# IMBA Comes Out Against STC's Bill: Step down Mike Van Abel



## feral (Feb 10, 2007)

Can't say it's with much surprise that IMBA's executive director, Mike Van Abel, has come out with a post against the STC bill to correct the ban on bikes in wilderness on a case-by-case basis at the local level.

https://www.imba.com/blog/mike-van-abel/bikes-congressionally-designated-wilderness-dream-some-and-nightmare-others

I think the larger MTB community needs to wake up and realize that Mr. Van Abel does not have our best interests at heart in his governance of IMBA. He needs to step down. As do any IMBA board members who also can't seem to understand that the sport that they profess to advocate for is within the context, and spirit of, the intent of the crafters of the Wilderness Act.

Frankly, those who believe that Wilderness is something holy that somehow only a chosen few may experience, is just hypocritical, elitist and borders on an almost sociopathic in its extremism. These are our public lands, and if only select users can use them, then nobody should be able to use them. Ban hikers. Ban equestrian users. Ban everybody. (ironically, I think this is actually what many conservation groups want.)

It needs to stop. The mountain bike community needs an advocacy organization that is going to actually fight for important issues. IMBA's membership needs to wake up to the fact that IMBA's current leadership and board are more interested in not pissing off the conservation sector than fighting for MTB issues like this. IMBA's survey claiming membership is evenly split on this is BS. Every other survey of MTBr's on this issue shows a clear, large majority, in favor of bikes in Wilderness.

STC's bill does not open the door to development. It does not open the door to motorized access. Those are Luddite arguments that aren't supported by the facts in the bill. If you don't like bikes, just say so. I can't tell you how many comments I've read on this topic that start with "I'm an avid mountain biker, but bikes don't belong in wilderness..." No, you're not an avid mountain biker. If you were, you wouldn't make wishy-washy comments like that. You're not an avid mountain biker. You're just someone who doesn't believe in equitable access for our sport. Just say so.

IMBA needs new leadership. Mike Van Abel needs to go.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I'm an avid mountain biker.

Don't support anything pushed by Senators Lee or Hatch.

Sorry, but I just don't trust them. I genuinely don't believe that they have the best interests of mountain bikers, let alone the environment, in mind when pushing this bill.



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

feral said:


> IMBA needs new leadership. Mike Van Abel needs to go.


Agreed. Local land managers would still make the calls for which trails would be viable for mountain biking.

Has the IMBA leadership made a huge mistake? I think so, and I think their membership is suffering because of it. If they are gaining members, it is a fraction of the numbers they could be putting up. And I personally know a lot of IMBA's members that don't feel represented.

IMHO, it is time for fresh leadership within IMBA.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Mike does need to go. Remarks like his have consequences. Maybe he's looking for a way out.. 

The bill didn't come from Mike Lee, it came from thoughtful cyclists.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

His blog could be interpreted many ways. But what it is most emphatically, is not a clear and supportive statement about the recent congressional sponsorship of STC's bill. I think it's irresponsible for him to squander other's hard work, casting that work into doubt, from his powerful position as director of IMBA.


----------



## D_Man (Jan 7, 2004)

Just renewed my membership to IMBA. I won't be renewing it again if this is the tack they insist on taking. 100% of my money will go to my local advocacy group and STC instead.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

The IMBA should go extinct, this is not the first time they've given over mountain bikers to the Sierra Clubbers.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Remember that it's not IMBA that is the problem. We are IMBA, the overwhelming majority. It's the leadership that is the problem. In particular, the captain steering the ship. Rumor has it he hand picked the board so he is pretty insulated.

The question is how to facilitate the change? My plate is full so I won't be leading the charge.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

2bfluid said:


> The question is how to facilitate the change? My plate is full so I won't be leading the charge.


Like you do any other organization, defund them. Stop renewing your membership.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Is it true that IMBA issued a statement before the Sierra Club or Wilderness Society has? :skep:


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Imba needs to maintain their limited power, and anything thar bucks the status quo is against their interests. Much like the bs in washingtons political
Parties


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

D_Man said:


> Just renewed my membership to IMBA. I won't be renewing it again if this is the tack they insist on taking. 100% of my money will go to my local advocacy group and STC instead.


ayup.


----------



## rsb201 (Jan 26, 2010)

I would burn my IMBA jersey but it fits so well. I haven't been a member for the past three years. Never again


----------



## Steezus (Jul 25, 2007)

OP, you sound like a baby.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

2bfluid. I agree. We are IMBA. I feel strongly that the answer isn't in boycotts, but in participation.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

IMBA addresses a lot more than 1-2 issues and the sport participants and locations are very diverse. Wilderness is not an issue or much of an issue for some and I get that it's very big for others.

Our chapter's growth has been much greater than IMBA's. It appears others in metro areas are the same. Shops in our area tell me their MTB sales have been up big time. We have 3 youth education programs in the chapter territory. One has 20-35 kids in classes twice a week all summer long. Whole families are taking up the sport.

IMBA was just here helping work out two issues. A stalled project where conservation interests are not being reasonable, and a trail corridor crossing a bikes or sanctuary area. 

It seems perfectly fine and good for the sport if a group like STC picks one fight and IMBA picks others. It would be perfectly fine if IMBA did nothing on the federal wilderness issue, did a lot on insurance for clubs and chapters as well as kept at helping advocates get bikes on the ground at the local and state level.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

bitflogger said:


> did a lot on insurance


lol.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

OP, some of your argument is bogus. No person is banned from accessing Wilderness areas, only certain conveyances. Your legs are obviously not broken. This is why the efforts of individuals and groups like STC will likely never gain any traction regarding these issues.

BTW, I wish bikes were allowed in certain Wilderness areas and I hate to see trails that were originally accessible by bike lost to new Wilderness designations.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Silent passive-ism rarely leads to productive change. To my knowledge there are no viable alternatives to IMBA, including the STC.


tiretracks said:


> Like you do any other organization, defund them. Stop renewing your membership.


