# IMBA tired, old-fashioned PR Spin



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

Spin (public relations)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History

Edward Bernays has been called the "Father of Spin". As Larry Tye describes in his book The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and The Birth of Public Relations, Bernays was able to help tobacco and alcohol companies use techniques to make certain behaviors more socially acceptable in the 20th-century US. Tye claims that Bernays was proud of his work as a propagandist.[3]

As information technology has increased dramatically since the end of the 20th century, commentators like Joe Trippi have advanced the theory that modern internet activism spells the end for political spin. By providing immediate counterpoint to every point a "spin doctor" can come up with, this theory suggests, the omnipresence of the internet in some societies will inevitably lead to a reduction in the effectiveness of spin.[4]

Mark E

'Real' friends communicate uncomfortable truths to one another. For example I will let a friend know if they have food stuck in their teeth or if something dangling from their nose, etc. etc.

Many of the issues being discussed here are BIG uncomfortable truths about IMBA and the direction they are pointed.

How many people like me will you/IMBA choose to avoid, ignore, and marginalize before the chickens come home to roost?

Maybe this is not a convenient place to hold a candid discussion (the many to one pile-on sucks for sure), maybe it is seen as a dangerous forum given some of IMBA's political relationships... That said how much longer can you afford to keep throwing PR crap at the wall to see what sticks?

I don't have to tell you that mtbr.com is an 'enthusiast' site inhabited by very passionate mountain bikers who are well networked in the larger mountain bike community. Those themes about IMBA, coming up again and again, positive and or negative are already spreading rampantly like viruses.

So, the question is:

How will you and IMBA choose to respond?

From where I stand it is clear that it is time for you/IMBA to engage concerned members of our esteemed community in a more meaningful way than what you have in the past.

Unchanged, the path that IMBA is traveling now is that of a "Wedge" organization; pitting mountain biker against mountain biker, business owner against business owner, and non-profit against non-profit.

Sounds like a horrible legacy to me.

Why not change it?

CB


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

CB, I'm right here, replying to you. No wedges. But I reject your assertion that every time I post a story that puts IMBA in a positive light it can be dismissed as spin. IMBA doesn't get everything right, but we certainly don't get everything wrong either.

All of the examples I've posted involve real mountain bikers, with the passion and dedication you describe. Those people are getting value from their work with IMBA, and there are thousands of them. I'm sorry you feel "estranged" from those efforts.

Here's another example: Southern Shred: Alabama's Coldwater Mountain - Pinkbike

So, what are the big, uncomfortable truths that you want to candidly discuss?


----------



## cjohnson (Jul 14, 2004)

"How many people like me will you/IMBA choose to avoid, ignore, and marginalize" 
If I were IMBA, and I was reading vague and cryptic accusations, like those above, I would ignore all people writing such things.

If I were IMBA and were dealing with a few folks upset that IMBA could not clean up a mess of their own making, at some point I would have to ignore them too.

If a small group continuously complains about IMBA's actions in their locale on this forum, and then replies to criticism by saying, "you don't know the whole story." Then that that small group should just STFU on this forum and keep their grievances local.

Complaining is easy, solutions can be difficult. I have not seen anything constructive coming from the small number of whiners and complainers here the past few weeks.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

cjohnson said:


> "How many people like me will you/IMBA choose to avoid, ignore, and marginalize"
> If I were IMBA, and I was reading vague and cryptic accusations, like those above, I would ignore all people writing such things.
> 
> If I were IMBA and were dealing with a few folks upset that IMBA could not clean up a mess of their own making, at some point I would have to ignore them too.
> ...


Wow, this. Thank you for summarizing that.


----------



## TheBigV (Aug 18, 2011)

IMHO, this anti-IMBA sentiment is simply what happens anytime something goes "mainstream." The organization and those who popularized the activity are accused of being sell-outs while the "real" "hardcore" or "pure" people take their ball and go back home to play. 

On the other hand, I think the dispute also has to do with a general split in the sport as to what types of trails are appropriate (which isn't necessarily the same for every place). The one thing I DON'T like about IMBA and modern trail builders is the tendency to put in a ton of man-made features, obstacles, and TTFs. In my view (which doesn't necessarily mean its rights), mountainbike trails should be build with as little disturbance to the natural environment as possible and using the local topography. IMO, something is amiss if you have to bring in a bobcat and heavy machinery to "clear" a trail and haul in tons of rocks and dirt to "manicure" it. There are a ton of great trails around the country that were built by nothing more than some dudes with weedwackers and McClouds.


----------



## ozzybmx (Jun 30, 2008)

TheBigV said:


> weedwackers and McClouds.


:thumbsup:

I do like the TTF though, IMBA Au does an awesome job on trails and on the negotiations here... can fault them at all... they have done the ground work, funded, organised and built trails here that the pure, hardcore and real were to busy falling over their egos to even think about.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

This machine built trail thing:

I've built trail by hand, with walk behind skid steers, and mini-ex machines. I hate building structures on trails. I do it anyway, when/if it's a good idea/the trails suits it, etc. but mostly, no. You ride the terrain. I've moved rocks around on a property to build rock gardens, and even had rock hauled in to build rock gardens. But many people, having looked at a system that I built partly by hand, and partly with a machine, can't tell the difference between the sections. Other places, it's clearly machine built (flow trails with rollers and berms tend to be a dead give away, although sometimes people will get hard core and hand build them) or clearly hand built (narrow exposed areas, you'd have to winch the machine off the side of a cliff to build....no thanks?).

I think who is running the project, the machine, doing the design work - all of this matters. As a solo trail building show, I can tell you a machine is a MUCH faster way to build trail, and it doesn't have to look like a highway when you're done.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I think to suggest that folks who do no support the way IMBA behaves or that they are a small number is simply dismissive and in error.

Further, if you have been following the discussions on this topic the ideas were neither "vague" nor "cryptic."

Sneering is not valid argument.


----------



## UncleTrail (Sep 29, 2007)

Cotharyus said:


> This machine built trail thing:
> 
> I've built trail by hand, with walk behind skid steers, and mini-ex machines. I hate building structures on trails. I do it anyway, when/if it's a good idea/the trails suits it, etc. but mostly, no. You ride the terrain. I've moved rocks around on a property to build rock gardens, and even had rock hauled in to build rock gardens. But many people, having looked at a system that I built partly by hand, and partly with a machine, can't tell the difference between the sections. Other places, it's clearly machine built (flow trails with rollers and berms tend to be a dead give away, although sometimes people will get hard core and hand build them) or clearly hand built (narrow exposed areas, you'd have to winch the machine off the side of a cliff to build....no thanks?).
> 
> I think who is running the project, the machine, doing the design work - all of this matters. As a solo trail building show, I can tell you a machine is a MUCH faster way to build trail, and it doesn't have to look like a highway when you're done.


The truth ^^^.
I'll take a machine built trail over hand built any day. So much easier to take care of.

I get so tired of riding these "skinny" trails built by volunteers who barely scratch the duff off the surface, won't cut a bench and leave backslopes that clip pedals.


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

ozzybmx said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> I do like the TTF though, IMBA Au does an awesome job on trails and on the negotiations here... can fault them at all... they have done the ground work, funded, organised and built trails here that the pure, hardcore and real were to busy falling over their egos to even think about.


Do you have any specific examples?


----------



## Bike Doc (Oct 2, 2007)

TheBigV said:


> There are a ton of great trails around the country that were built by nothing more than some dudes with weedwackers and McClouds.


Actually, BigV, I believe that in many instances, even a McLeod is too much. While I have used a McLeod on many occasions to build trail, I think that it is far better, whenever possible, to trim back brush and prune branches if necessary, move any loose rocks that would be rolling around on the surface anyway, and then just ride the trail into existence beyond that point. If the sideslope is steep enough that tires slide downslope a bit, the repeated process of that happening over and over again, is oftentimes enough to just naturally bench the trail into the side of the hill. Doing this is difficult work, requires quite a bit of bike handling skills, and also requires a working knowledge of soil qualities and capabilities. (Which often change moment by moment, as you ride across different geological layers.) Building a trail in this manner also requires, as things progress to an interim stage, an acute awareness of how far toward the outer edge of the trail you can ride before the combined weight of rider and bike cause the softer outer edge of the trail to collapse. Paying attention to the moisture content and its effects on soil compaction is extremely important at this point in the game, and not all days are worth going out to work on a trail that is in this stage of development. (A reason that scheduling "trail work days" months or even weeks in advance, may result in a lower quality, overbuilt trail, rather than paying attention to and taking advantage of changing weather and soil conditions, as they happen.)

Trails built in this manner may take weeks or even months of repeated and dedicated "riding in" by a dedicated and skilled trail builder or builders, before they are hardened in enough to open them to the general public, without some semi-skilled lout destroying them before they fully take root, but if you have the patience and dedication to establish trails this way, you usually end up with something that is naturally benched into the side of the hill in much the same manner as game trails, and looks as if it "just grew there", organically; as opposed to the huge scars produced on the upslope side of trails that are benched in with McLeods, and the contrived looking rock or log retaining walls that are built by trail crews in a hurry to "get it done today", rather than skilled and patient trailmasters, who are willing to let time, weather, soil conditions and the angle of the slope dictate when the work is done and the trail ready to be shared with the rest of the World.

Ridden in trails tend to also only be as wide as necessary, as opposed to the "wheelchair accessible" wide sidewalks that are so often produced by well meaning volunteers who show up for "trail work daze."

Another benefit of riding trails into existence, is that rocks that are buried in the tread of the trail, and not just loose on the surface, tend to stay in place, rather than getting dug out. There is actually a three-fold benefit to this, as 1: the trail is more technical and interesting than a manicured "sidewalk trail". 2: As mentioned above, it looks totally organic, as if the trail just grew there, as opposed to looking contrived and "built". 3: rocks that are firmly embedded in the tread of the trail help to slow and minimize, or even virtually stop erosion.

If you go back after a few years, and look at most trails that are benched in with a pick, shovel and McLeod, you will find that the vast majority of them are "cupping" in the middle of the tread, due to the removal of naturally embedded rocks that would have been mostly left in place on a "ridden in" trail. Soon the center third of the trail's tread is so much lower than the outer edge of the trail's tread, that water becomes trapped, runs down the length of the trail and causes erosion. At this point, another "trail work" day usually gets scheduled to de-berm the poorly built trail, and the result is inevitably that the trail becomes even wider, even smoother, and more of the naturally occurring rocks that were originally embedded in the tread of the trail are removed, further continuing the cycle of erosion and trail "maintenance". Yes, "ridden in" trails can still experience the negative effects of cupping, especially if there are steep or fast sections of trail that precede sharp turns or other obstacles that require riders to brake hard, and where lesser-skilled riders and speed demon racer types tend to skid their rear wheels; but the erosion and cupping tends to be less than on trails where the original soil was so highly disturbed and "de-rocked", as if unfortunately so common on "benched in" trails.


----------



## ozzybmx (Jun 30, 2008)

crank1979 said:


> Do you have any specific examples?


Example of what, IMBA au doing great stuff for SA trails ? Fox Creek is the best single trail network we have, with IMBA (Nick Bowman + others) and SAMBA the place wouldn't exist.

Between SAMBA and IMBA we have Eagle, Fox, Mitcham, Prospect, Mawson trail, Melrose and others. These guys do an awesome job with advocacy, trail days, funding and all the other awesome stuff that puts trails on the face of the Adelaide hills.

Read your Woolondilly site, see you are IMBA members... just wondering what your angle is with the question ?


----------



## blum585 (Mar 28, 2012)

There are not many things in life that one can support 100% 100% of the time. I have issues with IMBA, namely that standards for Trail Centers are not that awesome. Basically I fear that in 10 years nearly every trail system that ever existed will be a trail center, and the point of the trail center will be lost... Only the best of the best places in the world should be trail centers.

But I will still be a member of IMBA and support the cause because Mountain Bikers need their voice heard.


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

blum585 said:


> because Mountain Bikers need their voice heard.


That is EXACTLY why we are having this discussion.

If IMBA had in fact been listening to the voices of 'Mountain Bikers' this discussion would never have taken place... it would have been unnecessary.

At the risk of being overly simplistic: Each community of mountain bikers and location is different. There is no "one size fits all" solution. Unfortunately IMBA's race to scale means STANDARDIZATION... so a "one size fits all" approach is what we're in for.

If you look at the myriad posts on this topic a pattern is not hard to see:

Folks from community's with fewer mountain bike advocates, facilities, and opportunities (parks, trails, etc.) stand to benefit from IMBA's more recent lobbying/scaling tactics. While areas with well established mountain bike advocates, facilities, and opportunities do not. This might explain why some folks are incredulous when I or others are critical of IMBA.

It is often difficult to see beyond our own circumstances/recent experiences. Which is why discussions like this one are SO important...

One size does not fit all.

CB


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

From what I have seen, IMBA trails look like dirt bike paths. 7 or 8 feet wide like in the link to Coldwater Mountain posted earlier in this thread. That doesn't appeal to a lot of mountain bikers including myself.


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

ozzybmx said:


> Example of what, IMBA au doing great stuff for SA trails ? Fox Creek is the best single trail network we have, with IMBA (Nick Bowman + others) and SAMBA the place wouldn't exist.
> 
> Between SAMBA and IMBA we have Eagle, Fox, Mitcham, Prospect, Mawson trail, Melrose and others. These guys do an awesome job with advocacy, trail days, funding and all the other awesome stuff that puts trails on the face of the Adelaide hills.
> 
> Read your Wollondilly site, see you are IMBA members... just wondering what your angle is with the question ?


I'm just interested in the experiences of another Australian beyond what is in the magazines.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

And this is the value of the discussion of this topic. There are no final answers, just shared info and developing attitudes. What are people afraid of?


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

CANADIANBACON said:


> Folks from community's with fewer mountain bike advocates, facilities, and opportunities (parks, trails, etc.) stand to benefit from IMBA's more recent lobbying/scaling tactics. While areas with well established mountain bike advocates, facilities, and opportunities do not. This might explain why some folks are incredulous when I or others are critical of IMBA.


You sound like my know-it-all teenagers. If you don't need your parents anymore, move out! :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Mark E said:


> CB, I'm right here, replying to you. No wedges. But I reject your assertion that every time I post a story that puts IMBA in a positive light it can be dismissed as spin. IMBA doesn't get everything right, but we certainly don't get everything wrong either.
> 
> All of the examples I've posted involve real mountain bikers, with the passion and dedication you describe. Those people are getting value from their work with IMBA, and there are thousands of them. I'm sorry you feel "estranged" from those efforts.
> 
> ...


Why are you feeding this troll?

He is not interested in discussion, only bashing IMBA.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

cjohnson said:


> Complaining is easy, solutions can be difficult. I have not seen anything constructive coming from the small number of whiners and complainers here the past few weeks.


This^^^^ +1


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

CANADIANBACON said:


> Folks from community's with fewer mountain bike advocates, facilities, and opportunities (parks, trails, etc.) stand to benefit from IMBA's more recent lobbying/scaling tactics. While areas with well established mountain bike advocates, facilities, and opportunities do not. This might explain why some folks are incredulous when I or others are critical of IMBA.
> 
> It is often difficult to see beyond our own circumstances/recent experiences. Which is why discussions like this one are SO important...


Czar,
As a 62 year old "teenager", 30-year mountain biker, 20-year advocate, and 15-year leader in one of the largest mountain bike communities in the world I think that this analysis is spot-on.

Organizations can only form around a mass of interest and will survive only through actually doing what is seen as possible. Failing at what is desired can spell the end of ambient support and, ultimately, the group. Clearly intractable problems can preclude the building of groups in the first place. This can leave enormous numbers of mountain bikers out in the cold whether their style of riding or their political bent is reasonable or not. Remember, exclusion from access is generally unfair from the start.

That IMBA has formed and survived says that it must have value somewhere and we are hearing from people who feel that they have benefitted from IMBA presence. Descriptions are formulaic and the model, when described by those who have seen their benefit, can be seen as spin as the concepts and language are so easily identifiable.

That doesn't deny the validity of the effect but neither does it suggest the universality of the IMBA effect. That same approach leaves many out in the cold. To those folks the IMBA value, the culture, the language, the turn of the shovel and the swing of the polaski, do not achieve a desired result.

IMBA is a major leader in our access work. As a leader I know that we take shots from all directions, including from quarters who do precious little to advance our cause. The frustration with such people of those who do this advocacy work is common and can be expressed in acrimony. I get that, believe me. Yet to presume that we who are organized represent the wishes of the greater mountain biking community is an illusion. To presume that because we are the ones doing the work have a greater right to our point of view defeats our sense of community.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

CANADIANBACON said:


> Folks from community's with fewer mountain bike advocates, facilities, and opportunities (parks, trails, etc.) stand to benefit from IMBA's more recent lobbying/scaling tactics. While areas with well established mountain bike advocates, facilities, and opportunities do not. *This might explain why some folks are incredulous when I or others are critical of IMBA*.


It is vague innuendo and loaded questions (such as this thread starter), not any well articulated critisism of IMBA, that many people react to. Your initial post here was just a series of loaded questions. Essentially a "Have you stopped beating your wife" post. Or in this case, "When will you stop beating your wife?"



> It is often difficult to see beyond our own circumstances/recent experiences


Could not agree more. Pot, meet Kettle.



CANADIANBACON said:


> One size does not fit all.
> CB


Exactly! Interestingly, your OP here is essentially calling IMBA to task for NOT fitting all sizes.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Here's a relevant story the shows how IMBA's trail building and advocacy efforts work in tandem.

A few years ago, IMBA and NPS staff at the New River Gorge collaborated to build some of the best bike-accessible singletrack in the U.S. national parks system. Now, thanks to advocacy work and a supportive superintendent, bike access to these trails is about to become permanent. New rule opens New River Gorge trails to bicycling - Outdoors - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -

Here's a brief account of the role that IMBA Trail Solutions played: Several Trail Solutions team members are hard at work in the New River Gorge National River, preparing for a massive influx of Boy Scouts armed with pulaskis, pick axes, and shovels. Starting in July, hundreds of Order of the Arrow members will be creating up to a mile a day of high-quality, backcountry singletrack in this dense, lush Eastern landscape.

The National Park Service, not wanting to miss the opportunity, has retained Trail Solutions to design the system and "train the trainers" in preparation for next month's work. Trail Specialists are also reconstructing old road beds to remediate drainage problems and make them into singletrack.

All told, the partnership of the National Park Service, the Boy Scouts of America, and IMBA's Trail Solutions program is going to result in a new, world-class trail system for the Mid-Atlantic region.

http://www.imba.com/blog/chris-bernhardt/new-trails-new-river-gorge-national-river

And here's a (now expired) IMBA action alert that points to the advocacy work we did that ultimately succeeded in changing the NPS rule-making proceedures, so that these trails could be given status for permanent bike access.

Action Alert! Help the NPS Formalize Bike Access to Trails at the New River Gorge

The National Park Service (NPS) at New River Gorge National River, West Virginia, is now accepting comments on a regulation change that would continue to allow bicycle access to many miles of natural-surface trail in the park.

Included is a 12.8-mile, stacked-loop system of singletrack trails that was built as the result of a partnership between the Boy Scouts of America, IMBA Trail Solutions and the NPS. Of the trail, the NPS says: "The four mountain bike loops, rated from moderate to difficult, await adventuresome riders. In one of the largest youth service projects in National Park Service history, the Scouts provided 78,544 volunteer hours, valued at $1.6 million, to build the trails in 2011."

Take Action! Submit your comments here in support of mountain biking at New River Gorge. Comments are due by October 26, 2012.

Although mountain bikes are currently allowed on the trails, this rule change will make that access permanent.

Here are a few suggestions to include in your comments:

I support this regulatory change because it will permanatly allow mountain bike access to the trails currently being enjoyed and stewarded by the mountain bike community.
These trails are the result of a strong public/private partnership with broad local support. They were built and maintained by a contribution of more than $1.2 million in volunteer time and efforts from the Boy Scouts of America and the International Mountian Bicycling Association.
Mountain biking is a popular activity with children will attract a younger demographic to the park. This will help to foster a love for the great outdoors, environmental stewardship and support for National Parks.

http://www.imba.com/alert/help-nps-formalize-bike-access-trails-new-river-gorge


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

@Mark E 

Your cut and paste skills of what has been posted on Twitter, Facebook, and all the social media is great. I saw the above many times before this post.

Your skills to read, think, and reply, however, are lacking, from what I see in this thread. You have not replied to any of the other comments and questions, but have artfully danced around them. I will bet that most, if not all of what you have posted here was written by someone else.

