
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/do-bikes-belong-wilderness-areas

Oh and a correction for those that keep throwing out the term motorized. All of the government documents they don't list motorized, the correct term is mechanical. Mechanical is the term groups like the Sierra club use to keep mountain bikes out of wilderness lands.

Code of Federal Regulations
"Mechanical Transport", a clause in the 1964 Wildereness Act, defined and discussed

These are the people we should be working together to fight not each other over minor details of assist vs. non-assit.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> The Sierra Club is not a bicyclists ally.


Ya think...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> To add some more info on those that seem to want to help the Sierra club with their divide and conquer strategy.
> 
> https://www.adventure-journal.com/2015/06/the-sierra-club-weighs-in-on-bikes-and-wilderness/
> https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/do-bikes-belong-wilderness-areas
> ...


And it's the motors that the Sierra Club will use to try and keep bicycles out in the fight for Wilderness access. Complete separation of bicycles and E-motorbikes is the path forward.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> And it's the motors that the Sierra Club will use to try and keep bicycles out in the fight for Wilderness access. Complete separation of bicycles and E-motorbikes is the path forward.


Lack of funds and legal clout is how they will get bicycles kicked out of "naturally sensitive" areas they are allowed today. That sword cuts both ways and is not as cut and dry as you portray it. SC loves fragmentation among similar user groups. They can set the groups against each other and reap the rewards of the infighting.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

life behind bars said:


> And it's the motors that the Sierra Club will use to try and keep bicycles out in the fight for Wilderness access. Complete separation of bicycles and E-motorbikes is the path forward.


You would be wrong

Since the term in the Wilderness act and the other in the links I supplied above that the Sierra clubs uses is mechanical. You and others are reaching with the motorized since that term is not what is being used.

But sure run with the idea of a separation and see how that works or you could actually read the links I supplied that will show you differently.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> And it's the motors that the Sierra Club will use to try and keep bicycles out in the fight for Wilderness access. Complete separation of bicycles and E-motorbikes is the path forward.


More trails is an absolute NO. The most environmentally damaging aspect of hiking, biking, and horses is the trail itself and not the activity. More trails means more erosion and displacement of wildlife that prefers to stay away from trail networks. That isn't even remotely an option going forward with e-bikes.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> You would be wrong
> 
> Since the term in the Wilderness act and the other in the links I supplied above that the Sierra clubs uses is mechanical. You and others are reaching with the motorized since that term is not what is being used.
> 
> But sure run with the idea of a separation and see how that works or you could actually read the links I supplied that will show you differently.


And the Wilderness Act pertains specifically to designated Wilderness Areas. Where they will certainly use existence of ebikes as an reason to continue to exclude bikes. I can't blame them for that quite honestly.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Harryman said:


> And the Wilderness Act pertains specifically to designated Wilderness Areas. Where they will certainly use existence of ebikes as an reason to continue to exclude bikes. I can't blame them for that quite honestly.


Groups like the Sierra club don't need ebikes to justify anything, they have the mechanized wording already. Mountain bikers need any an all the numbers they can get to combat these groups, but they seem to want to fight and exclude more instead and just take the crumbs they can get.

From the reading I have been doing federal land is a lost cause, best hang on to what you have state and local since those are being challenged using the federal definitions (no ebike excuse needed).


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> Groups like the Sierra club don't need ebikes to justify anything, they have the mechanized wording already. Mountain bikers need any an all the numbers they can get to combat these groups, but they seem to want to fight and exclude more instead and just take the crumbs they can get.
> 
> From the reading I have been doing federal land is a lost cause, best hang on to what you have state and local since those are being challenged using the federal definitions (no ebike excuse needed).


A lost cause for what?


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Harryman said:


> A lost cause for what?


I thought is was pretty clear from what I have posted, sorry if it was not.

Access

The laws written by Congress and then used to create the BLM and other restrictions are not going to change with the 800 lb gorilla swinging the mechanized language hammer. Bikers need numbers to push their case to get the laws and definitions changed.

The infighting that technology like ebikes is causing that could bring in more numbers does bikers no favors. Especially when the language used against the new technology mirrors, very closely, that used by those the swing the mechanized language hammer.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

This thread has convinced me, I just sent $100 to the Sierra club.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> This thread has convinced me, I just sent $100 to the Sierra club.


Dammit! That balances the $100 I sent to the S.T.C.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> I thought is was pretty clear from what I have posted, sorry if it was not.
> 
> Access
> 
> ...


The BLM & USFS already allow mechanized and motorized use, I'm not sure what laws you think bikers need to change?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Ken - give it a rest man. Digging up an old article that has nothing to do with eBikes to try and make some sort of statement about eBikes is not helping your cause.


----------