That doesn't work. There isn't a viable alternative


tiretracks said:


> Like you do any other organization, defund them. Stop renewing your membership.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

2bfluid said:


> Silent passive-ism rarely leads to productive change. To my knowledge there are no viable alternatives to IMBA, including the STC.
> That doesn't work. There isn't a viable alternative
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Local advocacy is an alternative and has produced better results than the IMBA. IMBA pursues the low hanging fruit because it makes them appear to be better than they really are. These days they exist solely to promote their for profit arm of trail building enterprise and to ensure that a few people continue to draw a salary. They need to go extinct.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Mike VanAbel"s blog post could cause a lot of fallout. It's a risky move to sit on the fence so firmly as to jeopardize cyclists passionate about a core aspect of our sport. Literally half of IMBA's membership! Mike's strength is that his personality is somewhat magnetic, but it's also a weakness enabling his insulation from difficult issues. It may be time for stronger leadership, or some serious introspection. I, for one, living in Montana, am sick and tired of getting my public access screwed over by almost everyone, and take Mikes post extremely seriously. Mike is smarter than me and could do better!


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

Glide the Clyde said:


> OP, some of your argument is bogus. No person is banned from accessing Wilderness areas, only certain conveyances. Your legs are obviously not broken. This is why the efforts of individuals and groups like STC will likely never gain any traction regarding these issues...


Tell that to my buddy Michael. He can barely get in/out of his truck or walk down stairs but he can pedal a bike all day long. Under the current rules, W areas are basically off-limits to people like him.

Losses of such places as boulder-white clouds and Wilderness Study Areas are not acceptable. Here in the east we have miles of old logging RR that are off limits to bikes, which is ridiculous.


----------



## GhostOfForumsPast (Feb 16, 2016)

Glide the Clyde said:


> OP, some of your argument is bogus. No person is banned from accessing Wilderness areas, only certain conveyances.


How the hell did that psycho nitwit Mike Vandeman get another account on MTBR?


----------



## torrid (Mar 7, 2016)

bitflogger said:


> IMBA addresses a lot more than 1-2 issues and the sport participants and locations are very diverse. Wilderness is not an issue or much of an issue for some and I get that it's very big for others.
> 
> Our chapter's growth has been much greater than IMBA's. It appears others in metro areas are the same. Shops in our area tell me their MTB sales have been up big time. We have 3 youth education programs in the chapter territory. One has 20-35 kids in classes twice a week all summer long. Whole families are taking up the sport.
> 
> ...


I agree with this sentiment. IMBA represents the mountain biking community at large, and sometimes has to pick which fights to battle. They won't be able to please 100% of the membership.

I have a certain amount of respect for the Sierra Club trying to preserve actual wilderness in rugged, remote areas. I may not agree with everything they say or do, but generally I am on board with preserving as much nature as possible. That may mean no mountain biking in some instances. That is at the national level.

My bigger issue is with local Sierra Club chapters. Their membership, to be blunt, consists of geriatrics with too much free time in their retirment. They want to treat city parks and nature preserves on the same scale as the national parks. Many times this is leftover land that was simply unsuitable for development, but is suddenly now a pristine wilderness surrounded by dense urban development. They simply do not want to see a mountain biker when they walk through the property.

Dealing with these people affects a much larger portion of the mountain biking community.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

GhostOfForumsPast said:


> How the hell did that psycho nitwit Mike Vandeman get another account on MTBR?


Now that's funny!


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

radair said:


> Tell that to my buddy Michael. He can barely get in/out of his truck or walk down stairs but he can pedal a bike all day long. Under the current rules, W areas are basically off-limits to people like him.
> 
> Losses of such places as boulder-white clouds and Wilderness Study Areas are not acceptable. Here in the east we have miles of old logging RR that are off limits to bikes, which is ridiculous.


I feel bad that your friend can't as easily, if at all, access W-areas, and I have no answer for that issue. Other than perhaps to suggest a special access permit rule for people with such verified limitations until some W-areas are (re)opened to mechanical conveyances for all users.

Regarding your second paragraph, please, see my second paragraph.


----------



## Joules (Oct 12, 2005)

2bfluid said:


> Silent passive-ism rarely leads to productive change. To my knowledge there are no viable alternatives to IMBA, including the STC.


this is true, I know of no other organization willing to siphon off 60% of our club's dues and give nothing in return, and take credit for our work.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> I'm an avid mountain biker.
> 
> Don't support anything pushed by Senators Lee or Hatch.
> 
> ...


We at STC would have loved to have the Bill sponsored by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren riding a fire breathing unicorn. However that isn't how this works.

We are lucky two prominent Senators took notice of the no bikes in Wilderness problem. Just because you do not agree with them on partisan issues doesn't mean you should not support a once in a lifetime chance to end the blanket ban on bikes in the wilderness.


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Glide the Clyde said:


> OP, some of your argument is bogus. No person is banned from accessing Wilderness areas, only certain conveyances. Your legs are obviously not broken. This is why the efforts of individuals and groups like STC will likely never gain any traction regarding these issues.
> 
> BTW, I wish bikes were allowed in certain Wilderness areas and I hate to see trails that were originally accessible by bike lost to new Wilderness designations.


FYI this is more about fixing new wilderness designations to prevent trails already opened to bikes from being lost.

The problem with a blanket ban is not so much bikes being banned from Wilderness areas but being banned from WSAs, trails that lead to a Wilderness or like here in Marin, banning bikes from Federal State and County non Wilderness lands "because that's what they do in the Wilderness."

This is our chance to get back into the conservation club.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Davey Simon said:


> We at STC would have loved to have the Bill sponsored by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren riding a fire breathing unicorn. However that isn't how this works.
> 
> We are lucky two prominent Senators took notice of the no bikes in Wilderness problem. Just because you do not agree with them on partisan issues doesn't mean you should not support a once in a lifetime chance to end the blanket ban on bikes in the wilderness.