I guess all that politicking in Washington makes you more of a spin doctor than a communications director, at least with the common grass roots folk here.

Thanks to everyone else who has posted some original thoughts in this thread, your candor and feelings, even of anger and frustration, are straight forward, and offer some valuable food for thought.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Slocaus, I'm quoting from materials that I wrote. I've tried to answer the questions posed on this thread. Which ones still need a reply, in your mind? I'll try to be artless ...


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

I think it unfair to bash IMBA for I suppose pussifying trails such as in the Coldwater video. This thread exemplifies the diversity of builders and riders, from what I call riding deer trails in to proper machine building. Each has it's place there is no one type fits all especially considering terrain, rainfall and geology variances coast to coast. 

But I must say the Alabama video illustrates a balance of technical and buff downhill, no doubt fun to ride and preferred by the majority. You hardcores should be happy that IMBA distracts the masses from your technical down hill trails which are probably unsustainabe with high traffic. And if you come to Eastern PA I will show you plenty of abandoned gnarly technical down hill just waiting to be revived. As for me I prefer a little Moto influence downhill and so do my customers.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Bike Doc said:


> Actually, BigV, I believe that in many instances, even a McLeod is too much. While I have used a McLeod on many occasions to build trail, I think that it is far better, whenever possible, to trim back brush and prune branches if necessary, move any loose rocks that would be rolling around on the surface anyway, and then just ride the trail into existence beyond that point. If the sideslope is steep enough that tires slide downslope a bit, the repeated process of that happening over and over again, is oftentimes enough to just naturally bench the trail into the side of the hill. Doing this is difficult work, requires quite a bit of bike handling skills, and also requires a working knowledge of soil qualities and capabilities. (Which often change moment by moment, as you ride across different geological layers.) Building a trail in this manner also requires, as things progress to an interim stage, an acute awareness of how far toward the outer edge of the trail you can ride before the combined weight of rider and bike cause the softer outer edge of the trail to collapse. Paying attention to the moisture content and its effects on soil compaction is extremely important at this point in the game, and not all days are worth going out to work on a trail that is in this stage of development. (A reason that scheduling "trail work days" months or even weeks in advance, may result in a lower quality, overbuilt trail, rather than paying attention to and taking advantage of changing weather and soil conditions, as they happen.)
> 
> Trails built in this manner may take weeks or even months of repeated and dedicated "riding in" by a dedicated and skilled trail builder or builders, before they are hardened in enough to open them to the general public, without some semi-skilled lout destroying them before they fully take root, but if you have the patience and dedication to establish trails this way, you usually end up with something that is naturally benched into the side of the hill in much the same manner as game trails, and looks as if it "just grew there", organically; as opposed to the huge scars produced on the upslope side of trails that are benched in with McLeods, and the contrived looking rock or log retaining walls that are built by trail crews in a hurry to "get it done today", rather than skilled and patient trailmasters, who are willing to let time, weather, soil conditions and the angle of the slope dictate when the work is done and the trail ready to be shared with the rest of the World.
> 
> ...


Mate, you are kidding yourself. This minimalist method of building comes from a mixture of laziness, selfishness (the builder does not want to appeal to the masses) and failure to recognise that trails built this way do blow out and fail more fatally than those built to last. It's a bit of a fantasy to say that rocks will never erode out of an unmade trail. When average riders avoid a trail that has no flow because it was not made to have flow, things just change more slowly. Add one moto and you have a disaster. Failure to plan for erosion mostly means repairs are impossible and the trail just gets nastier over time. Not sure what your land manager thinks, but ours is less than impressed with 6" wide slide zones over massive exposure. They want us to fix the results of the style of trail building you advocate. While we do that, the dudes who "crafted" it are off scratching out more of the same elsewhere.

I have my issues with IMBA too, not least of which is excluding local volunteers from decision-making with the LM. However, linking IMBA to dumbed-down building is no more fair than saying no such trails should exist because they do not suit YOU. Quality trailwork is not just about width, manufactured features rather than natural and it does not exclude tech trails. The sort of building you are happy with is not the result of care, but more of a desire to see great distance made fast. We don't all get to ride a line in on bedrock, but that is pretty much the only type of terrain that sustains minimalist construction.


----------



## robbiexor (Aug 22, 2011)

I have never seen a trail "ride in" in any kind of acceptable way.

And de-berming is a fact of life with hand built trails. A plate compacter helps, but doesn't completely eliminate the need. The nice thing is that a properly benched trail will need to be de-bermed once in the first 2 years after its built, then perhaps never again.


----------



## PhxChem (Aug 4, 2010)

slocaus said:


> @Mark E
> 
> Your skills to read, think, and reply, however, are lacking, from what I see in this thread. You have not replied to any of the other comments and questions, but have artfully danced around them. I will bet that most, if not all of what you have posted here was written by someone else.


To be honest, I'm not seeing any straightforward questions being asked. You can tell that this thread is just a continuation of some larger "discussion." No one's being specific about anything. So what's the point except to blow-off some steam?


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Hmmm... To Summarize:

Group A: We're mad at IMBA, they're not the best at local engagement and we have some legitimate or not reason, waaah, they're horrible and I want to waah about it everywhere I can.

IMBA: We aren't good at everything. But look look look, we have success after success so we must be doing something right. I mean, right, right, am I right, huh?

My $0.02: If you grow your local roots and relationships and act like big boys and girls (forget about your trail and riding style for a second), you can muscle IMBA out of your area or negate the need for them to show up. It takes work and effort and time to figure out, but we all have day jobs right? Or you give up some autonomy and bring in a working template and infrastructure from IMBA and deal with it.

If IMBA wants into an area where the work, effort, and time have been spent to make it work; then its up to the locals to decide what to do. IMBA's in the passenger seat, tough turkeys even if IMBA isn't the biggest kid on the playground. Respect the successes where they are, it shouldn't be IMBA's perogative to be acquisitive of local orgs/clubs just because IMBA can.

If another group of locals forms up and has some mass, maybe that first org didn't actually put the majority first/was narrow-minded or try just didn't think it WAS necessary to build consensus within the community. Self-awareness is a key to success.

We NEED a big org like IMBA. We need it to be slick, spin, wealthy and able to wield influence/advocate on a national level, it sucks, but that's who we're playing against just to keep from losing access. The list of allied anti-mtb orgs is vast and wide and well monied.

If IMBA could focus on that piece and excel, I think everyone everywhere would benefit and probably be happy. But, there is a need for someone to help those folks with day jobs out who also fight the good fight and that's where it can and does get messy.


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

*Mountain Bike Advocacy Usurped*



> Originally Posted by slocaus View Post
> @Mark E
> 
> Your skills to read, think, and reply, however, are lacking, from what I see in this thread. You have not replied to any of the other comments and questions, but have artfully danced around them. I will bet that most, if not all of what you have posted here was written by someone else.





PhxChem said:


> To be honest, I'm not seeing any straightforward questions being asked. You can tell that this thread is just a continuation of some larger "discussion." No one's being specific about anything. So what's the point except to blow-off some steam?


THE POINT:

The issues I raised with Mark E / IMBA relating to IMBA using Spin tactics require quite a bit of background reading and discussion so that they might be fleshed out to become "straightforward questions".

Here are the relevant links:
Mountain Bikers, Has IMBA Lost it's Soul?

http://forums.mtbr.com/trail-building-advocacy/betterride-drops-imba-885426.html

Has IMBA Lost It's Soul? I asked this question and stated my case and suddenly I am a IMBA hater?! What has happened to thoughtful discussion these days? | LinkedIn

The intent of this particular thread is to confront but one of IMBA's issues, a double standard: IMBA uses the media (print and digital) as propaganda in an effort to spread their message, and to enhance their brand and image... and yet when members of IMBA and the mountain bike community criticise IMBA in the same media, IMBA's M.O. has been that of a bully; criticizing, marginalizing, etc.

The rationale is simple: IMBA generally tries to take the discussion underground so it does not happen on-line because digital info proliferates throughout the web... and it becomes an expensive clean-up job.

Relating to the "Larger Discussion":

_*Legitimate mountain bike advocacy is mountain bike advocacy by the consent of the mountain bikers.*_

Mountain Bike Advocacy has historically been a "Grass Roots", "Local" activity. So it stands to reason that "consent of the mountain bikers" has historically been at the "Local" level. When IMBA derrived a larger portion of it's operating budget from membership dues, it's members had significant influence over "Grass Roots", "Local" agendas. However, once IMBA started taking larger sums of money from Federal and National entitiies, IMBA's membership began to loose their influence over "Grass Roots" and "Local" agendas. That trend has continued to accellerate. IMBA is NO LONGER mountain bike advocacy by the consent of the mountain bikers.

Absent a voting mechanism for it's membership, the only check on IMBA's exercise of power is their own sense of restraint. Based on the issues raised in the links above it appears that IMBA has not and perhaps cannot, restrain themselves. If so, we are witnessing the end of grass roots, local mountain bike advocacy.

Your thoughts and voice would be a welcome addition to the discussion.

CB


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

All valid points, very articulate re: Larger Discussion.

There is a need though to move to more coherent organized regional or national interfaces that match the organization of the "clients", i.e. BLM, Nat Parks, State Parks, Etc. That said, the dues paying member should be IMBA's number one client and priority. A small group of locals just isn't going to have the efficiencies available to it to influence large government bureaucracies in an environment that has limited local government resources and consolidated most decision making in the name of efficiency.

When a small group of locals does run into a misalignment, I can imagine things get difficult. One group is focused on a larger relationship, where the other has an isolated view point, but relevant.

That said, if IMBA is receiving financial compensation from one group and the govt "client" isn't paying, there should be no doubt where IMBA's incentives lie and focus should be given to managing it delicately. Under Promise and Over Deliver goes well both ways if you're IMBA.

If IMBA doesn't feel it can deliver to one group or the other, it should be clear and communicate that as soon as its at that point. If they feel they are unable to help their constituency because it may harm larger or other relationships & efforts, then they probably missed the communication boat somewhere on their roles and responsibilities and being in tune with an issue. i.e. if you are aligned locally, you'd either never engage in a losing relationship or you would have been infront of issues before they become a zero-sum game.

There are always exceptions and belligerent people. Again, if an individual is putting a couple other individuals' advocacy wants in front of the greater community's, that person is probably in the wrong and deserve what's coming. And if said individual is a "leader" and only focusing on one segment of your community (just cause someone doen't pay dues in your org doesn't mean thery are not part of the community), then it will probably be impossible to get them to see the shortcoming of their strategy or focus.


----------



## splitter_66 (Oct 19, 2004)

CANADIANBACON said:


> _*Legitimate mountain bike advocacy is mountain bike advocacy by the consent of the mountain bikers.*_
> 
> Mountain Bike Advocacy has historically been a "Grass Roots", "Local" activity. So it stands to reason that "consent of the mountain bikers" has historically been at the "Local" level. When IMBA derrived a larger portion of it's operating budget from membership dues, it's members had significant influence over "Grass Roots", "Local" agendas. However, once IMBA started taking larger sums of money from Federal and National entitiies, IMBA's membership began to loose their influence over "Grass Roots" and "Local" agendas. That trend has continued to accellerate. IMBA is NO LONGER mountain bike advocacy by the consent of the mountain bikers.
> 
> ...


Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Well said.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

CANADIANBACON said:


> THE POINT:
> 
> The issues I raised with Mark E / IMBA relating to IMBA using Spin tactics require quite a bit of background reading and discussion so that they might be fleshed out to become "straightforward questions".
> 
> ...


You have still not articulated any straightforward question to answer :skep:

Loaded questions don't count :nono:

If your point is that IMBA mostly decines invitations to swim in troll-infested waters created on internet on-line forums like MTBR, this is true. IMO, it is a sign of maturity, not conspiracy.


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

CANADIANBACON said:


> Mountain Bike Advocacy has historically been a "Grass Roots", "Local" activity. So it stands to reason that "consent of the mountain bikers" has historically been at the "Local" level. When IMBA derrived a larger portion of it's operating budget from membership dues, it's members had significant influence over "Grass Roots", "Local" agendas. However, once IMBA started taking larger sums of money from Federal and National entitiies, IMBA's membership began to loose their influence over "Grass Roots" and "Local" agendas. That trend has continued to accellerate. IMBA is NO LONGER mountain bike advocacy by the consent of the mountain bikers.


So you never ride outside of your "Local" trail system? That's sad. There are so many killer trails around the country that your "Local" crew had no part in making accessible to mountain biking. Bummer for you!


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

thefriar said:


> Hmmm... To Summarize:
> 
> Group A: We're mad at IMBA, they're not the best at local engagement and we have some legitimate or not reason, waaah, they're horrible and I want to waah about it everywhere I can.
> 
> ...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

kapusta said:


> You have still not articulated any straightforward question to answer :skep:
> 
> Loaded questions don't count :nono:
> 
> If your point is that IMBA mostly decines invitations to swim in troll-infested waters created on internet on-line forums like MTBR, this is true. IMO, it is a sign of maturity, not conspiracy.


I regret the tendency to suggest that challenges presented here to IMBA are undermined by perspectives regarded as trolling. I think that is dismissive of some pretty valid points of view. That is disparaging and seeks to halt expression.

Further the idea that a clear question has not been expressed misses the challenge to representation of local attitudes which do not follow the iMBA line. It avoids the suggestion that a mechanism is needed to manage that aspect of representation if subscription dollars are taken from an area. These are valid considerations.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Czar Chasm said:


> So you never ride outside of your "Local" trail system? That's sad. There are so many killer trails around the country that your "Local" crew had no part in making accessible to mountain biking. Bummer for you!


That is a pretty transparent attempt to derail a contributor and thereby devalue their point of view.

Play hard but play fair.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Czar Chasm said:


> So you never ride outside of your "Local" trail system? That's sad. There are so many killer trails around the country that your "Local" crew had no part in making accessible to mountain biking. Bummer for you!


How the fook do you know what trails these guy's have or had not had a hand in building? Sometimes you should just sit in the corner and let the adults talk.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I regret the tendency to suggest that challenges presented here to IMBA are undermined by perspectives regarded as trolling. I think that is dismissive of some pretty valid points of view. That is disparaging and seeks to halt expression.


Criticism of IMBA is not necessarily trolling. However, posts such as the OP of this thread clearly are. I don't see why he should have the expectation that IMBA waste their time engaging him.

If I started a thread demanding you tell me why you won't stop beating your wife, do you see anything useful to be gained by engaging me in that conversation?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

We clearly disagree. The OP has been consistently clear, intelligent, and thoughtful in these of language in expressing an opinion about IMBA. There is an agility of thought, a sense of humor, and pretty board acceptance of other points of view. That is not a troll.

The application of IMBA principles, their fit with a more general population of mountain bikers, and their stated mission of representing mountain bikers is a worth discussion. To hope to have meaningful public dialogue my just be beyond the pale. that, however, is very different from being unreasonable or destructive. That and IMBA representative cannot or will not engage here is separate problem, certainly challenged by more day to day pressures bearing more fruit.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

So, some issues and questions I have with IMBA.


Trail solutions is a for profit business that directly competes with professional trail builders and design firms. Isn't it hard enough for prof trail builders to make a living? Should they have to compete against big brother with the inside line?

A big percentage of our local dues head west to Boulder but don't seem to come back. Our club is pretty much self sufficient with little to no guidance, funding, or support from IMBA.

$400+ for a two day trail building course. WTF??? This is the type of thing that IMBA should be hosting for their cost. I mean really, let's profit off our volunteers?

When I didn't send in my renewal dues I received no less than 10 solicitations by mail and numerous emails. I would rather give the club a donation and keep the funds local.

So what do I think they have done well?

Trail Solutions: IMBA's Guide to Building Sweet Singletrack. They wrote the book on sustainable modern trail building techniques. Its worth a read.

Regional advocacy with the USFS. 




And the middle ground?

Well, they haven't cracked the wilderness area barrier. What are they doing about it now?

What have they accomplished at the national level? Were they responsible for the NPS system opening up to the possibility of allowing bikes? I assume they played a major roll.

As far as the homogenization of trails goes, I don't buy it. Its between the LM, the Trail Champion, and the terrain. We need easy stuff to learn on and harder trails to progress too. But IMBA doesn't dictate what will be built. That is, unless Trail Solutions comes up with the master plan. They do recommend best practices, but they don't have their own police force. Yet. 

Just questions and opinions.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

2bfluid said:


> Trail solutions is a for profit business that directly competes with professional trail builders and design firms. Isn't it hard enough for prof trail builders to make a living? Should they have to compete against big brother with the inside line?.


Trails Solutions is part of a non-profit (IMBA) and is thus also non-profit.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Sure they are a nonprofit, but you pay big bucks for their work.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

2bfluid said:


> Sure they are a nonprofit, but you pay big bucks for their work.


So............. what? They are still a non-profit, which is completely different from a for-profit.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Semantics. They are a for profit business that funds and is owned by a nonprofit. They generate profits directly from the projects they are funneled by the nonprofit aspect of their organization. They also funnel business away from trail builders/designers, which was my main point. 

Know any rich professional trail builders? I don't. Should they have to compete against IMBA? Just askin'.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

2bfluid said:


> Sure they are a nonprofit, but you pay big bucks for their work.


Hey, I'm not meaning to bag on your comments, they are pretty well thought out.

I do want to address the issue with Trail Solutions, though, because it comes up a lot. Trails solutions is a non-profit, just like the rest of IMBA. People get a salary (none of these people are raking in big bucks), but the profits from the trails solutions arm just goes back to IMBA.

As far as them competing against for-profit trail builders: Why not? This is not uncommon. Non-profit colleges compete against for-profit schools. There are many examples of this in other fields. If, as you say, Trail Solutions can do it and make a profit, others should be able to as well. Should state universities and other non-profit, private universities not compete against for-profit schools?

The comment you made about Trail Solutions having an "inside line" is worth thinking about. Yes, due to IMBA's advocacy work and contacts with land managers, Trail Solutions does get some extra creditability, and in many cases they can seem like the default go-to. However, I think it is also the case (for better or for worse, that is another discussion) that IMBA as a whole and Trail Solutions in particular are largely responsible for the increased number of land managers using professional trail designers and builders. And this is something that the for-profit outfits are benefiting from.

I think Trail Solutions was a critical part of getting land managers comfortable with trail development. I think that often gets lost in the discussion about them. Of course they were no the only (or first) trail designing/building outfit, but they are the ones that really made many managers nationwide aware of this option as a way to get mtb trails built that they had confidence were being done right.

I also have to say that from what I have seen around here through my work with local land managers, and now with my involvement in an IMBA Chapter, that the advocacy part of IMBA and the Trails Solution arm work pretty independently of each other.

My issue has more to do with the fact that now some land managers think they always NEED fee-based outfits to design and build their trails, be they for-profit or non-profit, and don't give enough credit to the local talent.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

I hear what you are saying, but don't really agree. State schools are funded by the state. 

The are more than enough trail firms that Trail Solutions is unnecessary and I think, if anything they undermine the other quality firms out there. Not that they are bad or evil, MAYBE too homogeneous for some, but more importantly they have a tremendous advantage. They are the defacto design firm for most, if not all, of IMBA's big projects. No?


And LM's need design firms to really produce the best master plans. Most clubs don't have the diverse set of talents with the time to produce a top quality vision. Some do, and kudos to them. But Trail Solutions is unnecessary and has a huge, unfair advantage. I don't think that clubs or LM's need firms to layout a trail or two but professionals have their place.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

2bfluid said:


> I hear what you are saying, but don't really agree. State schools are funded by the state.
> .


State schools are only one type of non-profit schools. There are countless private non-profit schools as well (Harvard, Yale......). Should they step aside for for-profit schools?


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

2bfluid,

Your comments are very well stated.

However, it seems as though the discussion about non-profit is becoming a semantic dispute.

Let there be no question... many non-profits are created to establish an unfair competitive and strategic advantage in an established market. Some of these non-profits barely operate within the law. And in the context in which you are speaking, it is not an exageration to describe this practice as unethical.

Giving IMBA the benefit of the doubt though, who knows if they sought this competitive advantage in the first place or they just stumbled into it. To be honest it really doesn't matter.

What does matter is how IMBA Trail Solutions non-profit staus impacts the ecosystem of professional trail builders (builders, designers, engineer, maintenance, etc) and the health of that industry in the future.