Do you think that these Senators are going to attach funding for additional SAR personnel, training, equipment, etc. to account for the increased number of people getting lost/hurt on Federal land?

Or are you guys going to cover the bill?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> Do you think that these Senators are going to attach funding for additional SAR personnel, training, equipment, etc. to account for the increased number of people getting lost/hurt on Federal land?
> 
> Or are you guys going to cover the bill?
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


S&R is usually conducted by local agencies to begin with so this is largely a non issue. We get it, you're against it.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

tiretracks said:


> S&R is usually conducted by local agencies to begin with so this is largely a non issue. We get it, you're against it.


It's not a non-issue. Someone has to pay for it. That money doesn't magically pop up at the local level. Where does the money come from to support the increased SAR presence required?

If a non-federal entity (County/State) doesn't vote to approve additional SAR funds, and measures to generate those funds, where does that money come from? If they don't have funds for it, why would they do SAR on federal land?

I'm not against carefully considered access for bikes in wilderness areas. I'm against ulterior motives and poorly thought out "plans".

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ I think I've heard it all now! 

The armchair quarterbacking on all the reasons this bill should not be supported is truly amazing. Seriously. We're talking about riding bicycles in the woods and maintaining trails better.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

But no one ever brings up S&R funding when the discussion turns to backpackers or hikers. Some of you pretend as if Mountain Bikers are going to decend upon the Wilderness like a plague of Locusts. Get real.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ I think I've heard it all now!
> 
> The armchair quarterbacking on all the reasons this bill should not pass is truly amazing. Seriously. We're talking about riding bicycles in the woods and maintaining trails better.


This.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Le Duke said:


> Do you think that these Senators are going to attach funding for additional SAR personnel, training, equipment, etc. to account for the increased number of people getting lost/hurt on Federal land?
> 
> Or are you guys going to cover the bill?
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


As supposed to the S&R of hikers, backpackers, equestians?? I guess they never get hurt or end up mauled by a bear of something....


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

Search and rescue already exists in wilderness areas. Hikers and equestrians are already in the area. There is no need to increase funding to an agency who is already in place, fulfilling their duties. 

Next.....


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

Le Duke said:


> It's not a non-issue. Someone has to pay for it. That money doesn't magically pop up at the local level. Where does the money come from to support the increased SAR presence required?..


Stop making this BS up. Where do you find that "increased SAR presence" is required? I've been on a SAR team for over 20 years and we have never been called out for a lost or injured mountain biker.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

I think in CO if you don't own a SAR card, you pay the bill for rescue. No matter if it's skis, wheels, horses, ATV, or foot. I think the ATV registration includes finding for SAR, if all I need to access WA trails is a yearly registration, where do I sing up? I already buy the SAR card, it's cheap insurance against a rescue bill, and it supports those already out there helping people. Any outdoorsman should buy one.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

bankerboy said:


> Search and rescue already exists in wilderness areas. Hikers and equestrians are already in the area. There is no need to increase funding to an agency who is already in place, fulfilling their duties.
> 
> Next.....


This is akin to saying doubling or tripling the number of cars on a road won't result in more accidents.

Sorry, not buying it.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> This is akin to saying doubling or tripling the number of cars on a road won't result in more accidents.
> 
> Sorry, not buying it.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


No one is selling you. You seem to have a great talent for fear mongering and a poor grasp of the facts.

CB


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

CANADIANBACON said:


> No one is selling you. You seem to have a great talent for fear mongering and a poor grasp of the facts.
> 
> CB


The facts?

What are they, as you see them?

Here are mine.

1) SAR costs money.

2) More people would be entering roadless areas.

3) More people accessing anything usually equals more injuries, even if the RATE stays the same. I don't claim to have data on MTB vs. hiker injury rates, but I know that if they are both 1 out of 1000 (made up number) and you double the number of users, the number of SAR calls just doubled.

4) Areas without roads require different capabilities than your run of the mill National Forest.

Here are some other facts:



Awshucks said:


> Sen. Lee is a sponsor of this bill. Just look at his voting record.
> 
> He voted for yea for amendment SA 838.
> http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00106
> ...


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> This is akin to saying doubling or tripling the number of cars on a road won't result in more accidents.
> 
> Sorry, not buying it.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


So you think that somehow opening more trails will bring MORE cyclists into the woods instead of distributing the same number of riders over more trails? 
I do not agree that more people would start mtbikning if the opportunity to open WA trails to bikes was allowed. Please correct me if I'm making an incorrect assumption about the logic behind your post


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

sbsbiker said:


> So you think that somehow opening more trails will bring MORE cyclists into the woods instead of distributing the same number of riders over more trails?
> I do not agree that more people would start mtbikning if the opportunity to open WA trails to bikes was allowed. Please correct me if I'm making an incorrect assumption about the logic behind your post


I'm saying that you'll have more people (total) accessing roadless areas.

1000 hikers plus 1000 cyclists is more than 1000 hikers alone.

And, again, I'm not against cyclists in Wilderness areas. Quite the contrary. I just think there will be a higher total number of SAR incidents with more people out in the sticks. Want people to think about that.

You're less likely to need SAR in a more populated area or an area with better access like a state park or a National Forest. Why? It's a lot easier to drag yourself a few miles to a road and flag down passerby than to do the same in a WA.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Our local eMT will not go off road, so any trail is SAR, and as I already said EVERYBODY in the woods should already have a paid SAR card. The distance from a road will effect the price of rescue, but that's why you already have a SAR card before you go off road. 
Now if you are not responsible enough to buy this simple insurance, then they will still rescue you, but the bill will come calling.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

In many places, that bill doesn't cover the total cost of an SAR operation.

And there are plenty of places where they don't charge at all.