You seem very professional and sincere. Can you take a stab at answering these questions?:

*Does IMBA's Trail Solutions model threaten the viability of other competing professional trail builders and thier orgs? If so:


Does Trail Solutions threten ALL for-profit professional trail buiders? 
Is that threat imminent or in the future?, and 
Do you think that Trail Solutions, given it's non-profit status is positioned to establish a monopoly? 
*CB


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

CB

Yes. With so few true design build firms TS is a huge threat to ALL Trail firms. Would you agree that they are funneled work by their parent organization? In a relatively new market they have lions share of cherry picked projects any of which could support a small firm. While ALL is an absolute, monopolies have always had competition. But I don't think they have a true monopoly, just a big advantage. That advantage is enough to keep new firms from becoming sustainable. So overall, I think they are unnecessary for IMBA and TS prevent other firms (local?) from gaining/maintaining a foot hold in the market. Can you name 5 trail specific design firms that offer master plans off the top of your head? I don't mean a guy with an hoe and a Mcloed. It is a very small pond. 

There are hundreds of colleges to choose from so its not really an apples to apples comparison. Trail Solutions is unnecessary.

BTW I am not a professional trail builder and have no skin in this game.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

On the other hand, IMBA is more accessible to more folks than any trail building company I know of. The Zuni Mountains Trail Partnership turned to IMBA when developing a master plan for the mountain because they were a known and respected authority. A weeks worth of meetings with the IMBA expert didn't produce much in terms of on the ground designing or engineering, but it did give the Partnership (composed of three federal agencies, state, two counties, three towns, four non-profits and one trails organization) the confidence to proceed. The ~10 grand helped produce a consensus from a diverse group of interests, which is no small feat. Again, I know of no one else who could do that, although I'm sure they exist. The fact that IMBA is a non-profit means something in that setting, because they are perceived as being less influenced by a group of profit seeking investors, and more influenced by their agenda, which is advocating and facilitating trail building. As the leader of the trails organization involved and one of the lead instigators of the project, I found the IMBA expert to be more interested in what we were trying to do than in giving advice. Useful insights, questions, and comments were exchanged but that was about it. I felt at all times like the expert respected us and was excited about what we were doing.

We are a small organization in the middle of nowhere, not at all on IMBA's radar.

Zuni Mountains Trail Partnership - Home

Gallup Trails


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

I agree that IMBA should have a seat at the table as a unifier. I don't think they should be the project managers or master planners. They should be advocates and should help to get the ball rolling. I just don't think they should be competing with the trail building industry.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

CANADIANBACON said:


> 2bfluid,
> 
> Your comments are very well stated.
> 
> ...


Before I forget my train of thought (I'm having one of those days... chemo brain)

*Does IMBA's Trail Solutions model threaten the viability of other competing professional trail builders and thier orgs? If so:


Does Trail Solutions threten ALL for-profit professional trail buiders? Yes, to some extent.
Is that threat imminent or in the future? Yes
Do you think that Trail Solutions, given it's non-profit status is positioned to establish a monopoly? Yes
*

My solution is for IMBA to consider themselves not only as advocates for MTB riders but MTB trail builders as well. If Trail Solutions worked with professional and amateure builders as paid consultants only, there would be more opportunities for amateures to become professionals and for trail building companies to grow and hire more people. IMBA still gets to reap some of the financial benefits. I know this is a very simplified solution but it's the best I can do today.


----------



## Bluegrassbiker (May 4, 2013)

I have been a trail builder for 12 years. Building professionally for four. IMBA, in many ways, has only aided with the growth of my company, not hindered.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Bluegrassbiker said:


> I have been a trail builder for 12 years. Building professionally for four. IMBA, in many ways, has only aided with the growth of my company, not hindered.


Care to elaborate? Mark E is pretty much on his own here when it comes to specifics regarding other pro builders benefitting from IMBA's efforts. Personally I'm more concerned with Trail Solutions. Have they helped you in any way?


----------



## Bluegrassbiker (May 4, 2013)

No I don't. Yes they have.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Bluegrassbiker said:


> No I don't. Yes they have.


Good, I am glad to here it.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

The problem may be that IMBA deceptively promotes IMBA aka Trail Solutions as the preeminent authority on trail planning and building. It is easy for IMBA who is usually brought in by the local club for credibility on a project then to persuade naive land managers Trail Solutions is available to plan, get grants, build the project. Then the local club feels shut out and sees a lot of resources being used on Trail Solutions with a disappointing amount of deliverables for the amount of money. This was my perception of the following in my area. But this is not necessarily reality. 

I have some firsthand experience with competing with Trail Solutions (sort of). I build in a county park in eastern PA. The land manager may have felt we needed some professional guidance but I believe he needed cover and reassurance. We have a great relationship with our local IMBA rep he has helped us on several occasions. When the need for the plan arose a PA State parks overseer got involved some how and claimed to have all kinds of grant money and insisted on using IMBA to create a plan. The trailbuilders felt slided as we work on No budget and we felt we could do a plan for free and use all that free cash for materials and expenses on the build of actual trail. The PA parks guy did say it was important to have the plan created by some sort of professional organization and we would provide a large portion of the input, this would give us cover as we are carrying out a plan created by a professional approved by the land managers, no conflict of interest. In the end the State Parks guy disappeared with any sort of grant$$ and the county did the right thing by putting up $10,000 and put out a bid for the work to Trail Solutions and other Pro builders for a plan. We included our guy who has a ridiculous resume (see Log Feature, Red Bull) and is a skilled machine operator looking to add mountain bike trail planning (with our help) to his repertoire. As it turned out another skilled pro builder from Vermont and Trail Solutions failed to submit, not sure why yet. Anyway we got the inside track and we have the professional cover needed. 

My conclusion is right now the pie is very large, there is a lot of trail to be built right now and as pointed out Trail Solutions is expensive and easy to beat in a bidding situation. If you feel Trail Solutions will not work closely with the local builders insist on a fair bidding practice and make sure the club or builders have heavy input writing the Request for Quote. 

Although sometimes it seems as if your local land managers insinuate your ability is inferior to IMBA (because of PR spin) don't confuse the issue. IMBA for the most part is squarely representing us unless of course you are a total cement head and we know we are not!


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Bluegrassbiker said:


> No I don't. Yes they have.


Well then your post is of no value to someone like me who is trying to understand the good AND bad points of IMBA and Trail Solutions. Thanks for signing up and chiming in though. Good thing Mark is still with us in this _*discussion*_.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Bluegrassbiker said:


> No I don't. Yes they have.


Wow.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I'm not sure you can blame IMBA for responding to a need/market. 

I like the direction Trail Ninja took, lotsa wisdom there. IMBA can be an advocate and facilitator for trail builders as well as users. I think that is the case in many instances, they certainly didn't try to horn in on what we had going. Maybe there wasn't enough money involved, but my sense is that they respected a credible effort and assisted where appropriate. I suspect where you are is a factor, the West has always been pretty hard to rope in.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

bsieb said:


> I'm not sure you can blame IMBA for responding to a need/market.
> 
> I like the direction Trail Ninja took, lotsa wisdom there. IMBA can be an advocate and facilitator for trail builders as well as users. I think that is the case in many instances, they certainly didn't try to horn in on what we had going. Maybe there wasn't enough money involved, but my sense is that they respected a credible effort and assisted where appropriate. I suspect where you are is a factor, the West has always been pretty hard to rope in.


Now that you mention it. I do recall an interaction I had with IMBA Canada many years ago. As an individual advocating and building a trail in a local regional park, I ran into a very vocal NIMBY. I had done all the legwork and had the proper permissions. The NIMBY wasn't going to stop the trail. All I really needed was some more voices/backing to quiet the mob so I could work. I didn't have much luck rallying the local MTB community to my cause but one of my builder friends in another location pointed the regional IMBA rep to my problem. He did offer to help but I was able to sort the problem out myself.

Don't ask me how. It's WASN'T the proper way to do it.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Trail Ninja Great segway. With respect to NIMBY I read the call to action of Boulder White Cloud Idaho then watched the attached video. This looks like the most beautiful Mtb trails I have ever seen. I know not much about National Monument impact on Mtb Trails or the local situation on the ground. From what little I have read in other forums here this Idaho Conservation League may want to rope a dope the Mtbers to get this designation where they will be able to eliminate some existing bike trails and forget about any new trails. 

I don't know how to help but the effort we have put into this topic (IMBA Bashing) we should all be able to work together to protect mountain biking in White Cloud. 

Mark E What is IMBAs participation in this problem? What can we do? Do I understand the problem correctly? 

Sorry to jump topic but it would be a damn shame to see this place degraded. And crickets on the poor bastards original post.


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

2bfluid, bsieb and Trail Ninja:

Thank you for keeping the discussion on point and constructive.

Trail Ninja's idea:



> If Trail Solutions worked with professional and amateure builders as paid consultants only


is very interesting.

I don't think I need to go into detail here on mtbr about the disastrous W-mart effect on small towns across North America as it is well documented. I see parallels regarding Trail Solutions. The gist is that permitting a larger more efficient Trail Building entity from outside of your community (such as Trail Solutions) to bid on and win local and regional trail building contracts is unsustainable.

I'm guessing that at the present time each state does not have local professional trail building orgs like Gravity Logic, Hillride, etc. So, currently Trail Solutions may still fulfill an unmet need. I could be wrong and am happy to listen to differing points of view. However...

*If mountain bike advocacy is to take root everywhere, there is going to be the need for professional trail builders at the local level.*

If IMBA really is focused on advocacy they should recognize that in the long run it is much wiser to foster the development of local professional trail builders. Local entities and organizations play an important role in the health of local communities by having:


*a stake in the local community
[*]legitimate and 'organic' local relationships built on regular interaction and trust
[*]positive economic impacts; earn revenues that enhance the local economy by creating long-term jobs, derivative spending and taxes
*

In my opinion IMBA has become like the prototypical 'evil master' in so many Kung-Fu movies. They are a great, big, strong, advocacy organization that threatens start-ups and those advocates that might challenge them on certain ideas.

If IMBA actually intend to live within their stated mission, their size and strength should permit them to act from a position of abundance, generosity, and with wisdom; respecting and viewing their competitors as 'fellow players' in an INFINITE (not zero sum) game where each player 'elevates' the others craft.

What would even be better is if IMBA got back on track and focused on traditional forms of advocacy. This way they would not have for-profit competitors and they could focus on being great mentors and teachers.

Great mentors and teachers are wise and recognize their job is to teach their students 'how to fish' and then GET OUT OF THE WAY.





CB

Trail Ninja, I hope you're feeling better. Don't know if you have seen this yet but I would feel terrible if I didn't at least share it. Have a look at these links:

Cancer-killing dandelion tea gets $157K research grant - Windsor - CBC News

Dandelion and melanoma - The Washington Post


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

CB I think you are overstating the National Dominance of Trail Solutions. I do think you are correct Trail Solutions is deceptively peddaled by IMBA to land managers. But I believe rarely to the detriment of the local MTB community. And yes there will always be someone with hurt feelings. I presume Trail Solutions will move on if you really don't want them unless you really failed to develop a positive relationship with the land overlords. 

There are many great trail systems built in absence of Trail Solutions and that will continue but there is no doubt that there are a few trail systems today that would not exist without IMBA/ Trail Solutions (Coldwater Alabama perhaps). My guess is more money from your IMBA dues goes back into these systems then lining somebodies pockets.

And if you just think Trail Solutions is an Evil Corporation I reccomend South Park season 9 episode 2 "Die Hippie Die". 

Now I challenge you to be specific as we are still continuing to speak in the abstract. Give us a specific example where IMBA/ Trail Solutions has harmed a local MTB Community. We want names.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

I feel like a couple of assumptions are being made in this conversation.

1) All pro trail builders are good businessmen.
2) All pro trail builders have a proven track record of building great mtb trails.
3) All pro trail builders put in the effort to support the local mtb advocates.

As someone who has hired pro trail builders, the greatest fear is that we have to hire a pro trail builder who isn't that good at building mtb trails or interested in working with our volunteers. So we work very hard to ensure only the best mtb trail builders have a shot at getting our work.

The pro trail builders that are high on my list, have a great track record for building MTB trails, They all have supported the local mtb community with volunteering for trail projects or trail design, and they are good businessmen who run a well organized business.

These pro trail builders are all very busy and in no danger of being driven out by IMBA Trail Solutions.

And in areas without legit pro builders, IMBA trail solutions can be key to developing large world class trail systems.

I have experienced people who want to be pro trail builders who aren't willing to put in the time working for an established pro trail builder, aren't good businessmen, don't work well with the local trail builders, and/or aren't really that good at building all types of trails. And they have expressed the same types of complaints that I/we/IMBA are the reason why they are not getting hired.

Keep in mind that IMBA Trail Solutions only is involved in mountain bike trails. If someone wants to be a professional trail builder, they need to also be willing to build hiking, horse, ADA, etc... trails. So with IMBA trail solutions just focused on one type of trail, I don't see how they are going to crush good professional trail builders.

What I do see is folks that have this idealist view that if they become a pro trail builder, that they will get to just build their favorite types of trails. If you want to make a living building trails, you have to be willing to build all types of trails and build trails to the expectations of the person/organization who hired you. You may have to build ADA compliant hiking trails, or equestrian trails. If you are asked to build a beginner mtb trail, then you have to build a beginner mtb trail and will likely have to bear the wrath of those who accuse you of building lame trails.

Pro trail builders also have to be mobile. There is lots of work, but it is unlikely you will be sleeping in your own bed too often. If the local advocacy group or land manager picks another Pro Trail Builder, then you need to move on to another project.

I see IMBA Trail Solutions as a great tool for developing local pro trail builders. When individuals ask me how to be come a pro trail builder. I tell the to go work for one, it is a trade that needs to be learned. IMBA Trail Solutions and other Pro Builders are often looking for local labor (or individuals willing to travel) for projects.

At the end of the day, this is an issue for the Pro Trail Building to community to work out. This isn't an issue that can or should be settled on an MTBR forum. If you are concerned about IMBA Trail Solutions and how it works/competes with other pro trail builders, I suggest you go to the Profession Trail Builder Association Meeting this year.

Sustainable Trails Conference - PTBA

If you are a pro trail builder and are not a member of this organization, then I suggest you work to become a member. Our IMBA chapter requires contractors to either be members or be in the process of joining to bid on work. So if you are not a member, that may be why you aren't getting work.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

I'll jump back in here, though I have to say that I'm grateful to see a number of well-spoken posters providing good information about how IMBA and IMBA Trail Solutions benefit local MTB communities.

It's also interesting, and a little weird, to see assertions that IMBA has attained some kind of death-star-meets-evil-kung-fu-master status. From my seat, it feels like we work hard to overcome the perception that our organization, and mountain biking in general, is a fringe activity without much political or economic influence. We are growing, to be sure, but the reality is that when IMBA gets into a political battle with some of the well-funded nonprofits from the conservation realm we are often outgunned by a factor of 10 or more when it comes to staff levels or financial reserves. In Montana, for example, we have one paid staff member and a handful of talented volunteer advocates working hard to protect bike access -- but they are often pitted against dozens of paid, professional advocates from Wilderness-oriented groups.

IMBA needs to keep growing and expanding its (non-evil) sphere of influence if mountain bikers are going to enjoy continued and improved access to public lands. That's inarguable, at least in my estimation. Without a national-level advocacy group to represent mountain bikers, there would be no representation with federal land managing agencies like the USFS, NPS, BLM, etc. IMBA has established and maintained formal partnerships with these and other agencies for decades -- and this national-level work definitely benefits local communities as local land managing offices take their cues from the top-level decision makers.

I'll get back to another local-level scenario. Here's a short video about the Bell Built grant for the Bear River bike park in Steamboat Springs, CO. IMBA worked with take a large bike company and helped create a grant program to benefit local communities. Yes, Trail Solutions performed the master planning and most of the construction services, but many other trail building and trail design firms -- in this case Flowline -- benefited from the Bell Built projects.

Bear River Bike Park Video | International Mountain Bicycling Association

I'll give one more example, and I think it's an important one, of how IMBA's work benefits local communities and locally based trail builders. Right now, I'm working with a variety of experts in bike park design and construction, to put together IMBA's next book. Whereas our previous books (Trail Solutions and Managing Mountain Biking) focused on singletrack, this book focuses on bike-specific facilities, from bike parks to purpose-built flow trails.

A major point that emerges from the book is that these types of facilities benefit enormously when communities hire bike-savvy design and construction outfits, as opposed to taking the low bid from a general construction firm, or using agency staff with limited bike-specific knowledge.

The experts contributing to the book include Trail Solutions staff, but range far beyond IMBA's employees. In fact, some of Trail Solutions' strongest competitors have offered to write material for the book -- or be interviewed for the book -- because they know that the entire field will benefit when it gets published (next year). Nowhere in this book will you read the advice to only hire IMBA for bike park design or construction services.

The professional trail building community has benefited enormously from IMBA's books, in part because they have been read by thousands of land managers. The book make it clear that it is worthwhile to invest in well designed, expertly built trail systems. The books do not state "Only IMBA can do this." They describe the value of partnerships between local groups and land managing agencies to facilitate both professional and volunteer-led trail building efforts. And, that make it clear that mountain bikers are a large, important part of the spectrum of recreational users.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Here's IMBA's Boulder-White Cloud web resource page: Aid IMBA?s Work to Keep Trails Open in Idaho | International Mountain Bicycling Association


----------



## HypNoTic (Jan 30, 2007)

indytrekracer said:


> I feel like a couple of assumptions are being made in this conversation.
> 
> 1) All pro trail builders are good businessmen.
> 2) All pro trail builders have a proven track record of building great mtb trails.
> ...


I wrote a reply to the last 10 replies then you posted this. It cover everything I had in mind. Great job!

I started my trailbuilding company 4 years ago. What started as a 2 men operation became a 7-men crew, more big toys that my kids can dream of, and we're fully booked for the next 2 years. Am I rich? Clearly not. Am I doing what I love? You betcha!

PS. Being a PTBA member is a requirement for virtually all major contracts around here, and is part of all RFQ by Parks Canada.


----------



## Bluegrassbiker (May 4, 2013)

I have had the privilege of attending the National Bike summit in DC. The Summit opened my eyes to how hard IMBA and other bike advocacy groups are working for our bike nation. The leaders of all attending advocacy groups were extremely accessible for dialogue. The amount of mountain bikers in attendance was poor. Especially when compared to how many mountain bikers are in the nation.

I have attended the PTBA conference. Trail Solutions and many other trail building firms (big and small) in the nation were extremely accessible for dialogue.

It is my opinion that one cannot have a clear and informed picture of the national advocacy/trail building world until both of the above conferences I mentioned are attended. It is also my opinion that one cannot change anything in the advocacy/trail building world (or any other discipline for that matter) by pounding keys on blogs or forums. You have to get organized and position yourself in front of the leaders.


----------



## Dirt Engineer (Sep 12, 2012)

I'd be curious to get some feed back from Woody, Ed Sutten, Ben Blitch, Mike Riter, Deno from Benchmark Trails, Arrowhead Trails, etc.

I do think we as a recreational group are our own worst enemies at times. What I see is most people complaining about IMBA monopolizing may be one's who think any pro trail building on their part as a "conflict of interest". I get that. And if their intentions were truly evil then it would be true, but I don't think that's their intention at all.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Of course evil is not the intention and as far as evil goes IMBA is not even evil. At worst it simply misses the mark in service to some communities and offers precious little to others. At the same time it speaks of using resources for national representation with limited or no real production in terms of advocacy for those self-same local constituencies. And what shows up in ones back yard, or doesn't show up, speaks volumes.

In the SF Bay area we have gotten very, very little, and we started IMBA. They speak of work at the State level and developments in State trails access which may start to open things up. Yet the model for the state planning comes from a model we, the Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay, crafted with the East Bay Regional Park District some 9 years ago. 

In the East Bay we have gotten nothing more to ride on through IMBA in 25 years of paying dues. Nothing. Our state park does not qualify for any openings as our requests have been placed into a Land Use management program stuck in financial and staffing hell. Our access to EBRPD Parks is changing through the development of the 2014 Master plan which we have massaged for years.

Now IMBA has returned to the Bay Area to try and form a SF Bay Area Chapter and tap into a huge mtb market which we, the local advocates, have created, developed, and focused. Response is tepid, wary, and confounded by offers or services we don't need. We are already a non-profit, with good memberships and methods to develop that, trail crews and such. But they do see getting money, half of our memberships, and paying a representative for the region. On one hand it seems like a solution but on the other its looks like a power grab offering solutions to problems IMBA has never even assessed. 