Guess who pays for that?

http://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-public-service-not-exactly

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

Le Duke, is your main point that mountain bikes shouldn't be allowed in Wilderness because it might cost money? Not sure I follow the logic on how this is necessarily a bad thing. Please enlighten us.

Anyways, I envision MTBs in Wilderness bringing a net positive dollar benefit when factoring in the value of volunteer labor for trail maintenance projects.

Also, those claiming they won't be supporting this bill because it is sponsored by Lee/Hatch are committing a textbook example of the Genetic Fallacy. It's fine to have suspicions, but claiming malicious intent of the bill sponsors is ridiculous and has no foundation in evidence at this point. If things change in this respect, I would have no qualms opposing the bill, but as it is written this isn't the case. At least read and understand the full text of the bill before throwing it under the bus.


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

Le Duke,

I appreciate your research with regard to the voting records of the Senators sponsoring S.3205. And maybe I share some of your concerns about these same issues you have presented.

With regard to your comments about SAR, your avatar and comments have me wondering if you are a well informed SAR professional or possibly a volunteer who has experienced challenges relating to funding. Unfortunately, you have only presented ONE fact:

1) SAR costs money.

and three opinions based on conjecture and or speculation.

If you disagree with me/my comments, and are not just offering anecdotal evidence.... Please provide a link or a pdf to a legitimate statistical model, generated by an unbiased source, that proves "facts" 2 through 4.

I hear your passion and understand your principle, unfortunately I also hear a person who would be willing to throw away a golden opportunity for ALL mountain bikers in the form of S.3205 because of unfounded fears.

CB


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> In many places, that bill doesn't cover the total cost of an SAR operation.
> 
> And there are plenty of places where they don't charge at all.
> 
> ...


Please look into the underfunding of PILT and why Senator Lee wants to sponsor our bill.

There is much irony here.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Davey Simon said:


> Please look into the underfunding of PILT and why Senator Lee wants to sponsor our bill.
> 
> There is much irony here.


Irony in that Lee voted against PILT in 2014?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> Irony in that Lee voted against PILT in 2014?
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Sorry but you will have to cite claims like this.

Here are some facts from the Sen. website:

Reducing the Burdens of Public Land - Speeches - United States Senator Mike Lee

For those too lazy to read facts here is a video of said facts regarding Lee and PILT and the issues re: PILT being under funded.






(Hint: lack of essential services like no SAR no Sheriff no Fire no EMS)


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Davey Simon said:


> Sorry but you will have to cite claims like this.
> 
> Here are some facts from the Sen. website:
> 
> ...


Not a "claim".

It's public record, and easy to look up via a simple Google search, but here it is in easily digestible newspaper article format:

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/mobile3/57495608-219/bill-utah-farm-pilt.html.csp

Alternately, here is a tabulation of the vote, and note Sen. Lee:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2014/s13

How do you like those facts?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

You are perfectly demonstrating the dangers of binary/on off partisan politics.

Read the newspaper article you googled and watch Lee's speech.


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

Davey Simon said:


> You are perfectly demonstrating the dangers of binary/on off partisan politics.
> 
> Read the newspaper article you googled and watch Lee's speech.


Nah, remember it is better this way. If somebody does something you disagree with, they are forever and always bad. There is ZERO chance of this individual EVER doing anything worthwhile.

Cool side effect is you won't ever have to deal with those bad people ever again. Down side is you will live a very solitary life.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

bankerboy said:


> Nah, remember it is better this way. If somebody does something you disagree with, they are forever and always bad. There is ZERO chance of this individual EVER doing anything worthwhile.
> 
> Cool side effect is you won't ever have to deal with those bad people ever again. Down side is you will live a very solitary life.


Mike Lee has spoken and voted against funding or for selling off Federal Lands (USFS, BLM) more times than I can count.

Since you're so convinced he's in it for the right reasons, I presume you've spoken with him about the matter? What has led to his change of heart?

Edit: Meant to quote DS.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Davey Simon (Dec 10, 2012)

bankerboy said:


> Nah, remember it is better this way. If somebody does something you disagree with, they are forever and always bad. There is ZERO chance of this individual EVER doing anything worthwhile.
> 
> Cool side effect is you won't ever have to deal with those bad people ever again. Down side is you will live a very solitary life.


We shall only convince people of how right we are by never ever interacting with them, or heaven forbid working together on something.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bigpete61 (Sep 27, 2008)

The effort to return federal lands back to states is not going anywhere and I would like to see how you believe the bills (S3205) current language will aid Mike Lees plot to sell all of our land to dirty developers and so on. I'm including a link to the bill for your research: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3205/text


----------



## GhostOfForumsPast (Feb 16, 2016)

Glide the Clyde said:


> Now that's funny!


Funny, in a sad kind of way because you are parroting that psycho's talking points.

You shouldn't be laughing. If you were sane, you would be embarrassed.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

GhostOfForumsPast said:


> Funny, in a sad kind of way because you are parroting that psycho's talking points.
> 
> You shouldn't be laughing. If you were sane, you would be embarrassed.


Naw, I'd likely be cut-and-pasting the same drivel he cuts-and-pastes every time he pops his head up. You know, bikes have no place in wilderness, it's a crime to teach young people such a dangerous sport, stuff like that.

Naw, you might need to invest some effort in reading comprehension and reread my posts.

Naw, I'm quite sane and still not embarrassed.


----------



## GhostOfForumsPast (Feb 16, 2016)

Glide the Clyde said:


> Naw, I'd likely be cut-and-pasting the same drivel he cuts-and-pastes every time he pops his head up. You know, bikes have no place in wilderness, it's a crime to teach young people such a dangerous sport, stuff like that.
> 
> Naw, you might need to invest some effort in reading comprehension and reread my posts.
> 
> Naw, I'm quite sane and still not embarrassed.


Reading comprehension is just fine over here. I first started clashing with ole Mikey in 1997 so I am very familiar with his drivel.

"No person is banned from accessing Wilderness areas, only certain conveyances." is one of his favorite vacuous arguments. And you embrace it.

A normal person would be embarrassed but I understand why you wouldn't be.


----------



## skiracer88 (Mar 10, 2014)

sbsbiker said:


> I think in CO if you don't own a SAR card, you pay the bill for rescue. No matter if it's skis, wheels, horses, ATV, or foot. I think the ATV registration includes finding for SAR, if all I need to access WA trails is a yearly registration, where do I sing up? I already buy the SAR card, it's cheap insurance against a rescue bill, and it supports those already out there helping people. Any outdoorsman should buy one.


Colorado SARs never charge for services (and vocally denounce agencies that do). In fact, this is true of most areas.

SAR card purchases provide funding, but you wont be billed if you dont have one.

As for IMBA, they can go to hell. They are becoming more and more irrelevant by the day.


----------



## skiracer88 (Mar 10, 2014)

CSRB - Charging for SAR


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

skiracer88 said:


> CSRB - Charging for SAR


Even in Wilderness...Thanks for clearing this up.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

This was about IMBA leadership... and change.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

2bfluid said:


> Silent passive-ism rarely leads to productive change. To my knowledge there are no viable alternatives to IMBA, including the STC.
> That doesn't work. There isn't a viable alternative
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


The viable alternative is to support your local org, and encourage them to either not become an IMBA chapter, or to leave the chapter program if they fell for that scam. Then send another check to STC, and then send an email to IMBA explaining why your funds have gone elsewhere.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> This is akin to saying doubling or tripling the number of cars on a road won't result in more accidents.
> 
> Sorry, not buying it.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Gosh, would the number of bikers increase, or simply be more dispersed on existing trails? Seriously, first, it's the bills sponsors and then it's S&R? For someone with a lot of good posts that I frequently agree with, you're making stupid arguments in this thread.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

ACree said:


> Gosh, would the number of bikers increase, or simply be more dispersed on existing trails? Seriously, first, it's the bills sponsors and then it's S&R? For someone with a lot of good posts that I frequently agree with, you're making stupid arguments in this thread.


Seeing as the number of bicyclists in WAs is currently a goose egg, yes, if the bill became law, the number of people using a WA would go up, and geographic distribution of total cycling use would change.

That geographic (re)distribution in roadless areas represents a significant barrier to access for EMS, SAR, etc.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Yes as to use. S&R cost is an irrelevant tangent to this bill. By your logic, the Boulder White Cloud wilderness designation was good since it decreased bikes in the wild therefore decreasing the possibility that local S&R funds might have been needed, should one of them needed S&R services. Total non sequitur as it relates to this bill, or IMBA.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

ACree said:


> Yes as to use. S&R cost is an irrelevant tangent to this bill. By your logic, the Boulder White Cloud wilderness designation was good since it decreased bikes in the wild therefore decreasing the possibility that local S&R funds might have been needed, should one of them needed S&R services. Total non sequitur as it relates to this bill, or IMBA.


I didn't say decreasing costs = good. Anywhere.

I want bikes in wilderness.

I'm simply wondering if they will attach a provision for funding ANYTHING on this federal land. Trail building? SAR? Trail marking? Educational displays?

Are ALL costs irrelevant? Just give us what we think we deserve, without question?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## kinsler (Sep 13, 2011)

Le Duke said:


> I didn't say decreasing costs = good. Anywhere.
> 
> I want bikes in wilderness.
> 
> ...


How about first restoring what we once had... like the Boulder-White Clouds and vast areas of Montana singletrack. I doubt the FS/SAR budget changed one dollar based on decreased # of bike riders. I take call at a local hospital and get plenty of biking/hiker trauma. I've yet to see a patient in our ER, from the Sawtooths/White Clouds, who required an air evac from a mountain bike accident, but I've seen plenty of broken ankles from hiking who couldn't self-rescue....


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

GhostOfForumsPast said:


> Reading comprehension is just fine over here. I first started clashing with ole Mikey in 1997 so I am very familiar with his drivel.
> 
> "No person is banned from accessing Wilderness areas, only certain conveyances." is one of his favorite vacuous arguments. And you embrace it.
> 
> A normal person would be embarrassed but I understand why you wouldn't be.


Actually I don't "embrace" this argument. I was only pointing out what I believed to be a hole in the OP's argument, that claiming a group of people are being excluded from Wildnerness won't convince the opposition since they'll simply claim we can all walk or ride our horse into Wilderness. So, yeah, reading comprehension is still your struggle.

And my, you sure have a Jones for me to be embarrassed. Would it make your day if I lied and said I am embarrassed?


----------



## GhostOfForumsPast (Feb 16, 2016)

Glide the Clyde said:


> Actually I don't "embrace" this argument. I was only pointing out what I believed to be a hole in the OP's argument, that claiming a group of people are being excluded from Wildnerness won't convince the opposition since they'll simply claim we can all walk or ride our horse into Wilderness. So, yeah, reading comprehension is still your struggle.
> 
> And my, you sure have a Jones for me to be embarrassed. Would it make your day if I lied and said I am embarrassed?


More assumptions on your part. Please keep on lying and trying to walk back your idiocy though.

It's funny. Thanks.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

tiretracks said:


> But no one ever brings up S&R funding when the discussion turns to backpackers or hikers. Some of you pretend as if Mountain Bikers are going to decend upon the Wilderness like a plague of Locusts. Get real.