Over the years there has been some wrote repetition that IMBA opens trails and folks write them checks. When ask specifically what trails they are talking about they end up being in remote areas, areas outside the state but never here. People are rethinking the value of IMBA to us. Our local IMBA rep, Tom Ward, is terrific guy and I can't say that enough. Yet as an organization IMBA has failed to win over our advocates as there has been a district lack of pudding in this proof. Savy members see this clearly. 

Tom was responsive to my request for Regional Summit which we had last month, to bring us together and see where we lined up. We had much in common and we had little in common. In the end IMBA got backfill support for its work with the State to move forward. The most important thing I came away with was a desire to meet again with some really great people; long-working advocates who have strained at harness, building resurging groups, gathering the community together. 

That said, supporting IMBA for their National work and their trails guidance makes some sense for a real value from IMBA. That we have come together, that it was time to come together, came from me. That our meeting had value and content came from us; the folks who started this whole thing to begin with. Tom worked hard to focus this but it wasn't time. What to do with that and how one does it is a highly sophisticated challenge which may take years. I'm not sure IMBA has those skills in it's quiver.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Mike you raise a good point the North Bay from where I stand has a weak selection of trails in what is the birth place of Mountain Biking. I did have the pleasure of riding Tamarancho, nice trail, private property I think. 

Unfortunately my friend you live in the Liberal Capital of the World and one thing about Liberals they love to tell you what you can and can't do, mountain biking emphasis on can't. I am sure IMBA has tried to free up public space for MTB but as explained their pockets and resources are not as big as perceived. 

I will make an assumption. A business decision has to be made. Do we beat our head against a rock with little or nothing to show for? Or do we move on to areas where we are welcomed with open arms, enthusiasm, and buckets of cash from public organizations. Shovel ready projects do exist. 

I understand your frustration with what seems you not getting the advocacy help you need in the North Bay. What are we paying for? There may just not be enough cash in all of IMBA to take on the NIMBY Trial Attorneys in the (North?) Bay. 

Now to your south I have ridden Skeggs Point, phenomenal, a recommend. Not sure if IMBA assisted in this project but the Silicon Valley Mountain Bike Association proudly displays the IMBA trademark as well a rather extensive list of projects in their area. Maybe IMBA focused their efforts where greater gains per dollar could be achieved. I say money better spent. 


Personally I don't expect a quid pro quo from IMBA, I know the money handed up is put to good use. 4 hours from where I live Trail Solutions designed/ built 30+ miles of trail at Reyestown Lake, PA , haven't been there yet but I hear nothing but great things from those who have. And I may never ride Coldwater Alabama or WhiteCloud Idaho but to know a great effort went into them from IMBA my money was well spent.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I never said I was frustrated. I was just stating historical facts, the current lay of the land, and how that effects a lack of willingness of people to buy-in to their late presence here. It isn't a 'tude simply contrived but something learned from long experience. Like I said, folks still support IMBA to a degree in some broader sense. In fact our jersey says "we support IMBA" in small letters on the back where it would be covered by a camelback. That is as opposed to proudly stating that we are members on our shoulder where is says, instead, "pardon our dust." We all know who's dust that is. That is a huge difference from SVMTB.

As far as SVMTB goes I think you all need a bit of info. SVMTB was born of ROMP (Responsible Riders of the Mid Pennisula) one of the founding members of IMBA and one of the oldest in the US along with the BTCEB. Through the years they worked hard to address problems similar to the BTCEB; large fiefdom, few volunteers, tough land managers, limited successes. Over time their leadership dwindled to a small handful who cared the torch and passed it back and forth absent anyone else stepping forward. This really great group of volunteers were burnt out and ROMP near dissolution.

The advent of IMBA's Chapter program offered a mechanism for taking over many of the board tasks, offered the potential for new growth, and the infusion of new energies into group that was just about to fold. IMBA is good at supporting or forming groups in crisis. IMBA was able to get a foothold in the SF Bay area thereby. But IMBAs effect in the laundry list of ROMP accomplishments by the hard work of truly great volunteers is exceedingly limited if not negligible.

Discussions re IMBA resound with their tendency to pick the low-hanging fruit but for many of us in the volunteer advocacy game that is where we have to make our gradual gains. Few of us work in low-populated areas where the stresses are much different and possibilities are so much greater. And to attribute the local difficulty to "liberals" is sheer ignorance. Huge spaces are controlled by watershed organizations where pristine drainages near populations numbering nearly 8 million are at issue. Furthermore parks aren born of very strong preservation groups in a highly populated state rapidly losing its natural areas to development. That is a very strong current for the survival of natural areas and riding bikes gets lost in that groundswell. For 27 years we have worked hard to be a part of that discussion. Access had little to do with what is right or fair. We have done it largely on our own.

There is a very real disconnect: that ability that IMBA has to build PR, harvest money, and then take it somewhere else. For all of you folks who have had the benefit of the _many_ hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars from the SF Bay area &#8230;.you're welcome.  The curiosity, and this is critical to this whole discussion, is that even in ABud's contribution there is a tendency to give IMBA credit where it is not due. I _do_ find that frustrating.

The point I was trying to make, and keep trying to evoke in this discussion, is in understanding the value of IMBA to different groups of people. There are quite a few who want to stem any criticism of IMBA by calling it bashing, trolling and such. Yet a critique is what helps to define things. There are limits to what IMBA can do and it is important to understand them. And there is a limit to what people should give IMBA credit for, too.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Canadian B has been asked for specific examples and (in the most neutral and eloquent way) Berkeley Mike has detailed exactly why the Bacon has concerns. IMBA is hard to criticise, because it does stand for MTB advocacy. The question is whether that that advocacy template is universally applicable.

The IMBA brand carries pretty huge weight with our land manager (National Parks Qld Australia). They refer to IMBA standards, consult them regarding specific issues (eg one-directional trails) and they have asked (paid maybe) IMBA to come to the park twice in the last couple of years to discuss and demonstrate trail building with volunteers. Our volunteers, via the local mountain bike club and more recently others (mtbtrailcare.com), have been pushing the LM for progress in legalising and upgrading historical trails for more than a decade. The LM is feeling the pressure from us and needs some "standard" to use. IMBA provides that "standard".

However, if IMBA had independently come to our LM and said you need trails here and there in the absence of any local advocacy, it would be unlikely they would be in a position more powerful then ours (or those of mid pen SF). Catch 22.

Here's where politics become a distraction from work on the ground. Entities like IMBA do not develop by pursuing the difficult. They pursue reputation and $s. That is a conflict of interest regardless of where the dollars come from. 

Just why the home of MTB is unable to convince "watershed organizations" that 2 foot wide MTB trails, built sensibly, or existing sustainably over decades are not a death sentence to the environment is something I cannot fathom. Apparently the national (international) standing of IMBA as an advocate is not effective, or these huge land managers would know that.

It seems apparent that the relentless enthusiasm of volunteers creates concern for land managers who have limited funds and time to officially deal with our need for progress. The question is whether IMBA will be a moderating and benevolent influence on that process, or a profiteering label, where profit equals power as much as money.

Just an observation, but there are 2 other threads going on mtbr that have ripples like this one - the Specilalized suing Canadian LBS and the Fairy Shrimp threads. What a strange and unstable environment we deal with. The only stable thing is that people want to go into the land and experience their country. Mountain biking can only grow (maybe with other names) and in time it will be accepted as something of value to both people and the land. Will IMBA be there then, or will the paid staff be working for other labels pursuing their own place in the worlds of recognition and funding.......... Time will tell


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

What I am taking from this thread is that there is a disconnect between the paid staff and the local, on the ground troops. These troops are the only ones not getting paid to do so. The locals are getting things done for the most part without much support from the paid staff. Then they take/get the credit for the local chapters work, that the admin had no part of. No? Maybe not, but it seems that is the perception of some. 

We were members of SORBA which was then "absorbed" into IMBA. Our current 501-C3 status is under SORBA. So is our clubs insurance, but it seems there is discussions of taking those away too.

The statement about low hanging fruit also rings true. With IMBA focusing on the invited, easy projects, meaning come help us because we have cash and a park that needs to be built. Not that they should walk away from these projects, but do members feel like they have been slighted by the organization when it comes to the difficult projects or the projects they actually needed the support. Like in the Bay area and Montana. 

Just trying to distill big thread, which frankly is one of the best discussions I have encountered on the subject. I don't think IMBA is evil in any way but they don't seem to be making the experienced trail folks very happy. They do help the newbies, and again, the low hanging fruit projects.

Maybe there should be more discussion on specific changes or directions we feel IMBA needs to change.


----------



## Dirt Engineer (Sep 12, 2012)

2bfluid said:


> What I am taking from this thread is that there is a disconnect between the paid staff and the local, on the ground troops. These troops are the only ones not getting paid to do so. The locals are getting things done for the most part without much support from the paid staff. Then they take/get the credit for the local chapters work, that the admin had no part of. No? Maybe not, but it seems that is the perception of some.
> 
> We were members of SORBA which was then "absorbed" into IMBA. Our current 501-C3 status is under SORBA. So is our clubs insurance, but it seems there is discussions of taking those away too.
> 
> ...


We have been a SORBA chapter since 2010 but been an active club since 1990, just a little younger than IMBA and SORBA. All of the progress in land access and advocacy in the local and state arena as been us. We set the precedent for MTB trails in NC state parks. We didn't become a chapter because we needed much help (although we have received it) or needed non profit status (had our own 501 c3 since 1997), we joined because we saw the value and benefit in being part of something bigger than ourselves. 
I understand BerkleyMikes POV, especially coming from the birthplace of IMBA but I think his group has done/will do more for advocacy and access in his area because they are local, have a dog in the fight and have better connections/relationships in that area.
2bfluid, I know about the talks of the SORBA 501 c3 status and discussion continues about it. Frankly, if the cost to administrate it is minimal I don't see any reason to dissolve it. But on the other hand, I don't see that there would be much if any change at all in how SORBA is organized or run. Multiple 501's do allow for multiple grant opportunities, though.
I couldn't tell if your post was implying that SORBA was going to do away with the insurance policy all SORBA chapters are covered under. If so, I haven't heard anything about it from Tom Sauret or our local IMBA board member.

Well, that's all I've got for now.

Peace.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

I do believe the IMBA is a great organization for the urban cyclist. Not so much for the backcountry cyclist. why IMBA is in support of creating more wilderness areas is beyond me. You can't move the trails, and trails we where riding are now closed? It is kind of hard to support an organization that supports closing your trails down. I am in north Idaho where, there is a lot of trails, but not much new trails being made. Thank god for the ccc.

don't join the sierra club, fight them.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

I may have overstated IMBAs direct hands on, cash out achievements but let us take a look at the big picture. Low hanging fruit is the most efficient path to success, success is the best way to build credibility, credibility is the best form of influence, influence is the key to getting what you want. 

IMBA for the most part is a framework holding the mountain bike trail community together. We are IMBA. We need Lobbyists local, national, and even Down Under. We benefit from a unified standard although not perfect nor etched in stone. We need a name and slick marketing to give us professional standing and credibility. This does cost money. If you buy in to this organization their credibility is your credibility, our individual success is our shared success. I do understand the need for love and attention and clearly some areas need more direct support. Quality completed projects done by affiliate clubs, a dues paying member, or Trail Solutions all lend credence to what you are trying to do locally when using this framework. What is that worth? I don't know.

About Liberals, Mike you have so eloquently made my point. If you try to protect yourself from yourself you get what you get. It's worth your money to have IMBA build in somebody else's backyard and put your bike on the bird. If you come to PA we will ride our watershed then go water skiing in it afterword.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

ABud said:


> I may have overstated IMBAs direct hands on, cash out achievements but let us take a look at the big picture. Low hanging fruit is the most efficient path to success, success is the best way to build credibility, credibility is the best form of influence, influence is the key to getting what you want.


This makes a great deal of sense, even to me.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Its not that anyone is against the picking the low hanging fruit. But that is not where they are needed the most. The projects that are going to happen anyway are just that. I would rather see the TL staff as advocates rather than paid consultants.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Trail Ninja said:


> This makes a great deal of sense, even to me.


And accurate, from my perspective. :thumbsup:


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

2bfluid said:


> Its not that anyone is against the picking the low hanging fruit. But that is not where they are needed the most. The projects that are going to happen anyway are just that. I would rather see the TL staff as advocates rather than paid consultants.


Then other paid consultants need to do a lot better job of advertising. Nobody knows about them on the local level. None in my phone book. The situations that surrounded the birth of IMBA may never be resolved. IMBA looks/works different for latecomers, I think. Less politics more guidance. It has been my experience that credit for projects completed is due at whatever level the participants need credibility, ie the politicians get political cred, the designers get designer cred, the builders get builder cred, the econ dev folks get... etc. Without win/win their will be endless problems, even though at times it can be nauseating for the folks on the ground as well as those who have endured the necessary meetings.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

ABud said:


> About Liberals, Mike you have so eloquently made my point. If you try to protect yourself from yourself you get what you get. It's worth your money to have IMBA build in somebody else's backyard and put your bike on the bird. If you come to PA we will ride our watershed then go water skiing in it afterword.


Thanks for the invite; beer is on me. But I don't need your trails; you do. Like I said; you're welcome!

However, I have trails 300 yards from my door which I cannot ride. EBRPD controls 125,000 acres and 60+ different parks over a 2000 square mile area. Everyone in the area is minutes away from trails they cannot ride. The majority of riding is done in parks proximate to homes on fire roads. Weekends see destination rides to very crowded trails at China Camp, Tamarancho and others becoming busier such as 
Annadel, Skeggs, Skyline&#8230;&#8230;

I don't want to have to travel to Penn or Montana, or&#8230;..I want access to my trails here.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I too have lived somewhere (Boulder) where there are hundreds of miles of trails that are closed to bikes. I too have struggled with the system, been at a zillion meetings, and felt the sting when our proposal to build multiuse trails on a hillside that was being used as a homeless campsite/illegal party zone/trash dump was nixed as too destructive to the terrain/environment by NIMBYs. IMBA lobbied HARD in that effort and was extremely helpful - but we ultimately failed. 

Here's the thing, though - every one of the NIMBYS was 60+ years old. Most were in their 70s or 80s. I won't mince words: they are rich, burned out former hippies who don't understand outdoor recreation and want to keep everyone else out now that they have their multimillion dollar house and nice views. I bet the situation in Marin/the Bay Area is similar, and IMBA (or anyone) has zero chance against these people until their generation is no longer around. 

Once they're gone, having lots of success stories in other parts of the country, guidelines for building sustainable multiuse trails, and a national organization with long term credibility and connections will matter in lots of local places where access seems hopeless right now. At least that's my hope. So IMO even if you feel like you get nothing out of IMBA now, they might well help you in the future. 

And to be honest, even if I felt that IMBA had zero chance of getting a trail built where I live, I'd *still* pay dues because I enjoy riding other places, might move somewhere else someday, and I'd like to think my kids will be able to ride fun trails wherever they live when they grow up. So paying for "someone else's" trails is actually ok with me. 

-Walt


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Walt said:


> I too have lived somewhere (Boulder) where there are hundreds of miles of trails that are closed to bikes. I too have struggled with the system, been at a zillion meetings, and felt the sting when our proposal to build multiuse trails on a hillside that was being used as a homeless campsite/illegal party zone/trash dump was nixed as too destructive to the terrain/environment by NIMBYs. IMBA lobbied HARD in that effort and was extremely helpful - but we ultimately failed.
> 
> Here's the thing, though - every one of the NIMBYS was 60+ years old. Most were in their 70s or 80s. I won't mince words: they are rich, burned out former hippies who don't understand outdoor recreation and want to keep everyone else out now that they have their multimillion dollar house and nice views. I bet the situation in Marin/the Bay Area is similar, and *IMBA (or anyone) has zero chance against these people until their generation is no longer around.*
> 
> ...


:thumbsup:

I think Jacquie Phelan said


> We throw out these ideas, searching for some middle ground, but we get nothing in response, nothing. So we'll just have to outlive them.


But it's not hopeless....just slow.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Walt you nailed it top to bottom.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I said many years ago that we would have to wait for a certain population to die. In the meantime we are doing the hard work on the front lines.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Mike the upshot is the interest mountain bike and bike park development by land managers has exploded over the last 3-5 years nation wide. It is odd that a progressive state like CA is slow to adopt but Walt has so succinctly identified the core of the problem. I believe you will make inroads in your area soon helped by progress else where. Marin County is just sitting there waiting to be tapped. 

Sorry about being a dick I would love to host you in PA if you are back East. Not the most epic but fun none the less. Last year two MTB friends 1 from your neighborhood and 1 from Durango came out and we rode WhiteClay DE they enjoyed it immensely.


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

I am not even slightly versed on the issues and challenges in the SF Bay area, that said I hear them being characterized by some here as tremendously complicated, expensive, a David vs. Goliath battle, aka.. the highest fruit on the tree, and therefore not a good use of IMBA's resources.

When presented in a very straight forward manner, Berkeley Mike's story is extremely compelling and clearly illuminates some of the significant flaws that exist in IMBA's current system of mountain bike advocacy and the thinking that has guided that current system:

Drawing funds from one relatively rich geographical region/population and spending them elsewhere to curry favor, harvest low hanging fruit, and generally to scale an organization quickly, while paying lip service to the area in which those funds were collected without collaborating with the local “funders” to create a solid plan, strategy, and timetable is indicates a lack of respect and understanding and is a recipe for disaster.

If it has not already, in time this scenario will manifest itself as donation and advocacy fatigue/burnout in a real and symbolic mountain bike stronghold; a place that is a cultural and economic engine in the fight for mountain bike advocacy progress. Worst of all, this scenario undermines the long-term movement by drawing-down this stronghold's critical mass without offering hope of meaningful change. This is not just a flawed strategy it is irresponsible leadership and a dangerous precedent.

CB


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

ABud said:


> Mike the upshot is the interest mountain bike and bike park development by land managers has exploded over the last 3-5 years nation wide. It is odd that a progressive state like CA is slow to adopt but Walt has so succinctly identified the core of the problem.


Bike parks area function of the same effort over the last 25-30 years of advocacy. It is further instigated by the placement of mountain bikers on boards and other places of influence as our culture matures. It is not some recent autonomous 3-5 year emergence.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Bike parks area function of the same effort over the last 25-30 years of advocacy. It is further instigated by the placement of mountain bikers on boards and other places of influence as our culture matures. *It is not some recent autonomous 3-5 year emergence*.


took me 3 years to get a city pump track approved (Santa Cruz County)

There is a noticeable increase in Mountain Bikers getting organized...don't be surprised if sections of the Pacific Crest Trail are opened up in the next 3-5 years...along with other NST's.

The recent developments in Marin are also interesting....I'm curious to see how that plays out over the next year or so.

Edit: that came across wrong...it is because of cats like you who have worked for decades that projects now are feasible and can be done in a realistic timeline


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> It is further instigated by the placement of mountain bikers on boards and other places of influence as our culture matures.


Gaining local and regional board seats should be a big part of the strategic focus for IMBA members and mountain bikers in general. There are very few things that could turn the tide faster in our favor.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Mike I agree completely that the 25-35 years of advocacy is the reason why the rubber is finally meeting the road in a big way. 

I was suprised to hear Boulder was so anti mountain bike but 2 years ago (I think) Valmont Bike Park opened in the city of Boulder. This project took many years. I believe the sucess of Valmont may have begun to nullify the opposition, not to say the fight is over but clearly the genie is out of the bottle as in this case the in your face happy constituents, a bunch yet to young to vote.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Walt said:


> I too have lived somewhere (Boulder) where there are hundreds of miles of trails that are closed to bikes. I too have struggled with the system, been at a zillion meetings, and felt the sting when our proposal to build multiuse trails on a hillside that was being used as a homeless campsite/illegal party zone/trash dump was nixed as too destructive to the terrain/environment by NIMBYs. IMBA lobbied HARD in that effort and was extremely helpful - but we ultimately failed.
> 
> Here's the thing, though - every one of the NIMBYS was 60+ years old. Most were in their 70s or 80s. I won't mince words: they are rich, burned out former hippies who don't understand outdoor recreation and want to keep everyone else out now that they have their multimillion dollar house and nice views. I bet the situation in Marin/the Bay Area is similar, and IMBA (or anyone) has zero chance against these people until their generation is no longer around.
> 
> ...


That is all very well said:thumbsup:

I agree that success in OTHER places helps efforts in more challenging environments. Nothing helps success like success, and the opposite is true as well. If you want to change things in SF, having success in other places gives you something to point to both in terms of making it seem possible, and also to sooth other people's fears about the impacts of opening trails to mtb

There is a lot to say for waiting out some of the older generation, or at least whatever generation are in power in regards to land management. In our area, in the late 90's, the greatest potential trail system in the Roanoke Valley (Carvins Cove) was dangerously close to being closed to trail recreation. A nearby rails-to-trails proposal was shot down by the locals around it. in just ten years, things made a 180 degree turn. Greenways are being built and funded like crazy, and the land managers of Carvins Cove are actively encouraging people to get involved in building trails.

Did we change many minds? Not really, it was more a matter of turnover in the system. We are not dealing with the same people now as we were in 1998, and our influence shaped the attitudes up the people coming up through the ranks.


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

> Low hanging fruit is the most efficient path to success, success is the best way to build credibility, credibility is the best form of influence, influence is the key to getting what you want.


Abud,

That is one succinct statement... However, that does not make it true.

Efficiency is not necessarily the goal when it comes to mountain bike advocacy, success is in the eye of the beholder, there are many ways to build credibility, and influence is not necessarily the "key to getting what you want". Despite what Carnegie might have written.

In my personal experience IMBA has not played a large role in "holding the mountain bike trail community together"... Local mountain bikers have.

IMBA is comprised of individual mountain bikers. These mountain bikers comprise IMBA's "membership" and literally have made IMBA's existence/funding possible. It is they who actually do the bulk of the work that IMBA takes credit for. One only need look at the stories related to successful IMBA projects. The IMBA brand is the central focus, the land manager or locale is second, the IMBA Chapter or Affiliate is third, and rarely if ever is it stated that "Without Joe Blow mountain biker this project would not have happened". Although, I have to say, I really did appreciate the nice zip-up cotton jacket. Thanks!

Further, although not perfect nor etched in stone the jury is still far from out on whether or not unified standards serve mountain bikers interests or constrain them. Regarding lobbying, if "we" do not agree on what our interests are then IMBA is not necessarily lobbying for "us" but, for IMBA.

This thread has become an opportunity for people to tell their story... The goal has never been to "bash" IMBA but to speak truth to power, illuminate issues (that are often not obvious, easily understood, nor universal), to seek support, and ultimately seek to influence real change to the status quo in the areas in which we need and want change.

When IMBA's only visible response to diplomatically voiced concerns is classic PR spin IMBA needs a wake-up call.

Do you believe IMBA is perfect? Do you think that IMBA can learn something from the betterride.net blog post, and many of the threads and posts here? Do you believe that P.R. spin is a constructive and reasonable response from the worlds largest mountain bike advocacy organization?

CB


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

You know, when I get the IMBA flyer every few months in the mail (which, btw, is one of my gripes - that should be distributed electronically. Save the $ and trees, guys) I see a ton of info about "Joe Blow" and his club and how they built some trail... I have never gotten the sense that IMBA is about taking credit for the accomplishments of others.

And there's this, too - I *don't care* who takes credit for getting a nice new trail system built and opened. If I spend months planning, attend a billion boring meeting, and sweat all day out there with a Pulaski and some slick politician (or IMBA guy) cuts the ribbon and makes a speech taking all the credit, that's fine with me - I'll be out riding the next day. 

I was probably the #1 or #2 person (other than the landowner who so graciously sold the property to the county) who got Boulder's Benjamin trail approved and built 6 or 7 years ago, but other than a couple of people in the local club who were part of that effort and also spent a ton of time in meetings with me, nobody knows. And that's ok. The trail is there and I don't need outside recognition to be satisfied with what I've accomplished. 

So: I don't get this whole "IMBA is hogging the credit" thing because A) in my experience both dealing with them directly AND reading their "PR spin", it's not true, and B) If it were true, I would not really care as long as fun trails are getting built.

-Walt


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Regarding Marin and other Bay Area trails, there's no doubt that IMBA has come up short of our goals. It hasn't been for want of trying though. Our very first paid regional staff position was created in California, with an eye on improving that situation. As Berkeley Mike points out, Tom Ward is an outstanding advocate with an amazing background -- he was a top-brass leader in the Calif. state parks department for decades before coming to IMBA. Yet, even with his personal skills, agency connections and a collaborative approach with local MTB organizations, trail access in Marin remains nearly intractable. There are some hopeful developments -- like the Stafford Bike Park and the regional advocacy summit work that Berkeley Mike mentioned -- but there's a long way to go before IMBA is satisfied with the MTB access for the Bay Area.

The notion that IMBA has siphoned funds from the Bay Area, or other population centers, and distributed it to other places is both wrong and right. In terms of membership dollars and fund donations by Bay Area residents, it might be about a wash if those monies were directed solely to Tom's paid region position, plus the legal work and advocacy initiatives in the Bay Area that IMBA has undertaken.

Membership fees and fund donations are just part of the picture, however. In California, Specialized has been especially generous in supporting IMBA's advocacy work. They offered support that allowed IMBA to hire Tom Ward as our first paid, region-based employee. In that position, Tom has produced great results for riders across the state, though sadly not as many as we'd like in Marin (for reasons that were described well by other posters).

By combing membership and fund drives with industry support and revenue-positive programs (yes, that includes Trail Solutions) IMBA has been able to continue hiring paid, professional bike advocates across the USA. So in that sense, yes, money from the Bay Area has helped other population centers, plus rural riding areas and mountain bikers in all kinds of other locations across the nation. The Bay Area isn't the only large population center where IMBA is active, so places like Chicago, Washington DC, Atlanta, etc. have all contributed to the larger effort.

Today, we have IMBA regions and paid staff covering almost all of the country. Tom's position in California helped establish the model. Another big influence was the outstanding record of success that SORBA created in the South, in large part through their well-organized, vibrant chapter system.

By learning from SORBA, and strongly partnering with them (we are now fully merged), IMBA hit on our current approach to hiring region-based professional staff and funding their positions via a dues-sharing relationship with chapters -- combined with continued support from the bike industry (SRAM has been particularly generous with this type of programming) -- means that mountain bikers have more regionally based resources than ever before.

If you are against the idea of working collectively on a national level to benefit mountain bikers on the regional and local levels, IMBA may not be for you. Some groups would rather do everything on their own, with funding and trail building efforts that are isolated within their communities. Many of the groups build great trails and achieve remarkable advocacy successes with little help from IMBA -- although it could be argued that the broader mountain bike community would benefit if they worked with IMBA, and that they have benefited from IMBA's good reputation with land managers. But that's up to those local groups to decide.

IMBA's goal is to keep expanding the chapter program and continue hiring professional bike advocates to work on the regional and local levels. The results have been clearly positive. Check out this interactive map and click on the IMBA regions to read about real-world achievements of the region- and chapter-based approach: Support the Annual Fund | International Mountain Bicycling Association

Dismiss this map-based info as "PR spin" if you like, but the reality is that mountain bikers from coast to coast are seeing the results of having access to region directors, associate region directors and other professional staff. Yes, this is a collectivist approach -- that's what nonprofit association work is about. When we work together, we are truly stronger. That's true in all sorts of mountain bike realms too -- from political advocacy to creating trail building resources. Will every dollar you contribute go directly back to the trail in your backyard? No, but if you ride more than a handful of trail systems and want to support the sport of mountain biking broadly, and in your own region, IMBA is able to facilitate those goals better than ever before.

Phew -- sorry for the long speech!


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Walt -- thanks for weighing in. BTW, you can opt out of print mailings pretty easily by logging into imba.com and selecting 'communications preferences." There's an option to receive no postal mail but continue receiving electronic communications.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

CANADIANBACON said:


> ...Do you believe IMBA is perfect? Do you think that IMBA can learn something from the betterride.net blog post, and many of the threads and posts here? Do you believe that P.R. spin is a constructive and reasonable response from the worlds largest mountain bike advocacy organization?..


My experience with IMBA has been recent and positive.

They are approachable, knowledgeable, very willing to help and offer advice. They are also flexible in their process as long as there is common ground in obtaining the same goal.

Now, if I was working on an access issue in a way that did not align strategically with the way IMBA does things, or in a way that alienated parties involved in gaining access...well, I would not expect them to help me then would I? In fact I would expect them to distance themselves from me...rapidly.

To answer your questions:
Do I see IMBA as perfect? - No, no organization is

Can IMBA learn something from a blog post or this thread - Maybe...maybe not.

Do I believe that PR spin is constructive? Not really...but I do not see it coming from IMBA in this thread.

my .02

PS - this is really a pretty damn good discussion....


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Sorry, after criticizing you for not asking any straightforward questions, I missed this case where, to your credit, you have done so. So I will answer...



CANADIANBACON said:


> Does IMBA's Trail Solutions model threaten the viability of other competing professional trail builders and thier orgs?


No


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I think in the long term Valmont is a good thing as it'll introduce a whole new generation of kids to bikes on dirt. That said, when we left, honestly the existence of the park wasn't really a net positive OR net negative for other trail access - many opponents of bikes on trails use Valmont as a "we built this for you crazy people and now you want more?!?" or "Millions of dollars were already spent on mountain bikers" punching bag. 

In 5 or 10 years I think Boulder will be a very different place but the transition hasn't quite happened yet. 

-Walt


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

CHUM said:


> Now, if I was working on an access issue in a way that did not align strategically with the way IMBA does things, or in a way that alienated parties involved in gaining access...well, I would not expect them to help me then would I? In fact I would expect them to distance themselves from me...rapidly.


CHUM,

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here. Is this a hypothetical or something that you were actually personally involved in?

Regarding the PR Spin:

You must not have read my first post or reviewed the other posts carefully and the links I posted to the previous discussion. If you do you will find that dissenting opinions from IMBA's party line were greeted with a quick flurry of LOOK AT ALL THE GREAT THINGS WE'VE DONE and very dismissive language... Not, Wow, I hear you and respect your opinion/perspective. How can we do better? What can we do to get you back into the fold? Can we discuss this some more so that I can better understand your point of view?

If you'd like to point out any specific PR tactic I or others (aside from Mark E) have used I would welcome it. I am trying hard not to play that game, as I am sincerely interested in positive change... and I'm ok with admitting when I am being hypocritical.

I really do appreciate the other points of view in this thread...even when we may not agree.

Thanks for participating in a constructive way.

CB


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Best thread on the subject, ever.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

CANADIANBACON said:


> CHUM,
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here. Is this a hypothetical or something that you were actually personally involved in?
> 
> ...


1. hypothetical.

2. I read your posts, and your cross posts, other blogs....and all the responses.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

What's wrong with posting lots of stories about good things IMBA has been involved with? Mark also has very eloquently addressed the Trail Solutions/other pro trailbuilders question, as well as the question of IMBA's role in areas (Berkeley Mike's issue) where access is difficult/progress is slow. 

What questions, in plain english, should he/IMBA be addressing that they are not? 

Once again: if this is about Sedona, just say so. If you don't want to get specific, then you are guilty of obfuscating the "issues" as much as anyone else. 

-Walt


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

Walt said:


> What's wrong with posting lots of stories about good things IMBA has been involved with? Mark also has very eloquently addressed the Trail Solutions/other pro trailbuilders question, as well as the question of IMBA's role in areas (Berkeley Mike's issue) where access is difficult/progress is slow.
> 
> What questions, in plain english, should he/IMBA be addressing that they are not?
> 
> ...


Walt,

With all due respect, you, I, and others have covered this ground before: http://forums.mtbr.com/trail-building-advocacy/imba-trail-solutions-video-887514.html

For my part I thought Berkeley Mike's response to you was very eloquent.

This thread at last count had over 100 posts and over 4000 views. It continues to yield new insights, different perspectives, and quite possibly more questions. I believe that on mtbr.com that is what is considered popular and "relevant".

If, after reading this thread you still don't understand why people are finding value in it, then you most certainly don't understand their point of view and therefore are not going to be satisfied with the answers that they might provide to your questions.

The beautiful thing about mtbr.com is that if you do not 'get', like, understand, or agree with some of the views being expressed, you are free to avert your eyes and navigate to a seemingly limitless number of other posts with different topics of discussion.

Maybe this is one of those threads that is going to puzzle you.

Tolerance brother.

CB

PS. Why did you inject Sedona? Do you have something against the place?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Thanks for weighing in, Mark, but your picture of Tom's position wants fleshing out. Curiously such a contribution might reveal the tendency for IMBA to tell a story to place them in the best possible light. This might be where the sense of "credit taking" comes from. Clearly this is based in a sense of the internal confidence and belief ambient within the IMBA community, and not some evil intent. Still, absent someone really knowledgable this picture might stand. That said...

Tom Ward's position as a NorCal Regional Director for IMBA has only been in place for less than a year and he has been traveling to remote parts of the state. For the prior 6 years he worked in the Western States Region, again anywhere but the SF Bay Area. (It is a curiosity that when national gov't projects, and beneficial monies which accompany them, are put forward the phrase "anywhere but California" is rampant.)

Tom comes from State administration positions in healthcare and, much later in his career, with state parks. As such, he spends most of his efforts at the state level, at state tables. We are lucky to have someone of his caliber to work for mountain biking. But by no stretch can we say he or IMBA have been dedicated or are dedicating their energies here.

Our history with former Regional, Trail Care and the like is a litany of well-meaning folks who see our plight, vow to help us, and never get back to us. We figured, and rightly, that once these issues were brought to upper level IMBA administrators they set the naive straight by describing our circumstance as a boondoggle.

The idea of who gets credit is important regionally here. As those of use left to do the local work must compete with IMBA for local riders for financial support, getting credit for what we do is critical. If we did not do this, if we did not develop local support, we'd have nothing at all for Walt to come and visit. 

Left to Right:

Dave Wolden, BTCEB Youth Mountain Bike Adventures Director and Beermeister, Tom Ward IMBA, Henry Mitchell BTCEB Trailcrew Director at Rockville.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Bacon your original post insinuated IMBA was engaged in a PR Spin Campaign to quell dissent and that the internet was the great neutralizer of such Spin. It seems this thread is fortified with people whom have a mostly favorable opinion of the job IMBA is doing even though they do have their shortcomings. So has the fair and just Internet lived up to your expectation and settled this matter?

Or has the cunning IMBA Corporation packed this thread with paid professional bloggers.
Are we who we say we are?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Ok, so can you break it down for me, or not? I've seen:
-IMBA TS kills pro trailbuilders: so far the actual trailbuilders who have weighed in have generally not agreed.
-IMBA takes credit where they should not: no concrete examples have been provided by you or anyone else. 
-IMBA is not listening to us: Mark has been *more* than gracious in responding to hostile, often inflammatory stuff, at least IMO. 
-IMBA didn't build anything behind my house (the "IMBY" position?): Clearly this is true in some places. If those folks don't see any value in IMBA, they're free to not join, but whether that's going to help the situation is open to debate. Holding IMBA reponsible for the lack of singletrack access in Marin, BTW, is crazy. That situation has been intractable for a LONG time and won't be solved overnight, if ever. 

What am I missing?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

ABud, your assignment of "insinuation" is yours alone though it may have supporters. I understand this differently. As this discussion progresses a lot of really high quality people have weighed-in and there has been fair amount of ax grinding, protecting, rationalizing…in other words, a spirited discussion.

From where I am sitting IMBA PR is, of course, self-serving. It only makes sense. That is what PR is about. The rub here is that there re folks who simply don't buy into it, who don't feel represented, or feel supported. How big that sample is can be argued but lets simply say it exists and, in a forum which discusses Advocacy and the creation of access, the tendency of threads here is mutually supporting. The dissenting voice will be in the minority. We are fortunate to have a few dissenters who are eloquent and level-headed.

What is being revealed are IMBA's limitations. The response to the revelation is to defend with examples. The limitations stand. The IMBA language and belief system does little to appreciate those they cannot embrace. One might say it is function of group-think at worst or a limited ability actually offer support for certain types of communities and cop to it.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

So I take it you can't/won't state your beef? Come on, a couple of sentences! And none of this quashing dissent nonsense, your dissent (whatever it, in fact, is) is all over the internet at this point to be read by future generations. 

-Walt


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Walt said:


> -IMBA didn't build anything behind my house (the "IMBY" position?): Clearly this is true in some places. If those folks don't see any value in IMBA, they're free to not join, but whether that's going to help the situation is open to debate. Holding IMBA reponsible for the lack of singletrack access in Marin, BTW, is crazy. That situation has been intractable for a LONG time and won't be solved overnight, if ever.


This is an outrageously over-simplistic summation of some pretty elaborate descriptions of a lack of support in an area which provides enormous revenues in the belief that IMBA would help. And that is a PR position expressed by IMBA just about anywhere one cares to look. Further it is erroneous to suggest that IMBA is being held "reponsible for the lack of singletrack access in Marin" by locals. No one has said that but we have been talking about where IMBA has elected to use its resources instead. Curiously no mention has been made of the East Bay, which I have represented pretty thoroughly, but pandering instead to a Marin-based concept. There is also South Bay, Mid-Peninsula, and North Bay. Moreover it is dismissive of our 27-year effort by suggesting that we are whining about our back yard. I'm just stating facts.

So I think you are missing something important.

And when we meet the beer is on you.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

CANADIANBACON said:


> Spin (public relations)
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> History
> ...


Mike here's the quote. Was I far off.

You have stated your problem clearly. I understand your frustration. It is my belief as flawed as it may be that IMBA has failed to deliver greater access for Mountain Bikers in the the North Bay but not for lack of effort but lack of fire power to combat deep pocket NIMBY's and battle fatigue. Not totally up on my IMBA history but I believe it was started in CA to open access to MTB. It must have been a sustained effort over quite some time. I know they were working out west for quite some time before back east even heard of IMBA. Now you are seeing huge gains throughout the country and feeling neglected. Do you think Alabama got the same amount of advocacy man hours or cash as the North Bay? Hell Alabama probably didn't see it's first mountain bike till 2005. 50 miles and Guvment Agencies on board, hey even I'm envious and I have a full plate.

So when I say this thing is gaining critical mass in the past 3 years of course it was 35 years in the making and those on the receiving end now didn't have to work as hard as you.

This that started on a fire road in Marin is now a growing National no Global movement. And I believe this will add value and weight to your cause.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

And Bacon is a disgruntled Schmuck but a great conversation starter.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Berkeley Mike: I'll have to dispute the assertion that IMBA has neglected Marin until recently, or as you put it: "For the prior 6 years he worked in the Western States Region, again anywhere but the SF Bay Area."

By the way, I'm glad to admit that there is some serious "spin" being applied to this release! It's basically an attempt to put a positive rotation on the idea that the expansion of shared-use trails in Marin is about to come to pass. That's what, as you point out, PR is all about -- trying to establish the positive talking points that you believe will come to pass. I'm glad to to that on IMBA's behalf. 

By the way, the Bill's Trail project is still -- albeit slowly -- moving forward. As I said before, progress in Marin has been painfully slow but it has not been for want of trying. And those efforts have been in motion for quite some time.

-- Mark E

IMBA press release/action alert dated June, 2009. 


IMBA Announces Historic Opportunity for New Mountain Bike Access in Marin County, California

California State Parks has announced a proposal to open a singletrack trail for mountain biking in Marin County, on the shoulders of Mt. Tamalpais. The agency plans to allow bicycle use on the 4-mile Bill’s Trail segment, and is soliciting public comments on the project. The commentary period ends on 6-26.

“I’m urging mountain bikers across the country to send comments in support of this project,” says Mike Van Abel, executive director of the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA). “It’s hard to imagine a more important location than Marin, where mountain bikers have worked incredibly hard to regain access to the very trails that helped bring our sport into the world.”

This landmark opportunity is the direct result of more than three years of partnership building with the parks department by IMBA California, Access4Bikes and the Bicycle Trails Council of Marin. A successful opening of Bill’s Trail will set the stage for bicycle access to several other singletrack trails in Marin, which is widely considered to be one of the birthplaces of modern mountain biking. Despite its historic role, Marin has seen precious few opportunities for mountain biking open to the public in recent years.

IMBA issued a call to action, asking mountain bikers to tell California State Parks that they support the decision to open Bill’s Trail to bicycles.Within 24 hours of posting the alert, IMBA has recorded nearly 1,000 comments that have been submitted in favor of mountain bike access.

A small number of local hiking and equestrian groups have vowed to fight against any new access for mountain biking in Marin County, despite plentiful evidence that well-designed trails can be successfully shared by various user groups, and that mountain biking is a sustainable, low-impact form of recreation.

“I think that, broadly speaking, the community of trail users in Marin is ready for this,” says IMBA California Policy Advisor Tom Ward. “We have seen great success with our volunteer mountain bike patrol program there. Mountain bikers care deeply about protecting the gorgeous trails and natural areas in Marin, and we will continue working with like-minded groups.” According to Ward, outreach programs such as Share the Trail are creating stronger relations between user groups.