Exactly.
Plus it's a fact that there are far more equestrian accidents than bikers. Go find a state park that has both mtb and horse trails, ask who has more injuries.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

Another cost to consider is the maintenance cost of these trails. Here, mtbikers do most of the trail work for free,(hikers don't do any, and horses, negative maintenance) but not in WA where the lack of use has sent trails back to the land. With increased access more free trail work would be brought to bring W trails back for all users. I can name 2 trails within 10 miles of town that cross WA for less than 1mile on a 20mile stretch that keep bikers off the route, and noone goes up there. at the WA, the trail gets overgrown and disappears. Open 1 mile and get a 20mile loop.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

torrid said:


> I agree with this sentiment. IMBA represents the mountain biking community at large, and sometimes has to pick which fights to battle. They won't be able to please 100% of the membership.
> 
> I have a certain amount of respect for the Sierra Club trying to preserve actual wilderness in rugged, remote areas. I may not agree with everything they say or do, but generally I am on board with preserving as much nature as possible. That may mean no mountain biking in some instances. That is at the national level.
> 
> ...


Fine pick the battles you want, don't torpedo someone else's with a **** post like his.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

The SC is changing, at least in the area I live. They are not any older than the mountain bike groups I am a part of. They are mostly not in as good shape, but not old. They are also very smart people. A game of wait for them to die off is a losing battle. Right now in the area I live, the leader is a 20 something very bright guy. There is a lawyer in his mid 40's that really knows his sh!t. The rest of the executive committee has been doing this kind of thing for years and know what they are doing. They don't like mountain bikes.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ I think I've heard it all now!
> 
> The armchair quarterbacking on all the reasons this bill should not be supported is truly amazing. Seriously. We're talking about riding bicycles in the woods and maintaining trails better.


Word.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Davey Simon said:


> We at STC would have loved to have the Bill sponsored by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren riding a fire breathing unicorn. However that isn't how this works.
> 
> We are lucky two prominent Senators took notice of the no bikes in Wilderness problem. Just because you do not agree with them on partisan issues doesn't mean you should not support a once in a lifetime chance to end the blanket ban on bikes in the wilderness.


Hatch and Lee are very much a part of the right's desire to transfer federal lands to state of private control. Think Cliven Bundy. I am sure they will quite happy to see the environmental community be pitted against a portion of the MTB community in a bloody, bruising fight. Divide and conquer then when the bill for their introduction of the STC bill come due they will be looking for support of the far right's public lands agenda. Maybe some in the MTB community think that's just great, but I cannot support anything that involves getting into bed with this portion of the congressional caucus.

IMBA has it right. continue to work collaboratively with environmental groups and come up with innovative solutions like Congressman Polis's Rocky Mountain Recreation and Wilderness Preservation Act that was introduced last year. This bill was the work of a collaborative process between local MTB groups, wilderness groups and IMBA.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

zrm said:


> Hatch and Lee are very much a part of the right's desire to transfer federal lands to state of private control. Think Cliven Bundy. I am sure they will quite happy to see the environmental community be pitted against a portion of the MTB community in a bloody, bruising fight. Divide and conquer then when the bill for their introduction of the STC bill come due they will be looking for support of the far right's public lands agenda. Maybe some in the MTB community think that's just great, but I cannot support anything that involves getting into bed with this portion of the congressional caucus.


Everything I've read about this business of transferring federal lands specifically excludes any federal land in National Parks or Wilderness Areas, despite what the questionable headlines and "reporting" says. I'm not saying I support transferring any lands to the states, but as far as I'm concerned, S3205 has zero DNA in the public lands dispute. It is about human powered access to public lands.


----------



## emjayel (Apr 21, 2007)

*What is he thinking?*

I posted a comment to Mr. Van Abel's blog a day ago and it has not shown up. Someone over there is deciding which comments to post to the public and which not to. Not a very good way to have a dialogue, IMO.

Did the post get read? Did it get taken seriously? Was it just put into the trash bin? If a comment is not posted, the least they could do is fire off a boiler plate email to the sender acknowledging it's receipt and that it's been read.

In the letter I basically made the following points:

1. If IMBA membership is 50-50 about the bill then it would seem Van Abel really ought to have made his post an illumination of the pros and cons of the bill. AND HE SHOULD have included a link to a 'pro' letter to send to Congress rather than ONLY a link to a 'con' letter.

2. Another commenter asked for the survey results, but was told they weren't ready to be released. If Chaoter Leaders have seen the results, why haven't the members? It's data - get it out there! Or are they too busy working the numbers so they show support for Van Abel's position. I hope not, but what else would they continue to withhold the results once they were collated enough to share with Chapter Presidents?

3. While his win-win kumbaya-esque desire for trail advocacy is all fine and dandy, he goes on to state what that means is that the win side for his membership is 'political and legislative' in nature. You know what? I can't ride a 'political and legislative' trail. So that win really doesn't sound very enticing to me. I wonder what 'political and legislative' trails he's been out riding lately? Warm fuzzy relationships with conservationists are a great tact, but he needs to remember he's the head of a MTBiking PAC first and foremost. This letter does not reflect that.

4. Obviously, it was a conservationist group or groups that proposed, supported, and pushed thru the latest rounds of Wilderness designations that have removed our access to so many miles of pre-existing trails (I'm assuming this is true). Surely it wasn't some congressman that woke up with nothing to do one Monday morning. CLEARLY, the kumbaya relationship Van Abel thinks exists is not nearly as strong as he'd like us to believe. How many cheek's is he going to turn? How many trails is he going to lose us before he realizes that sometimes stepping on some toes - and even a black eye or two - is required to ADVOCATE FOR HIS MEMBERSHIP?

5. As has been noted elsewhere, when Wildness designations have happened in the past, some activities have been grandfathered in since they existed in that region prior to the designation. In fact, the whole of the act since its inception grandfathered in walking/hiking and horses! Where the heck what Van Abel when this latest round of designations was being decided upon? Where was his battle cry? Where was his cry to arms to his membership?