Located within the Mt. Tamaplais watershed in Samuel Taylor State Park, Bill’s Trail winds through native ferns, wildflowers and hazelnut trees. It averages a reasonable 7-percent grade, and its six switchbacks provide riders with multiple views of the surrounding landscapes. While it is expected that bike access on Bill’s Trail will be limited to alternate days at first, the parks department states that this stipulation will be open to further review.

California State Parks is expected to announce opportunities for bicycling on other nearby routes in upcoming months. The Diaz Ridge Trail, which runs through Mt. Tamalpais State Park and Golden Gate National Recreation Area property, is scheduled to receive a major reroute this summer. This project could produce shared-use singletrack joining State Parks and National Park Service properties.

source: Contact Mark Eller IMBA Communications Director


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

The greatest effect on the balance in this area is in the maturation of the mountain biking community and the passing of the retainers of old ideas. We are older, professional, parents and grandparents, teaching more people to ride. We own homes, pay taxes, run businesses. 

While that has been happening we have found places to express influence in fundamental documents which direct access to open spaces. We have built supporting institutions like NorCal High School Cycling, Trips for Kids, Ride Like a Girl, Trailcrews....programs that develop and unify our community. We have recognized the value of building our local community and giving them real value.

One of the great challenges here in the SF Bay is in understanding that we, whether one is for us or agin' us, really don't care much what other people think we should be doing. The global influence of Mtb has no effect here. It makes for some some tough knots born of pieces of ground and lines in the sand.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Bill's Trail gets trotted out at every opportunity and, frankly few are very impressed, but it is all IMBA has. You really need to actually start talking to the people on the ground and stop Relying on IMBA press releases and your own PR. Experienced PR Folk appreciate the conundrum of believing your own PR. The world is very different than PR.


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

Walt said:


> Ok, so can you break it down for me, or not? I've seen:
> -IMBA TS kills pro trailbuilders: so far the actual trailbuilders who have weighed in have generally not agreed.
> -IMBA takes credit where they should not: no concrete examples have been provided by you or anyone else.
> -IMBA is not listening to us: Mark has been *more* than gracious in responding to hostile, often inflammatory stuff, at least IMO.
> ...


Walt,

What you are missing...

Is the information within the betterride.net blog post that informed and inspired this thread. It can be found here:

Mountain Bikers, Has IMBA Lost it's Soul?

As you are a moderator on mtbr.com I am certain that you have the capacity to read through the 85 or so comments that members of the public left there.

Let's have this discussion again when you have read those comments... please?

CB


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

Eh... Bud...

Thanks for the backhanded compliment. Your sincerity is contagious.

...but I don't feel disgruntled



CB


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I would type up a longwinded reply but I think that Griff really basically said everything that needs to be said about the critique here:

Critiquing Gene Hamilton?s critique of IMBA | Mountain Bike Geezer

-Walt


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

Walt said:


> I would type up a longwinded reply but I think that Griff really basically said everything that needs to be said about the critique here:
> 
> Critiquing Gene Hamilton?s critique of IMBA | Mountain Bike Geezer
> 
> -Walt


Walt,

I'll save you the energy on your next post. This quote is taken from betterride.net Mountain Bikers, Has IMBA Lost it's Soul?



> "_*Griff, so far you asked IMBA questions and they denied any wrong doing. Imagine that, a company accused of doing wrong denying it! (no offense but that wasn't exactly investigative reporting, of course companies are going to deny doing any wrong) You have also mentioned one example of them doing good (in your opinion) in Minnesota and one example in Oregon, a pretty limited and biased sample size. Please, interview some of the trail builders and riders who have commented on this post that mentioned specific examples of IMBA not doing good. So far you have done a great job of defending IMBA by only mentioning and interviewing one point of view. When I asked the question, "has IMBA lost it's soul" I never said they are terrible and only do bad, I stated that I have supported them for twenty years and like the advocacy work they do. I didn't trash IMBA, I just explained why I have stopped supporting them and wanted to hear others opinion. I enjoy hearing BOTH sides of the story so please since you have done two pro-IMBA posts please interview a few of the majority of riders that have feelings similar to mine (again you can find them here and I am sure they would be more than happy to speak with you). Looking forward to reading your interviews with riders and trail builders who disagree with your view point in your next post.*_
> _*Cheers,*_
> _*Gene"*_


CB


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Can I ask a straight forward question?

What would B. Mike & Bacon like to see from IMBA?

I'm in a profession where details sometimes obfuscate the goals and it requires taking a step back.

I hear, or read, in this thread a lot of good discourse. IMBA does spin, but that's their job, anyone seeing or hearing anything from them should be,"MT Bikers are the best thing to happen to the outdoors since Smokey the Bear."

As with anything, you'll have triage from time to time, Marin seems like it might be one of those places, if you can't fix it without removing resources from elsewhere where success/saving trail can be accomplished, you don't do it just to do it. 

It DOES seem that a bit of time gets spent by IMBA, but not as much as locals would like to see. Sounds like locals DO need local support $$$ so that they can focus because that's their BY, maybe branding would do better for that effort, on both sides... Partner with IMBA and establish concrete goals and objectives (start with $$$ spent and contributed if trail time lines are too tough, determine who does what better... your organizations, IMBA + Local Orgs (mine included) aren't Fortune 500 companies that hum like a well loved diesel, they aren't and don't come close... foster competitive advantages).

But back to the national level. As a mountain biker, IMBAs competitive advantage IS providing SPIN and a CONSISTENT message through marketing, Trail Solutions, success stories, and other IMBA centric resources. Again, I'm in a LOCAL org, but pay IMBA membership dues because even though IMBA doesn't play in my backyard, I benefit from the polish they can provide and I like knowing there will be other places to ride when I travel or move. 

There's no one else out there providing the SPIN that mountain bikers are good people (or just plain people) too at the level IMBA is doing. Expect them to protect and advance that and manage your expectations accordingly.

We're all mountain bikers and pretty resourceful folks, figure out how to use IMBA to your devices and be realistic that you may not get the SPIN level results out of your interaction... Like that time my pedal broke (crankbrothers) and I had to thread a stick into the cranks... I knew it wasn't pretty, and I'd have to change my style/ride length/etc, but it worked and got me out.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Spin is not applicable to the basic issue of MTB access to land that belongs equally to all people. Spin exists when "something" is at stake, usually leverage. 

The reality is that MTB exists on an extremely limited bit of our land. Riders confined to 1 metre wide trails represent a very controlled user group with a smaller environmental impact that others who seem to have more influence. The effect of MTB on the environment is known to be similar to walking. We are talking bicycles riding on narrow trails off-road, not horse **** on threatened critters, bog snorkling, cross country equestrian, the Paris-Dakar, 4WD tours or enduro motorcycling.

If the international representative of MTB cannot get that message across in the home of mountain biking, then it is fair to ask why not.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

*We aren't going to win every battle*



Ridnparadise said:


> If the international representative of MTB cannot get that message across in the home of mountain biking, then it is fair to ask why not.


If getting access was easy there would be no need for mountain bikers to advocate. Anyone who expects 100% victory is not realistic. There are groups with much more funding, paid staff, and political resources who advocate against us.

In Indianapolis, we have a park that was closed to mountain bikers in the late 1990's. Its closure is on of the reasons HMBA formed. 15 years later we still don't have access. And this is a sore spot with some of our long standing volunteers who see trail after trail built across the State, but who still don't have local mtb access.

In hind sight there are some things we would have done differently, but I don't think any path would have gotten us access. Because of our success State wide, we are in the best position ever to try and get in the difficult park.

As an advocate, we have successes and failures. Some times we have successes that are surprisingly easy, and some times we succeed in places we put far less effort into.

It is difficult when people want to focus on our failures. Again we are going to fail as advocates. There are properties or trails we are not going to get. There are properties that we will get some day, but the time frame may not be what any of us want.

Compared to Sierra Club, IMBA is the new kid on the block. Sierra Club has over a hundred years of fund raising, including endowments that allow it to have a large staff. Then throw in the other local groups that are typically anti mountain biking and the fact that most local governments are run by the same age group as our opposition. This makes for some pretty long odds stacked against us.

I don't even think that Mike is blaming IMBA for the failure to get access in Marin. I think his issues are with the relationship between IMBA and his group. (hopefully I am correct on this Mike).

Being in the Midwest, we had some hurt feeling with IMBA 4 or 5 years ago. We felt like a fly over state to IMBA. Many times its a matter of perception. We felt like places like Marin got all the attention while we were ignored. It may be the grass is always greener on the other side. I have riders come to me incredulous that we don't have high school mountain biking like Marin. The perception to them is that Marin has it better than we do.

The Regional Chapter Program that is being rolled out is because IMBA listened to us and many other chapters across the country. It isn't what it needs to be *yet *[edited to reflect that the chapter program as it is today is just the beginning of having paid staff available at the local level to support IMBA Chapters] but the frame work is in place and staff are being added to support mountain bike organizations on the regional and state level. This will allow IMBA to have a presence in local and regional issues and to tailor its efforts more closely to local issues.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Amen Brother from Down Under


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

"The effect of MTB on the environment is known to be similar to walking." 

Let me point out that IMBA has been the main source of dissemination for this type of information. Search "mountain biking impacts" or similar topics and you will fund the research IMBA has long provided, for free and online, to help mountain bikers make the case for access to land managers and decision makers. 

I agree with your final point -- mountain bikers do have a right to ask what IMBA is doing and if it could be done better. I'm trying to provide the answers as best I can, but as I've said before, I freely admit there's a lot more work to do.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Mark E said:


> "The effect of MTB on the environment is known to be similar to walking."
> 
> Let me point out that IMBA has been the main source of dissemination for this type of information. Search "mountain biking impacts" or similar topics and you will fund the research IMBA has long provided, for free and online, to help mountain bikers make the case for access to land managers and decision makers.


Awww... you were doing so good.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Is what I wrote not accurate -- who else has disseminated this info?


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

No, what you wrote is entirely accurate. As a matter of fact I use the resources on the IMBA website when I don't have the time for long-winded explanations. It's very handy having a lot of information like that in one place.
Who else has disseminated the Wilson & Seney Study of 1994? Me. Everyone. I first found it on a Mike Vandeman rant.
The "Awww.." was because although your post was technically correct it sounded like IMBA was responsible for that quote.

I'm still on the side of IMBA does more good than harm.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

OK...we've had multiple people chime in discussing the details behind their direct experiences with IMBA...the good, the bad, the ugly...and everything in between. There's been some very good dialogue and information sharing - I have learned quite a bit.

The only contributor that has not shared the details surrounding their direct experiences with IMBA is the OP (CANADIANBACON).

So CB - you clearly have had an experience with IMBA that has left a bad taste in your mouth...please share. What were the circumstances that upset you enough to post, cross post, and research other sites for the past several weeks culminating into the creation of this thread?


Thanks,
- CHUM


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

I like the advocacy work that IMBA does, I really do. The more the merrier. The national level stuff, the trail info clearing house, even the regional aspects. Start ups may get some initial hand holding and that is also great.

But locally, IMHO, no cash for TS = little to no help from IMBA. 
It is the local chapter and almost entirely the few individuals with the time, drive, and vision to organize and follow the project through, that make it happen. Same as it always was. Has IMBA become a local "check in the box"?

So we send in our payments and dues hoping for advocacy.

I support IMBA, but when the work day I set up, promote, facilitate, and basically do 100% of the project (except the other volunteer labor) and then someone credits IMBA for the workday, I am even OK with that. Its about the trails, right?

I just feel that there is a disconnect between IMBA's PR and what happens locally. How often do you hear the PR spin that is not/was not a TS project? I'm asking. I would wager that most of the blurbs celebrated were TS projects.

Furthermore the trail builders supporting TS are likely the ones that get the sub contracting from them. This is fine. The master planners and firms that have the skills to design master plans are the ones being undercut by trail solutions. No trail builder is going to complain about receiving a trail solutions contract as it's probably a great trail to build in most aspects, and the funding is already in place. Those subcontracts would happen anyway.

So it's not the smaller trail builders that are suffering. It's trail design firms and with trail solutions having the lion's share of most large scale design plans, I feel like it prohibits trail building companies from hiring GIS folks, from hiring project managers, from essentially taking their business to the next level. It keeps the little guys, little. And it also prevents these growing firms from gaining design credibility and experience. How could it not?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Mark E said:


> "The effect of MTB on the environment is known to be similar to walking."
> 
> Let me point out that IMBA has been the main source of dissemination for this type of information. Search "mountain biking impacts" or similar topics and you will fund the research IMBA has long provided, for free and online, to help mountain bikers make the case for access to land managers and decision makers.


We have instigated and found funding for research into the issue of wear and tear in our local parks which have nothing to do with IMBA. We have access to other studies conducted throughout the states, and international ( thanks to the folks down under; Kiwis and Aussies alike) about this issue. In the process of developing and presenting an argument which supports our understanding of our effect on soils those studies are cited and we include IMBA as well.

I think a point can be made that from inside IMBA they understand their value differently than I do. I know exactly what we do for outreach, study, access and such. I know where my money comes from and I know the faces behind it. I ride with these folks, dig trails with them, do fundraiser with them. I don't rely on PR but personal contact and shared reality-based experiences with nearly 2000 riders and friends.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> We have instigated and fund funding for research into the issue of wear and tear in our local parks which have nothing to do with IMBA. We have access to other studies conducted throughout the states, and international ( thanks to the folks down under; Kiwis and Aussies alike) about this issue. In the process of developing and presenting an argument which supports our understanding of our effect on soils those studies are cited and we include IMBA as well.
> 
> I think a point can be made that from inside IMBA they understand their value differently than I do. I know exactly what we do for outreach, study, access and such. I know where my money comes from and I know the faces behind it. I ride with these folks, dig trails with them, do fundraiser with them. *I don't rely on PR* but personal contact and shared reality-based experiences with nearly 2000 riders and friends.


but you do Mike.

Any time you post about the success of a project, your tenure as an advocate, associated accomplishments, etc. you are relying on PR to advance the recognition of your group...and to increase membership and funds. PR is also advertising rides, promotions to raise awareness, etc....

This is not a bad thing...it is a requirement to succeed. Even putting a "spin" on things is really not viewed as negative by simply accentuating the positives and downplaying the negatives. Although any group/person that continuously toots their own horn gets old (IMO)

The "bad" aspect of PR is the negative PR used to put down another group in the same field to advance themselves, or just being vindictive because they felt slighted...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

indytrekracer said:


> The Regional Chapter Program that is being rolled out is because IMBA listened to us and many other chapters across the country. It isn't what it needs to be *yet *[edited to reflect that the chapter program as it is today is just the beginning of having paid staff available at the local level to support IMBA Chapters] but the frame work is in place and staff are being added to support mountain bike organizations on the regional and state level. This will allow IMBA to have a presence in local and regional issues and to tailor its efforts more closely to local issues.


Okay, guys, enough with the Marin thing. I will not talk about that. Great folk, interesting challenges. Done.

I am an expert on the East Bay. I am also an expert on NorCal High School Cycling and would like to co-opt and enrich Indys thoughts and everyone here about NorCal existence.

I have 10 seasons of NorCal Coaching experience with El Cerrito Racing and the Albany High Cougars since 2002. Both of these teams rest on a platform of training and fundraising which I devised. They continue to do well as I have moved on.

This unique and fast spreading phenomena is a consequence of special synergies in Berkeley High and Nevada City starting in 2000; not Marin. Its viability was a function of mountain bikers aging to the point of understanding how it is done, and how it can be transmitted to kids in a manner that engaged feelings of trust from parents. Mountain bikers have kids, or grandkids, it is an adventure oriented, outdoor exercise sport which succeeds on a non-traditional team, no one sits on the bench, co-ed, education based model.

If anything it is uniquely Californian synergy; great people, natives, folks who come here with great energies, cutting edge ideas. Yet as I think of it the source energies are not so much Californian but Northern Californian and Bay Arean. Strong energies radiate from the University of California at Berkeley, too, not Stanford or the small Marin colleges. Knowledge, possibilities, creative formatting; classic UC Berkeley ideas.

This germ spread to surrounding communities with a natural expansion into Marin. The formation of teams in various places depended upon a happenstance of interested kid (s), a parent, a skilled cyclist, a sponsor at a school, and an administration willing to accept the new idea. Over time, with a nod to USA Cycling rules formatting, a teen oriented methodology evolved, a coaching development strategy was shaped, and a new set of rules devised. I was a part of all of this; rules, camps, fundraising, race formatting, educating parents and teachers and administrators.

It is not something born of Marin or some derogatory suggestion that it was a symptom of Marin's specialness or overprivilaged state. (Where anyone gets the idea that Marin had IMBA energies pumped into it outside of Bills trail or has it better than you is beyond me. (Maybe Mark can dip into his PR archive&#8230;..kidding&#8230;.kidding  ) Marin and the East Bay have equivalent numbers of teams. NorCal HS Cycling is an idea who's time had come. In around 2008 the model was substantially formatted enough to spread to Southern California where it exploded.

In 2010 the formatting succeeded to become NICA, the National Interscholastic Cycling Association. The package of appropriate rules for teens, team and talent development models and a staff of talented and experience NorCal coaches, racers and administrators have traveled all over the country like Jonny Appleseed.

NorCal continues to succeed and grow because we have worked hard to develop the energies needed. Our Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay has provided sponsorships to our 10 Alameda and Contra Costa County Teams (which is our turf) for the last 7 years with a current budget of $3000 per year. We hold clothing and gear drives for the teams too. They attend our events and support our advocacy. No one, anywhere, does this but us. No one.

This is not Marin. This is not privilege. This is great idea who's time has come. If you want a team or a league, just touch base with NICA and they can get you started. If you haven't done that then that is why you don't have HS Racing. It is not a matter of perceived privilege for others. And&#8230;now you know you can reach out to me.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

CHUM said:


> but you do Mike.


Fair enough. Perhaps I should say solely on PR. Our face-to-face experience is very different from IMBA.

We ride with hundreds of locals and this weekend I will see 90 of them, all of whom know who we are, what we mean, and how we stand behind it first hand. We hosted 36 women riders last weekend and 38 trail crew the week before that; all first name basis. WE do this every month with supported rides every week.

We developed the idea of Trips for Kids 23 years ago which evolved into our Youth Mountain Biking Adventures program. Our volunteers, developed by us, in a program developed by us and funded at $3000 per year by us and somehow the ride in October becomes the IMBA Kids ride? I'll stop &#8230;..

Anyhow that is very different from PR. it is face-time, shared experiences, great beer. That is very different from the face of IMBA which the mtb community last saw at Ales and Trails in Marin when they were fundraising; a face few will see again until the next fundy.

Speaking of which I just got 3 identical emails from mark Van Abel asking us to Renew. We will of course but&#8230;&#8230;jesus.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

As with so many things that grow to be bigger, the folks that started it may not see the result they were seeking, but y'all should take pride in the fact that we have a credible organization that represents mtb at many levels and places. Like thefriar said use IMBA for what you can get out of it, which pretty much describes any standard trail building tool, and which don't sharpen themselves, btw. I don't think it would hurt IMBA to bump up a few notches in sophistication with their PR spin, so I opted to turn that flow off. Still a lot of chapter level drivel (clue... dumbing down is a two way street), but overall the thing is working at many levels and I THANK! Mike et al for their wisdom and dedication so many years ago. I could trot out a list of criticisms of IMBA too, but in the end it is more powerful to create unity, and IMBA sorta represents our larger unity like it or not. (I wince about that occasionally, and I'm an effing hick from nowhere with the sensitivity of a power bait trout fisherman.) Mike you are always welcome to a bunk, a pint glass for the keg, and a spot around the fire at Cabin 34 if you need fluffing.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

1 lousy pint?! Well, okay, but no PBR.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

FWIW, this is a very important discussion. We, IMBA, et al, can learn a lot here as opposed to being defensive and spouting platitudes and articles. This is real-time, experience-related info.

This is the best of MTBR.


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

So B.M., my apologies for simplifying here (or being incorrect with my math), but BTCEB aligning with IMBA = 0 in terms of expanded trail access in the East Bay. And BTCEB working on their own also = 0 in terms of expanded trail access in the East Bay. Is the problem IMBA, or is it the community at large?


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

The three mailings indicates that you probably have three accounts -- I can help consolidate those into one if you like. markDOTellerATimbaDOTcom.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Thanks Mark!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Czar Chasm said:


> So B.M., my apologies for simplifying here (or being incorrect with my math), but BTCEB aligning with IMBA = 0 in terms of expanded trail access in the East Bay. And BTCEB working on their own also = 0 in terms of expanded trail access in the East Bay. Is the problem IMBA, or is it the community at large?


Over the years we have gotten few things opened but nowhere near what is needed or what is right. In the meantime we have grown into a large and rich community. We have built relationships with key people and placed people in key places. We have made changes in Master Plans, the governing documents for the operation of the parks. The consequence of this is a much more positive future. For the first time in many years I dare to be hopeful.

"Is the problem IMBA, or is it the community at large?" That misstates model. The problem, of course, just as anywhere, is the community on both sides of an issue. The solutions are a function of the forces to be applied to solve the problem. This is not about assigning blame but the absence of a major player tapping our resources but not grabbing an oar where our issues are concerned.

But to an underlying element in CzCh's query: would it have made a difference? A fair question to which I can only say that it would have been nice to find that out together.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Berkeley Mike said:


> If anything it is uniquely Californian synergy; great people, natives, folks who come here with great energies, cutting edge ideas. Yet as I think of it the source energies are not so much Californian but Northern Californian and Bay Arean. Strong energies radiate from the University of California at Berkeley, too, not Stanford or the small Marin colleges. Knowledge, possibilities, creative formatting; classic UC Berkeley ideas.
> 
> This germ spread ...


Mike I love ya man but IMBA will never live up to the expectations of the Gods of the Center of the Universe. How little you must think of us in flyover country.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

*And I enjoy PBR Handups*


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Berkeley Mike said:


> 1 lousy pint?! Well, okay, but no PBR.


At 8000' a pint of Marble IPA will probably put ya down for the count.

The effort here has been going on for 20 years, took 13 years to get the our first 25 miles of mtb trail authorized. We are currently in the process of adding 235 more miles, NEPA surveys are finished, FS will make a final decision before next spring. Kinda the opposite of your situation. We hosted the 24 hr nationals last year and also for 2014. It has been a hell of a lot of fun so far. Might be refreshing for you to see.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

bsieb said:


> At 8000' a pint of Marble IPA will probably put ya down for the count.
> 
> The effort here has been going on for 20 years, took 13 years to get the our first 25 miles of mtb trail authorized. We are currently in the process of adding 235 more miles, NEPA surveys are finished, FS will make a final decision before next spring. Kinda the opposite of your situation. We hosted the 24 hr nationals last year and also for 2014. It has been a hell of a lot of fun so far. Might be refreshing for you to see.


Happy for you. I am, as I said, daringly hopeful.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

ABud said:


> Mike I love ya man but IMBA will never live up to the expectations of the Gods of the Center of the Universe. How little you must think of us in flyover country.


Finding a seat in Asgard isn't easy. In Alice in Wonderland the Red queen said:

In order to stay where you are you need to run as fast as you can.
In order to get anywhere you must run even faster.

Flyover country is represented by the people I have met over the years from Birmingham, Memphis, Albuquerque, Minneapolis, El Paso, Kansas City&#8230;&#8230;. You are not forgotten.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Quote Originally Posted by bsieb View Post
"At 8000' a pint of Marble IPA will probably put ya down for the count."


The BTCEB has one guy dedicated to buying our beer for our events. It is not a Board position; it is much more important.


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

Berkeley Mike said:


> But to an underlying element in CzCh's query: would it have made a difference? A fair question to which I can only say that it would have been nice to find that out together.


Fair enough.

Perhaps IMBA should borrow this saying :









But regardless...


----------



## Jasonoutside313 (Dec 6, 2013)

One benifit of IMBA is that they do have a voice in local management and have formed partnerships with agencies to provide documentation and data which makes it possible for trails that public agencies wouldn't have concidered in the past to actualy come to fruition. As a public lands specialist that began mountain biking to try and understand the community, one thing that is lacking, is process explanation, and durable trail construction techniques etc. Many a bad trail has been built by a novice builder with a shovel and a dream. Some of the greatest trails have also been built by that sole bucket and shovel. IMBA helps educate and provides a bridge for the single advocate in dealing with the machine that is public lands management. They may not get it right all the time, but setting that bar is too high for anyone to achieve. If you are part of a niche group (say your hucking 40+ foot drops etc.) they may not be your voice, but they do have tools you can utilize to get your voice heard. As a direct result of imbas evolving standard development, land managers can make risk assessments, plan for downhill and flow trails (see recent additions on both BLM idaho, california and utah lands). And though the behemoth moves slowly, it moves. Which is more than wishing a trail into existence, or building a trail that is effin awesome and which washes out after the first weather event, or puts huge threats into fall lines on accident. I respect those who ride and participate. So I'll listen weather you like or don't like imba, not really relevant to me. Just pedal, and stay active. Voices add volume to the argument for trails. Educated argument with duration I respect the most. I don't just want a trail for me, I want a trail for my kids, and their kids. And maybe a 40 foot huck here and there too.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

More spin, I suppose. Seems relevant to this thread though because Sedona has come up a few times.

Posted today on facebook.com/IMBAonFB

Another trail network in Sedona will soon gain recognition in the official trail system, thanks to the hard work of an IMBA chapter -- the Verde Valley Cyclists Coalition -- and their partnership efforts with the Red Rocks Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest and a bevy of dedicated local players.

Advanced Rock Armoring School in Sedona | International Mountain Bicycling Association


----------



## maximo (Nov 2, 2011)

One size does not fit all.

CB[/QUOTE]

^^^ Well said... totally agree.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

of course good is good where it is good. Good job.


----------



## zachi (Jul 25, 2006)

Just spent a good hour or more catching up...been out building trail. So much whining...so little doing. That is my experience... 

Clearly IMBA is a huge ice breaker. Big heavy handed projects, lots of PR, outreach nationally, politics... yuck I say. Thank you so much... people in IMBA who take that stuff on and are against the big wall, all the time. They are the ones who are wearing down resistance to Mtb trails slowly... Good on em I say.

As a PTBA member(Casa Di Terra = house of earth), I think IMBA TS helps in a huge way. They now only field a few crews and all the rest of the work is subcontracted to 'competent builders' who they vet. PTBs don't advocate, we work. IMBA creates the opportunities. 

From what I have heard, TS spreads the love and includes lots of different builders. If you want opportunity, hammering them is not the way. If I was in charge of a critical new relationship with a project land manager, I would put my best subcontractors on the job.

In N Cal where I am from. We developed our own Non Profit Trail Organization to get er done. Developing an organization that serves TRAIL issues in general will get you farther than being a Mtb club. More inclusive and speaks more to the responsibility that land managers have to represent all users interests. 

Our recent wedge into opportunity is called 'Trails in Motion' Generating trails that engage a healthy and vital community. Design by movement is a new edge to inspire better design characteristics in multi purpose trails (like cambered benches and berms). 

While there are for sure occasional opportunities to design/build bike specific trails... they are the minority. In our community...just creating a connective network is way more important. 

As far as I know, there is not a single other (bike) organization I have met that has stepped up to mow that grass in N Cal. CCCMB is the only other organization that I have seen other than IMBA at the state trails conference every year meeting with other land managers and trail advocates. This is how relationship starts. Trust is developed by spending the time to understand their limitations and challenges...and then working within them to develop opportunities.

As a builder and advocate of trails, it saddens me when people think that energy is better spent kicking the people getting 'something' done in the nuts rather than showing how it can be done better themselves.

I choose the cup half full. Good stuff happening all around. Let IMBA do what they can and lets focus on our own local opportunities. Supporting IMBA is CHEAP ...be generous.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Well said Zach. This thread alone has changed some my perceptions of IMBA.


----------



## ozzybmx (Jun 30, 2008)

Me too and some poz for Zachi....get err done i say. Too many big ego's and talkers with no time to do the menial stuff like spend hours advocating before a shovel even breaks dirt.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I'm not sure where you get this impression. I'll take a blue sky guess that you haven't read the bulk of this extremely valuable thread. There are a great many folks who have worked hard to value IMBA independently from their own PR. Whether one is an IMBA booster or not it has the same effect as defining the utility of your tool it and where they work well.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Thanks for weighing in zachi. You answered a few of the questions I had.
As for this thread, I'm in agreement with Berkeley Mike that it, and the other "IMBA bashing" threads have been valuable in providing both sides (actually multiple sides) of the story. I agree that whining about IMBA isn't productive but questioning them is. People have different ways of speaking and especially in a forum like this it's easy to see questioning as whining.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I think this thread has been great, too, because:

A) The open minded folks here got to hear from a bunch of actual trail pros who have worked with IMBA. 
B) The very few folks who really were whining managed to make IMBA look quite good.
C) I don't think we'll have to have this conversation again for a while and if we do it'll start at a much more useful place. 

-Walt


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

As a Mod you really lack a sense of neutrality but I appreciate you volunteering to do a difficult job, Walt.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> *As a Mod you really lack a sense of neutrality* but I appreciate you volunteering to do a difficult job, Walt.


Us "mods" are the most neutral of all parties in these types discussions...that's why we are "mods"...

Trail Ninja nailed it by stating:


Trail Ninja said:


> I'm in agreement with Berkeley Mike that it, and the other "IMBA bashing" threads have been valuable in providing both sides (actually multiple sides) of the story. I agree that whining about IMBA isn't productive but questioning them is.


Walt also is right in his 3 points....specifically "C" - we won't be hearing more from the OP about this (nothing "modly" done...just the way I see it)


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Backhanded compliment accepted!



Berkeley Mike said:


> As a Mod you really lack a sense of neutrality but I appreciate you volunteering to do a difficult job, Walt.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

keep it on topic please....I just deleted a mess of off topic gobbledy guck...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

CANADIANBACON said:


> Many of the issues being discussed here are BIG uncomfortable truths about IMBA and the direction they are pointed.
> 
> How many people like me will you/IMBA choose to avoid, ignore, and marginalize before the chickens come home to roost?
> 
> ...


Chum, I disagree that the gobblydi**** you deleted was not pertinent. If you look at the initial post it is directly to the point, though instead of being aimed at IMBA it was aimed at me and the BTCEB. What you got was a real live person dealign with real live mountain bikers in real time, not from a backlog of PR.

These are the essential issues of representation and advocacy. Absent the challenging contributions from people like CB, iHeart, and Pete et al our discussions become skewed by the mass of folks who post in this forum who all range pretty close to the advocacy well; I include myself in that sample with the rest of you. While I rarely look forward to input from these guys they at least represent thinking from outside our envelope which, I might add, is a part of a greater mountain bike community than we advocates actually engage.

This stuff is really difficult to work with. In fact, as I said in the deleted portion of the thread, that there is considerable energy from people here who cannot wait for this thread to shut down reflects that. Things start to get a bit wild. Even the mods show their biases. But that does't mean we need to black out sections of the thread. They need to stand.

In another discussion thoughts drifted to the effect of manufacturer advertising on our culture. The tendency to radical imaging, counterculture attitudes, speed, air, skidding is rampant in any bike mag. Tom Ward of IMBA said that he felt that this sort of thing was really damaging to our work and we agreed at a SF Summit. Yet, IMBA was confounded by the fact that many of these manufacturers were their sponsors.

In a similar vein IMBA is a sponsor of this forum and that is a challenge to MTBR. Yet I'm guessing that the folks at IMBA are looking at this thread and finding out things that they didn't know or didn't realize or are reminded that these forces are out there to be understood.

Look, I take little joy in hearing from some people; they are constantly negative, destructive, obtuse, muddy the waters, and are a drain on assets. But these folks give valuable information. They are us. They deserve to be heard. They are a part of our community. And, I further suggested in the deleted portion, they have been participating, as their own personal investments evolve, in supporting the kids end of cycling culture in programs the BTCEB has sponsored, developed, and promoted for years. I'm not sure they know that or would want to admit it and will try to distance themselves or deny our portion. So it goes. 

Recognizing the varied nature of such input we are further challenged here by a set of rules of behavior to try and keep things civil or be cast out. At the same time Chum, you have decided that a certain aspect of this thread is not pertinent. In addition Walt has referred to certain contributors as whiners. What this reveals to me is that we are all struggling with these issues and challenging some limits.

It is not enough to simply dismiss this stuff as bickering or toxic or off topic to eject it by some sense of legitimacy. It is, instead, very revealing and valuable content that needs airing out. That is the first step toward growth and change. This is very important stuff and it is one of the functions of MTBR which, over the years, has been a locus for the slow development of the mtb community. It's just not a s nice to work with as tools and trail kumbaya.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Chum, I disagree that the gobblydi**** you deleted was not pertinent. If you look at the initial post it is directly to the point, though instead of being aimed at IMBA it was aimed at me and the BTCEB. What you got was a real live person dealign with real live mountain bikers in real time, not from a backlog of PR.
> 
> These are the essential issues of representation and advocacy. Absent the challenging contributions from people like CB, iHeart, and Pete et al our discussions become skewed by the mass of folks who post in this forum who all range pretty close to the advocacy well; I include myself in that sample with the rest of you. While I rarely look forward to input from these guys they at least represent thinking from outside our envelope which, I might add, is a part of a greater mountain bike community than we advocates actually engage.
> 
> ...


Off topic bickering is not pertinent....nor am I showing any bias.

If it is important to you to discuss long ago past relationships about your local advocacy group please start another thread.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Mikey we all have shared our experiences, complaints, suggestions, and perspectives on this subject. Many have provided concise summation of this issue. We fully understand your gripe. 

You are your worst enemy, you sir are correct that the above post should be viewed objectively by your organization "Unchanged, the path that BTCEB is traveling now is that of a "Wedge" organization; pitting mountain biker against mountain biker, business owner against business owner, and non-profit against non-profit".

If you and Tom Ward feel "big air, speed, and skidding" are denigrating the sport you may be out of touch with the wants of the larger Mtb community and lack their support. If this is how you feel I do not want my IMBA donations going your way. You may look to other bike advocacy groups to meet your needs of peaceful coexistence with the goofy Liberal NIMBY's in the East Bay. 

I must say if this thread is representative of the builder/ advocates IMBA is a valuable organization to our sport very much doing a good job and occasionally pissing people off. Even Bacon has no real issues with IMBA. 

Please do not construe this post as dismissive we have listened to your problem in great detail and many posters have offered positive advice. Please take the time to objectively review the good stuff offered up by your fellow builder/ advocates.


----------



## Visicypher (Aug 5, 2004)

yes, please keep on topic of the OP.


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

ABud, is wrong... again!

At least there is consistency in this thread.

I have worked with IMBA in the past and had great successes. I am proud of this team work, the results, and am thankful for those experiences and relationships. My more recent experiences with IMBA are just as real but unfortunately are the antithesis of those past.

When an organization that seems inherently good does things that are blatantly unethical and wrong and those actions are supported from the top down, it has been compromised. Left unchallenged that organization has the capacity to transgress again. This does not mean that the organization is completely rotten to the core.

In the case of IMBA, IMBA's actions MUST be challenged from time to time. And, when IMBA has erred they must lead by example, accept responsibility, and their behavior MUST change accordingly. That is what leaders do.

What has been interesting is to see the tone and views expressed by those who seem to consider themselves "leaders" here on mtbr.com and maybe even in their local communities. All I will say is that I hope Berkeley Mike's org accepts memberships from out-of-towners.

For those of you who thought that I had thrown in the towel, sorry to disappoint. It's clear that some of you reject this type of dialog as constructive. It also seems as though some of you had hoped I would inject my personal experiences and gripes and kill the discussion... but it was never about me.

O' contrare. This thread is an experiment and an homage to my community, and has grown into a small tool; seemingly the only place/space on the Internet for open discussion of IMBA that still exists... The good, the bad, and the ugly.

Based on the 8k+ views, so far it has been a raging success and I hope that more people will follow this example by contributing and sharing their experience here and elsewhere with others.

A Happy New Year to everyone. May 2014 bring you more stewards, volunteers, paying members, opportunities, harmony with other trail users, and most importantly sweet trails.

CB


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

"My more recent experiences with IMBA are just as real but unfortunately are the antithesis of those past." CB

CB without sharing the detail of your beef with IMBA this is a problem that resides only in your head and of no constructive value.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

It seems like there should somehow be a separation from IMBA corporate and IMBA local. How about IMBAC and IMBAL respectively?

For this thread the focus is clearly on IMBAC and the policies, programs, and PR dictated to the local constituencies.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Chum, I disagree that the gobblydi**** you deleted was not pertinent. If you look at the initial post it is directly to the point, though instead of being aimed at IMBA it was aimed at me and the BTCEB. What you got was a real live person dealign with real live mountain bikers in real time, not from a backlog of PR.
> 
> These are the essential issues of representation and advocacy. Absent the challenging contributions from people like CB, iHeart, and Pete et al our discussions become skewed by the mass of folks who post in this forum who all range pretty close to the advocacy well; I include myself in that sample with the rest of you. While I rarely look forward to input from these guys they at least represent thinking from outside our envelope which, I might add, is a part of a greater mountain bike community than we advocates actually engage.
> 
> ...


621 words 3426 characters


----------



## Visicypher (Aug 5, 2004)

I am the mod of this form. I have quietly watched this unfold for some time now. I regret that you feel that I imposed my bias on this matter. I will say this...

After 8 pages, I respectfully request that everyone, not just you Mike, adhere to the forum guidelines. If you cannot, please respectfully agree to disagree.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

CANADIANBACON said:


> ABud, is wrong... again!
> 
> At least there is consistency in this thread.
> 
> ...


So let's hear the blatantly unethical and wrong because so far I'm just not seeing it.

If it is out there point it out, because even IMBA should be accountable and learn from it's mistakes.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

2bfluid said:


> It seems like there should somehow be a separation from IMBA corporate and IMBA local. How about IMBAC and IMBAL respectively?
> 
> For this thread the focus is clearly on IMBAC and the policies, programs, and PR dictated to the local constituencies.


To answer that: Thus far in our 2 year existence as an IMBA Chapter (I guess that would be what you are calling IMBA local?), we have not experienced IMBA "national" dictating anything to us.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

ABud said:


> Mikey we all have shared our experiences, complaints, suggestions, and perspectives on this subject. Many have provided concise summation of this issue. We fully understand your gripe.
> 
> You are your worst enemy, you sir are correct that the above post should be viewed objectively by your organization "Unchanged, the path that BTCEB is traveling now is that of a "Wedge" organization; pitting mountain biker against mountain biker, business owner against business owner, and non-profit against non-profit".
> 
> ...


One of the challenges to this discussion is that many are getting sidetracked by divisive issues as if our role here is to solve them or to decide which of them is right or wrong or valued or pointless. The format I have tried to create is to simply delineate the kinds of issues which cause distance and challenge representation. I have also tried to separate these ideas from characters and motives; it makes discussion less toxic and more productive.

It doesn't matter what my values are about who rides where or how or what, most especially as the representative leader of a large advocacy group because what we do is really defined by what is really possible. That is really a side issue for another thread and our Mod is correct to suggest that.

However, what matters is that these ideas are archetypes of the widely ranging mountain biking community and they pose specific challenges to representation. THAT is the main point of the OP. That it is focused at IMBA may or may not be appropriate; therein lies the combative nature of the discussion. Of course IMBA is not beside the point as it is in the initial thread and creates a good model for discussion. However, once we look at the problem, the examples aired, and targeting another org (I have no problem with using the BTCEB), we see that it is really a function of a community with varied needs confronting limited possibilities and there are questions about the usage of resources.

All valid. All to the point of the OP.

I have little doubt that much can be learned here. 9000 hits on this thread aren't just to watch a dog fight.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

I will say I am impressed by how well some of you can articulate your thoughts into words. I for one am not that good, so I drop out of these discussions due to my typing writing skills. But thank you for a good discussion.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

Late to the party, and my $0.02 only.

I am of the opinion that IMBA is necessary. I also believe it does more good than not. My club has become a chapter, and it's a positive development. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

IMBA and our state trails crew (Dept. Natural Resources) have taken on a big trail development project in my state of Wisconsin in the northwest region of Hayward, the CAMBA trail cluster. It's taking an already great area of trails up to the next level. Overall, it's a win for everyone in the midwest.

My problem with this isn't that the project is wrong in any meaningful sense of the word. It's that 1) the location of these trails is far, far away from the vast majority of riders in the state and 2) this project is the 800 lb gorilla that results in little else getting done. At least in terms of IMBA involvement or the state.

I'm fully on board with the idea that a big project will put our state on the map as a destination. Also that people in the remote areas need support too. And that the access is there in the north woods for some epic trail that isn't available where I live.