In closing, I suggested that he ought to reconsider the standard he's using to determine if he's the best man for the job and if he's really representing his membership or his own agenda. Because, if his membership is split 50-50 on this issue, then I'd be willing to bet there's also a 50-50 split on whether he should still be president of the membership.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

emjayel said:


> 2. Another commenter asked for the survey results, but was told they weren't ready to be released. If Chaoter Leaders have seen the results, why haven't the members?


It has not been released to the Chapters yet.


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

emjayel said:


> Where was his battle cry? Where was his cry to arms to his membership?.


I reached out to MVA about 6 years ago at the time of renewing my annual donation. Your comments:



emjayel said:


> In closing, I suggested that he ought to reconsider the standard he's using to determine if he's the best man for the job and if he's really representing his membership or his own agenda..


*Are spot on.*

It may not be clear enough yet, but we mountain bikers are staring down the barrel of a major existential challenge in the form of demographic and economic cliffs.

Boomers gave us this wonderful activity, but they're getting older, slowing down. Many are supplementing their mountain riding with gravel and or road, and some are just plain retiring. A large percentage of Gen Xers are still at it but their numbers are fewer. The REALLY bad news is that with all of the great efforts made through programs like NICA, millennials just aren't putting down the computer, phone, or video games and choosing mountain biking.
*
We're loosing mountain bikers faster than we can grow new ones!*

On the monetary front, the country's economy at best is steady state... However based on long-term economic indicators it's more likely we are in decline. Either way we don't have the booming economy of the 80's and 90's that funded the creation of mountain bikes, riders, and trails.

*We're going to have to come up with creative and resourceful solutions if we are to find our way out of this. Strong, honest, clear headed and sighted leadership, that knows how to park it's ego at the door will be essential.*

Although I'm not 100% sure, experience to date indicates that there is a vast gap between the leadership we have and the leadership we need.

I've said it before to MVA and I will say it again here:
Local mountain bikers ultimately do the bulk of the heavy lifting of mountain bike advocacy, trail building, and maintenance. We are the most valuable asset IMBA has... and yet we are underutilized.

*What I think MVA is missing is that we are NOT IMBA...

WE ARE LOCAL MOUNTAIN BIKERS, and without us IMBA is nothing. *

WE need to empower ourselves and our communities, to work together to solve the issues that WE locally and collectively face, not be controlled, disenfranchised, and taxed by an organization that claims to "represent" us.

_*IMBA needs to:

1. Stop it's drift towards a growth focused, top heavy, bike industry captured, for-profit trail building, driven organization that chases large donations, grants, and paydays... and wake up and realize WHO their most valuable assets actually are... local mountain bikers and IMBA's membership.

2. Stop unilaterally speaking for and voting on behalf of mountain bikers without OUR consent or vote.

3. Use the revenues that have been generated through our dues, donations, political numbers, etc. to help in the facilitation of a public and transparent process where WE the mountain bikers collectively identify a) the challenges facing us/our access, b) our goals and priorities, c) solutions that attack our challenges head on, and d) *__*a list of projects that we can all work on

4. Help facilitate, with privacy, and in trust, the creation of a database of all mountain bikers willing to volunteer our time (daily, weekly, monthly, annually), to the projects that WE have identified in point 3, and our *__*core competencies (our abilities, educations, professions, and skills, etc.)

5. Help to facilitate, with privacy, and in trust, a free and open (as in freedom not free beer), project management tool, to be transparently administered and managed by a local mountain biker 'heavy' and IMBA 'light' team of project managers.

6. GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!!*_





CB


----------



## emjayel (Apr 21, 2007)

slocaus said:


> It has not been released to the Chapters yet.


Hmm...so Van Abel and his staff are actually flat out lying to us!


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

emjayel said:


> Hmm...so Van Abel and his staff are actually flat out lying to us!


We got the two most important points in the conference call, but not everything and they said it would take some time to get it all compiled and distributed to Chapters. That is how it goes, we know that when it takes us 10 years from trail idea to build trail open to ride. That is what advocacy is all about, lots of time and patience required


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

slocaus said:


> We got the two most important points in the conference call, but not everything and they said it would take some time to get it all compiled and distributed to Chapters. That is how it goes, we know that when it takes us 10 years from trail idea to build trail open to ride. That is what advocacy is all about, lots of time and patience required


I agree but IMBA should say they are open to the idea IF it is the will of our democracy. We follow the rule of the many, not the few. IMBA should be open to any and all avenues to opening more trail riding, not nay say a bill asking for a vote on IF this ban is the will of the people.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

I'll have to disagree with your assessment. An organization like IMBA has many years of experience working with not just government agencies and politicians, they also have many years of working with other advocacy .orgs, especially in the conservation community. They have a pretty good idea of what to expect in terms of the political battles, not to mention the impact on long term collaborations with other .orgs (Lee and Hatch and their friends would LOVE to see MTBers and the conservation community at each others throats, it will make it easier to transfer federal lands to private control) that have a great impact on a lot of other trail access issues - the vast majority of which don't involve the wilderness act. That's things like each national forest's forest plan and travel management plans, state and municipal parks and open spaces management and travel plans.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

CANADIANBACON said:


> *
> We're loosing mountain bikers faster than we can grow new ones!*
> CB


How do you support that? IMBA membership has been growing. Some associates in the MTB industry tell me their business is growing.

Our chapter area has strong growth including kids. Lesson programs are making new MTB riders and whole families. NICA race teams have grown big time.

I recognize our chapter's success might not reflect everywhere but I keep meeting others who have similar stories.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

bitflogger said:


> How do you support that? IMBA membership has been growing. Some associates in the MTB industry tell me their business is growing.
> 
> Our chapter area has strong growth including kids. Lesson programs are making new MTB riders and whole families. NICA race teams have grown big time.
> 
> I recognize our chapter's success might not reflect everywhere but I keep meeting others who have similar stories.


Yeah, if mountain biking is declining it sure isn't around here or any of the places I go to in the west. Not only that there are new trails just about everywhere I go. It's a well worn tactic to spread fear and anger even when you look at all the metrics objectively, over things are quite positive. Certainly, one can always find instances where things aren't great be it the economy or trails, but overall, we're pretty damn lucky to live in this country and to have so many outstanding places to ride MTBs. If you listen to some people, be it in politics or trails, we're one half step from the apocalypse.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

zrm said:


> I'll have to disagree with your assessment. An organization like IMBA has many years of experience working with not just government agencies and politicians, they also have many years of working with other advocacy .orgs, especially in the conservation community. They have a pretty good idea of what to expect in terms of the political battles, not to mention the impact on long term collaborations with other .orgs (Lee and Hatch and their friends would LOVE to see MTBers and the conservation community at each others throats, it will make it easier to transfer federal lands to private control) that have a great impact on a lot of other trail access issues - the vast majority of which don't involve the wilderness act. That's things like each national forest's forest plan and travel management plans, state and municipal parks and open spaces management and travel plans.


So you say they should not make waves in order to protect their own current relationships? I see your point and have always seen this as a problem for groups working with the gov. Gov won't work as well with critics, so they neuter organizations by working as "partners". Not the best way to control and direct gov, croonie capitalism. If you are a friend of gov they respect your opinions, and will work, but if you dissent, they dont listen? Not how representive gov is supposed to work. IMO

My point was that IMBA shouldn't oppose this measure, but take the position that they don't support, or oppose, but are eager to see what decision the GOV makes, and are willing to continue to work toward better access for mtbikers within the constraints supported by Congress(We the People).


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

bitflogger said:


> How do you support that? IMBA membership has been growing. Some associates in the MTB industry tell me their business is growing.
> 
> Our chapter area has strong growth including kids. Lesson programs are making new MTB riders and whole families. NICA race teams have grown big time.
> 
> I recognize our chapter's success might not reflect everywhere but I keep meeting others who have similar stories.


Same story here, more riders of all ages without question.


----------



## emjayel (Apr 21, 2007)

slocaus said:


> We got the two most important points in the conference call, but not everything and they said it would take some time to get it all compiled and distributed to Chapters. That is how it goes, we know that when it takes us 10 years from trail idea to build trail open to ride. That is what advocacy is all about, lots of time and patience required


At the risk of sounding cliched, "thats (not) what she said...":

IMBA members will be
Submitted by Eleanor Blick on Fri, 08/05/2016 - 8:21am.
IMBA members will be receiving survey results within the next few weeks. IMBA chapter leaders have already had the opportunity to review a detailed presentation on survey results.

Eleanor Blick
IMBA Communications Manager


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

emjayel said:


> At the risk of sounding cliched, "thats (not) what she said...":
> 
> IMBA members will be
> Submitted by Eleanor Blick on Fri, 08/05/2016 - 8:21am.
> ...


Hmmm. I'm an "IMBA Chapter leader" and we have not seen it yet, or whoever got the notice missed it.


----------



## Kurious Oranj (Aug 5, 2011)

There is a little bit more on the topic in NY Times today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/u...to-bikes-also-opens-debate.html?smid=fb-share


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Help stack the poll with "Yes" votes! The poll is found halfway through the article.
http://www.coloradoan.com/story/spo...in-bikes-belong-colorado-wilderness/89001672/


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

feral said:


> Can't say it's with much surprise that IMBA's executive director, Mike Van Abel, has come out with a post against the STC bill to correct the ban on bikes in wilderness on a case-by-case basis at the local level.
> 
> https://www.imba.com/blog/mike-van-abel/bikes-congressionally-designated-wilderness-dream-some-and-nightmare-others
> 
> ...


Just got this email from IMBA:

I am writing to inform you of upcoming leadership, changes at the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA). IMBA's board has accepted the resignation of Mike Van Abel as Executive Director, effective September 2, 2016. As board chair, I will be working with the rest of the board to select a permanent replacement for the Executive Director position. Dan Brillon, IMBA's Vice President of Finance, Administration and Programs, will act as Interim Executive Director.

As IMBA's second Executive Director, Mike has been an outstanding steward for IMBA and its initiatives throughout his 12-year tenure. Under his leadership programs such as the Chapter Program and the Regional Director Program have become successes, and have significantly strengthened IMBA's membership and influence for mountain biking. On behalf of myself and the entire board of directors, I wish Mike every success in his future endeavors.

"When I was hired, IMBA's board asked me to focus on three things: growing membership, growing industry support and helping IMBA become more professional," said Van Abel. "I am proud to say we have done all three. I am most proud of the restructuring done that has led to what IMBA is today-a much more cohesive association of local chapters ready to be led into the next phase of growth and development by someone new."

IMBA is well-poised to continue Mike's great work transforming IMBA into a strong chapter-based association, and we are excited to announce new chapter support initiatives as part of our World Summit being held in Bentonville, Arkansas this November. Registration is open for the event and we hope you will join us.

Thank you for your continued support of our mission to create, enhance and preserve great mountain biking experiences.

Ride on,

Robert Winston
Chair, IMBA Board of Directors


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Interesting, hope the next ED will be a little more personable and approachable.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

bsieb said:


> ^Interesting, hope the next ED will be a little more personable and approachable.


Very interesting. I'd like to hear the backstory.


----------



## feral (Feb 10, 2007)

Mission accomplished.


----------



## Woodman (Mar 12, 2006)

feral said:


> Mission accomplished.


I may considered joining IMBA again.


----------



## feral (Feb 10, 2007)

I'm hoping that this, particularly it's suddenness, is a sign the the IMBA Board realized that MVA's vision for IMBA has been inconsistent with the larger MTB's *needs* for MTB advocacy. Like it or not, IMBA does speak for the community at large - not just it's paying membership.

As a former IMBA member, I hope this also reflects a change of heart on their STC stance. I'd like to see them use this as an opportunity to re-think and re-articulate their position on this.


----------