But on the other hand, in the south part of the state where most of the riders live we're struggling. Our regional IMBA rep is a decent guy, he's working hard on big stuff, but he's a no-show at local access meetings. Maybe it's too much to ask?

Here's an example of what I'm dealing with. I finally got a walk through to review a direly needed trail reroute in a designated sensitive area with a pair of DNR ecologists. (God knows when we will get a review from the state trails people.) FWIW I do my work in a state PARK not a conservation reserve. After a stretch of pushing through a particularly nasty patch of invasive plants next to a rails-to-trails conversion, one of the ecologists turned to me and asked "How much (trail) is enough?" Meaning, I guess, that despite having thousands of acres of conservation reserve that will never be developed for recreational use, building bike trails in a park is viewed as pushing the envelope of acceptability by the state ecological community. Or, at least by this particular member.

Is this the fault of IMBA? Of course not. But the problem I'm seeing from my tiny perspective is that IMBA is focusing on big wins at the expense of doing the less visible work that would benefit more riders. Maybe this is the approach that will yield the best results over the long haul. 

I'm not in a position to know what's the best use of resources at that level. But I do feel as a dedicated amateur trail builder, that I'm kinda falling between the cracks.

Walt


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Wow - raging thread here.

I am in the pro-IMBA corner. Our experiences, locally, have been stellar.

By our own advocacy efforts, but with the IMBA trail solutions book in hand, we gained access to West Branch State Park maybe 10 yrs. ago. The IMBA TCC came in way back then and did a clinic to get us off the ground (and several since then, and as recently as Oct. 2013). The place is pretty much the local crown jewel and gets wayyy too much traffic.

Since then we have been involved with trail plans in the Cleveland Metroparks, Cuyahoga Valley Nat'l Park, adjoining county parks, local city parks, all with limited (but necessary) IMBA involvement. We are fortunate to have a core group that has made an effort to learn the ropes of politics, differing land management policies, trailbuilding and trailbuilding instruction, conservation, fund raising, racing, multisport, charities, multi-user cooperation like the Ohio Trails Partnership (OTP), youth initiatives, along with countless other issues that face the MTBing community. We can also still accept donations for our own projects, tools, and support items. 2014 will see the start of MTB trail building within the Cuyahoga Valley Nat'l Park!

All that to say, we have received help from IMBA when needed, but they hardly dictated what we did or what projects we undertook. They did teach us how to avoid projects that could be a poor investment of our time and volunteer resources, and leverage our limited resources into larger projects that we could not otherwise handle.

All is a matter of record on the Cleveland Area Mountain Bike Association website.

2002 TCC Urban "Hotspot" Visit
Early History of CAMBA
Can CAMBA Manage MY park?

CAMBA has been at it for a long time. If there was no one around to grab the reins, maybe IMBA would be more involved (or maybe less! who knows?), or if the trail designers didn't have some vision we'd be riding what some people consider "by-the-book" trails. Truth is, the trails _are_ by the book, but with the addition of some imagination and local knowledge of the terrain and MTBing. All are required for optimum results. A hiker will not build the same trail as a MTBer, and someone from another region will take awhile to get familiar with the terrain.

Is there room for improvement? Sure.

Local effort will strongly impact the local results.

-F

PS - there is no "requirement" to belong to, or contribute to CAMBA in any way. All riders are included in all activities regardless. Strong local advocacy efforts exist without CAMBA. There are trails built and maintained by others; events, teams, classes, and group rides as well.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Great job, CAMBA!


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

For the last few weeks I've been contacted by quite a few fellow advocates to discuss my participation in this thread. Thanks for all of the great feedback! Some were even generous enough to send me links to articles relevant to the discussion that I had not read yet. Here are a few of those links that continue to provide context:

Team-Robot: IMBA was here

Dumbing down trails | Stronger Cyclist

A fellow mountain bike advocate presented me with a challenging perspective: He pointed out that the venerable professional trail builder's profit motive is often at odds with the end user's goal of quality of experience.

He claims that a pro trail builder's livelihood is predicated on a "successful working relationship" with the land manager and living within the terms of contract(s); backing-up decisions, following guidelines, and implementing a plan...no matter how un-friendly those guidelines or plan might be towards certain members of the local trail user community. He contends "therefore a pro trail builder's profit motive (need to put food on the table) can often be in direct conflict with the goals of the local trail user community". He also feels that due to certain cultural biases, in many cases the user group who is most often negatively affected is mountain bikers. Further, he points out that professional trail builders do have a choice, decide NOT to take a job that they feel could become a black spot on their resume but, that in his experience money has almost always resulted in the rationalization of what he views as a "bad decision".

My last question to him was "In your experience, do you see this trend among professional trail builders increasing?". His reply, an unequivocal "absolutely... yes".

In my personal experience the non-pro trail builders that I have known sought to do the best work they possibly could; building trails out of passion, and respect for the land and activities that they love. When viewing their work product here in Sedona it is obvious that they sought to design and build remarkable works of 'trail-art' rather than efficiently and effectively building mediocrity.

The questions that I have been pondering are:

Can the professional trail building community hope to be able to build the quality of trails/experiences that the mountain bike community has come to appreciate, expect, and seek out?... And yes, I am talking about "enduring", well built... what some refer to as "sustainable" trails. And,

Have/Will professional trail builders become an apologist for the land manager's sometimes poor decisions, and worse an impediment in the publics ability to redress them?

Very interesting indeed.

CB


----------



## pinkrobe (Jan 30, 2004)

Comment/Question for Mark - IMBA Canada appears to be circling the drain. Lora is gone, and there's virtually no staff left. Can you reassure me that we'll be able to get insurance through the IMBA/Oasis program? The only reason I bring this up here is that I don't think many people north of the 49th know the situation that IMBA Canada is in...


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

pinkrobe: We will issue a statement about IMBA Canada in upcoming days. It's a challenging situation, for sure. For a number of reasons, IMBA Canada has not attracted the critical mass of individual, club and corporate members needed to make it function smoothly, in a purely financial sense. But we have a game plan to save some money by handling fulfillment and communications from the U.S. office for at least some time, and to look for new sponsorship in Canada. IMBA Canada has had a hugely positive effect on MTBing up north, including what may be mountain biker's best relationship with a national parks administration in the world. We will do everything we can to keep that legacy moving forward. 

The insurance situation is also challenging at the moment, in part due to unresolved lawsuits that have the potential to reshape things. All we can do right now is urge the underwriters to hold off on any rate hikes or policy changes until we know more. IMBA has and will continue to send updates to chapter and club leaders, but at the same time we are exploring every option we can find for a long-lasting, affordable solution.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Canadianbacon, my turn to ask you a question. Have you ridden the reworked trail segments in the Hogs area described here?

Advanced Rock Armoring School in Sedona | International Mountain Bicycling Association

Did you think that this was a positive development?


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

I had a bit of a look at the Pisgah video in one of those links. The trails look fun, but you can see sections where water has run along the trail and places where some simple contouring would help avoid it happening. Now that may not be important to the average rider, but when you hear land managers expressing concern about excessive soil movement on short sections of DH trails (less than 30m), you have to understand that it is important to them.

So, if you go in there and renovate sections of Pisgah with appropriate IMBA standard contouring and drainage, you will end up with what people call sanitised or dumbed-down trail and people will start whining. However, if you went back to such a section of renovation a couple of years later, there would not be a highway of dumbed-down IMBA style trail, but regrowth and the line chosen by riders would be far more technical than perhaps looked possible at first.

I think people forget that what starts as a smooth surface will not remain that way, even on the most sustainable trails. They get exposed rocks and funky lines by rider choice unless built on deep road base. New trail has to be made wide enough to drain effectively off the riding line. Given time (except in a permanently desert environment) trails narrow and become more old school. It is all too easy to complain about building trail to a higher standard than was normal 20 years ago just because it looks different. It is also more likely that those who never helped build it will whine the hardest and ride it the most.

There should be challenge in MTB and I really do believe it is essential that experienced riders are taken care of. Sort of like a golf course design - it should be made for the scratch golfer. Therefore, even green trail should have in-built attractions to satisfy all, but there has to be a balance of tough trail and easy in all areas. Someone suggested the sport and trail building are in their infancy. Advocates (and Sadvocates) are aware that it is a matter of trust and proving our ability to maintain what we build and ride. Land managers look hard at that and it is not a surprise they demand trail suited to all level of riders before they allow a chunkfest down an exposed cliff.

Perhaps we are complaining about a lack of challenge too early... How IMBA deals with that pressure is only one question needing an answer.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Ridnparadise said:


> I had a bit of a look at the Pisgah video in one of those links. The trails look fun, but you can see sections where water has run along the trail and places where some simple contouring would help avoid it happening. Now that may not be important to the average rider, but when you hear land managers expressing concern about excessive soil movement on short sections of DH trails (less than 30m), you have to understand that it is important to them.
> 
> I don't mind soil movement as long as it stays out of the creeks and doesn't wash the trail out to the point that its impassable by even skilled riders. But any erosion is almost always viewed as horrible.
> 
> ...


If you can build entertaining trail on USFS land (by their own standards no doubt), you can build it almost anywhere. But LMs want more than just hard ass crazy trail. Me, not so much.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Mark E said:


> Canadianbacon, my turn to ask you a question. Have you ridden the reworked trail segments in the Hogs area described here?
> 
> Advanced Rock Armoring School in Sedona | International Mountain Bicycling Association
> 
> Did you think that this was a positive development?


Mark,

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm a member of both SMBC (ex-chapter) and VVVC (IMBA affiliate). I'll give a shot at your question. I believe that most SMBC members I've talked to believe that yes, the berm is a positive development. Note that this is the only reworked trail segment. Given the limited budget the main issue that I've heard voiced is whether or not this berm was needed to bring this section of the trail into a sustainable standard when there are other sections in far more need of repair. I think everyone would agree the berm is a good work product. The 2nd pic is from another section of the trail that I took from the hydrologist's report as part of NEPA review. Perhaps all in due time and sometimes all that is needed is a little communication and the locked out members of SMBC feel like they have no voice and obviously don't have a seat at the table.

The other issue I've heard voiced is whether or not the weekend clinic on berm building was pro bono or if some of the limited funding went to IMBA for the technical rock armoring training? If so, spend the money where the work is need the most. Keep in mind there are quite a few trail builders who already know how to build with rock or we wouldn't have the awesome, user-built trail system that exists today.

Lastly, there is a conceptual issue or bigger picture with what the end product should be. No doubt the berm was built to last but to adopt trails like High on the Hog and Hog Heaven into system status, do they need berms? On what were once mtn bike built, secret-handshake type trails the hiker:biker ratio is now 20:1 and approaching 50:1 on a busy weekend. Since the FS is not willing to entertain the idea of building user-specific trails they are by necessity multi-use. Equestrians are now excluded from some trails which is good. But hikers don't necessarily want to hike trails with berms and other features and end up short-cutting trails or walking around such features. Berms allow riders to corner faster and it will only lead to more negative encounters.

Sorry for the long-winded reply but really all it boils down to is communication. Most folks I've talked to didn't even know there was a clinic until after the fact. And perhaps that's just how it is. The FS gets to choose who the want to work with.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Rockman -- thanks for the thoughtful post. As far as funding goes, my understanding is that IMBA used Trail Building Fund money to donate our services (via Joey Klein) completely pro bono. If I find out that's not the case I'll state whatever i learn here. 

You wrote: The FS gets to choose who the want to work with.

I suppose that was the main point of the rock work clinic. The berm construction was meant to serve as an example of how trails can be built with bike-friendly features that are sustainable and require little maintenance. By hosting a trail building session with representation from multiple user groups, mountain bikers position themselves as productive partners. 

I'm sure you already know that -- I'm stating this more for other readers.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Ridnparadise said:


> So, if you go in there and renovate sections of Pisgah with appropriate IMBA standard contouring and drainage, you will end up with what people call sanitised or dumbed-down trail and people will start whining. However, if you went back to such a section of renovation a couple of years later, there would not be a highway of dumbed-down IMBA style trail, but regrowth and the line chosen by riders would be far more technical than perhaps looked possible at first.
> 
> You are dead on, this is about education or a lack there of, and the set of circumstances around a trail system. By keeping reroutes of hard or most difficult trails, challenging and in a similar feel to what you are replacing or the character of area in general, it will go a long way for generating credibility in the upper level riding community.
> 
> ...


A very real concern if you are a local chapter trying to gain credibility. Balancing the wants of LMs vs an experienced rider base is a HUGE issue facing IMBA/SORBA. Quality execution and education are, IMHO, the keys to success.

This has nothing to do with the OP, but who knows where a thread like this will end up these days.


----------



## 2bfluid (Aug 17, 2008)

Well, that's a first. My bad. I responded to the same post twice. Basically said the same thing both times with a slightly different stance. Too much going on for me lately..... sorry if you read it twice.


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

The IMBA Au response to the 'has IMBA lost it's soul' article.

ISSUU - IMBA Australia Autumn Edition 2014 by Another Awesome Publication


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

The PDF link to an essay by IMBA Australia's director was posted earlier. Here's the copy:

The SOUL of IMBA 

Confessions of a National Director

Recently (late 2013) I was made aware of an article (blog) from the US that was titled “Has IMBA lost its Soul?”. I read through the article and comments with much trepidation. I have seen this kind of debate before at the local and state level here in Oz and it is never pretty. Upon reading the article I really started to feel disappointed and shocked. After all these years, some bike riders still cannot see the bigger picture of what we, IMBA are trying to do. What initially started out as healthy debate pretty quickly turning into a mud-slinging contest in a realm where IMBA staff and supporters cannot defend themselves or their actions. Sure the debate raises some valid points, many of which are specific to business interests of IMBA in the US, but the sheer hatred of IMBA by some is difficult to fathom and even harder to swallow, particularly when some of the folks perpetrating the hatred have benefited significantly both financially and in regard to their ongoing relationships with land managers from the hard work of IMBA at some point in the past. To me it seems to be the “tall poppy” syndrome and IMBA become the target for any changes, even evolution of the single track discipline. 

As someone who has worked solidly for 10 years promoting the IMBA model in SA and now as the national rep for IMBA, this emotion, the kind subjective nonsense in the article and comments really gets under my skin. The notion that IMBA has lost its soul is totally misinformed. IMBA is the link! IMBA is the principle, the model approach, the blue print that has enabled Australian land mangers to embrace MTB single track. Time and time again I have seen councillors and park rangers literally change their minds right before my eyes once they have heard what IMBA reps have had to say. IMBA is the link between the land mangers and the riders. Without IMBA we would not have the extent of MTB trails in Australia we now have. I know this better than most because I have been on the front line of trail advocacy for a long time. Maybe too long, and while I am not opposed to criticism and constructive feedback, this kind of mud-slinging and undermining of the IMBA principles is stupid on so many levels. 

A big part of the confusion I think is because IMBA and sometimes other trail professionals are working for the land managers while still trying to represent the riding community. In a commercial sense, when IMBA Australia is assessing existing trails or designing new trails, we are working directly for the land manager as the client. We always have the end user (MTB riders or shared use) in mind, but ultimately the client dictates the nature of projects and the level of risk they are prepared to accommodate. In many instances, land managers work in virtual isolation, so even if something has worked for the bigger dept in one area of their state, a new area has to go through the same old consultation and approval processes once again. We have to run through the same old tired (tyred) arguments, address the same old misconceptions and face the seemingly limitless fears that officials and residents carry with them. Every new trail area is like a microcosm of the broader trail access debate. Every battle plays out in similar ways and there is no way to fast track any of it, thanks to the extensive bureaucracy that has been created at every level in this country (local, state and federal). So we, the professionals, have to work through the whole process time and time again from whoa to go, attempting to maintain professionalism and objectivity in the face of screaming subjectivity and divisiveness. And let me tell you, it takes extreme patience and self control of passionate individuals to wade through these issues and at times you can understand that I have felt like I am banging my head against a wall – “why doesn’t anyone understand!” It’s so simple, the kids just want to ride their bikes on dirt! 

Many land managers are catering for MTBing for the first time and so it’s only reasonable that they start at the low end of the sport, specifically green and blue trails, that are more inclusive, less risky and easier to justify to the authorities. Strategically it makes sense to cater for the novice and intermediate riders first and once established with documented success, then more elite experiences can be rolled out. It’s the only rational approach, and IMBA Australia is part of the puzzle to make it work. Yet many riders lack the patience and the foresight to understand these long term plans and they scream for high end trail right now or they go build their own and undermine the process once again. It can be a vicious circle with the glass is half empty attitude. Essentially those of us at IMBA are like the “meat in the sandwich”. We get drilled by the conservationists and risk adverse loons and then at the same time we are getting hammered by the loudest members of the MTB community, many of who are respected role models, for “dumbing down” trails. It is a really tough place to be and no, we do not get paid enough to deal with this kind of punishment. While I am fighting the battle for MTB riders, who has got my back! Yet the very nature of our sport means this aspect of the job at IMBA may never change. We just have support each other and keep telling ourselves it is for the greater good. 

So even after you have bent over backwards, trying to find workable compromises with the land managers, questioned your own sanity each step of the way and given up your own ride time to help someone else make their trail dreams a reality, the very high expectations of parts of the MTB community will never be met. So my mantra over the years has been that “if we can keep half the people happy half the time, then we are doing ok”. From experience the silent majority are extremely happy with what IMBA does. It could be surmised that it is mostly the old dinosaurs that had their heyday in the 1990’s, who cannot adjust to the new school trail developments and massive influx of new riders. MTB is not on the fringe anymore, it’s gone mainstream and we need to keep up. If a trail gets “dumbed down” you can be sure that the land manager and their lawyers have asked it to be so, and for some reason IMBA get the blame! It’s crazy, and some MTB riders have successfully sued land managers in this country for various incidents, only to get back on the bike later and continue to enjoy freely supplied single track. It is no wonder that land managers are nervous about MTB because even if they do provide a full and proper “duty of care” the chances are it will be cheaper to settle out of court than to fight against civil actions! Just keep in mind, when trails loose their “cutting edge” appeal, sometimes there are big reasons behind the scenes. Reasons that span our whole society in Australia. 

A big part of the confusion I think is because IMBA and sometimes other trail professionals are working for the land managers while still trying to represent the riding community. In a commercial sense, when IMBA Australia is assessing existing trails or designing new trails, we are working directly for the land manager as the client. We always have the end user (MTB riders or shared use) in mind, but ultimately the client dictates the nature of projects and the level of risk they are prepared to accommodate. In many instances, land managers work in virtual isolation, so even if something has worked for the bigger dept in one area of their state, a new area has to go through the same old consultation and approval processes once again. We have to run through the same old tired (tyred) arguments, address the same old misconceptions and face the seemingly limitless fears that officials and residents carry with them. Every new trail area is like a microcosm of the broader trail access debate. Every battle plays out in similar ways and there is no way to fast track any of it, thanks to the extensive bureaucracy that has been created at every level in this country (local, state and federal). So we, the professionals, have to work through the whole process time and time again from whoa to go, attempting to maintain professionalism and objectivity in the face of screaming subjectivity and divisiveness. And let me tell you, it takes extreme patience and self control of passionate individuals to wade through these issues and at times you can understand that I have felt like I am banging my head against a wall – “why doesn’t anyone understand!” It’s so simple, the kids just want to ride their bikes on dirt! 

So even after you have bent over backwards, trying to find workable
compromises with the land managers, questioned your own
sanity each step of the way and given up your own ride time to
help someone else make their trail dreams a reality, the very high
expectations of parts of the MTB community will never be met.
So my mantra over the years has been that “if we can keep half
the people happy half the time, then we are doing ok”. From experience
the silent majority are extremely happy with what IMBA
does. It could be surmised that it is mostly the old dinosaurs that
had their heyday in the 1990’s, who cannot adjust to the new
school trail developments and massive influx of new riders. MTB
is not on the fringe anymore, it’s gone mainstream and we need
to keep up. If a trail gets “dumbed down” you can be sure that
the land manager and their lawyers have asked it to be so, and
for some reason IMBA get the blame! It’s crazy, and some MTB
riders have successfully sued land managers in this country for
various incidents, only to get back on the bike later and continue
to enjoy freely supplied single track. It is no wonder that land
managers are nervous about MTB because even if they do provide
a full and proper “duty of care” the chances are it will be
cheaper to settle out of court than to fight against civil actions!
Just keep in mind, when trails loose their “cutting edge” appeal,
sometimes there are big reasons behind the scenes. Reasons
that span our whole society in Australia.
Anyway – that’s a plenty big enough rant from me. It’s all worth
it in the end! Get out there and ride!
— Nick Bowman, IMBA Oz Executive Director


----------

