# Moab to be closed?



## superdave08300 (Nov 13, 2008)

Jus read this on the Cycle news web site, I ride both mountain bikes and dirt bikes and it seems that the bill is from a congressman in New York who is forcing his agenda on the people of Utah. My view is that public land should be used and shared by all responsible users, The Goverment wants all groups to fight amongst themselves, Horse riders, mountainbikers, motorized users and hikers. They then site "user conflict" and shut down everything. How many hard core hikers really go 20 miles in and back out? In fact hikers have many "wilderness areas" where they alone can play. This gets introduced Oct 1 so get your voice heard.


In a surprise move, the chairman of a U.S. House subcommittee has scheduled a hearing for next week on a proposal that would ban off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and bicycles from more than 9 million acres of public land in Utah, the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) reports.

The AMA is urging all riders to contact their U.S. representatives immediately to ask them to oppose the proposal, H.R. 1925, which is the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009. Concerned riders can contact their federal lawmakers by going to the Rights section of the AMA website at AmericanMotorcyclist.com and then clicking on the "Issues and Legislation" link.

While U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, has yet to officially announce his intention to hold the hearing, the AMA has confirmed that H.R. 1925 will be considered on Thursday, Oct. 1.

The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, would ban motorized recreation on 9.4 million acres of public land in Utah by inappropriately designating it as Wilderness.

The devastating proposal would impact the Moab, San Rafael Swell and Chimney Rock riding areas, among others.


----------



## KRob (Jan 13, 2004)

superdave08300 said:


> The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, would ban motorized recreation on 9.4 million acres of public land in Utah by inappropriately designating it as Wilderness.


What a tool. I'm sure IMBA and the AMA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition will be all over this one if it gets very far (which I doubt). But we can't afford to stand idly by doing nothing. Let your voice (and your dollars) be heard. Write a letter, join an advocacy group that supports our right to ride, or be prepared to lose more land to the Wilderness Jihad.


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

Here is the text of the bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1925

Talk about a negative economics impact. It might render Moab a ghost town if it gets passed.

It's almost a joke to read it.

BTW, this bill has been introduced over and over since 1995. Shot down every time.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1925&tab=related


----------



## chas_martel (May 14, 2006)

lidarman said:


> BTW, this bill has been introduced over and over since 1995. Shot down every time.


But now there are no Republican's to stop it. With a Dem controlled house, Senate and Presidency it will sail through.


----------



## hurf de durf (Aug 23, 2007)

What a ridiculous assertion.


----------



## Loudpawlz (Jan 26, 2004)

hurf de durf said:


> What a ridiculous assertion.


You're right. This bill is designed to distract us so they can take our guns.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Loudpawlz said:


> You're right. This bill is designed to distract us so they can take our guns.


 Not to mention redristribution of wealth.


----------



## auto (Aug 27, 2009)

Loudpawlz said:


> You're right. This bill is designed to distract us so they can take our guns.


They can have my guns after 17K rounds, one at a time.


----------



## nonoy_d (Jun 27, 2005)

*wasted tax money again*

Another waste of tax dollars just to introduce this frivolous bill!!!


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

IMO a lot of what's in the bill would be great to see made into wilderness, some of it not so much. I wouldn't like to see the established mtn bike areas designated wilderness, but I'll tell you what, the desert is being trashed and _something _needs to be done. OHV tire tracks everywhere. Some Mtn Bikers are doing their best to keep up with the motor crowd, but 1/2 HP just can't compete with a 450 cc moto or military vehicle like rock crawler when it comes to chewing up cyptogamic soil


----------



## orangedog (Aug 30, 2008)

lidarman said:


> BTW, this bill has been introduced over and over since 1995. Shot down every time.
> 
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1925&tab=related


Great link - thanks for sharing. Including this introduction, this bill has been introduced 15 times since 1995, every time by Hinchey (D-NY) and Durbin (D-IL).

The committee that it has been submitted to has 12 Dems, 10 Reps, and 1 Ind. That includes representatives from multiple states, of course, but included in those states are WA, ID, OR, AZ, NM, CO, and UT. With any luck, the reps of those states (and maybe VT) would be massively against this, as some portion of their economies rely on similar types of economy activity (active tourism).

So, while the assumption may be that it won't go anywhere this time (historical trend), trail and park advocacy is still a good idea and, IMO, support should be given to those with the voices who reflect our interests (IMBA, local volunteers, etc.). :thumbsup:

EDIT: The subcommittee includes the representatives from UT, OR, NM, WA, AZ, ID, SD, and CO, as 8 of the 16.


----------



## natebob (Nov 3, 2005)

Interesting. See also this thread:

http://telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=60414&sid=c238df49411c909a55d8d56c1700a5b8

How do we preserve our rights to recreate and use our public lands? How do we all play nice and get along? Are there really just too damn many of us? I don't have any answers, but I think that in the end, there are just too damn many people, or at least too many that don't respect the land or others. Get out there and enjoy whatever it is you do on the public lands, but do it respectfully, and tread lightly.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Genocide is the answer my friends. Less people to harm the wilderness so the problem would be solved.


----------



## Monte (Dec 20, 2003)

Cantwell, meh.


----------



## greg de taos (Jul 23, 2007)

I am almost totally surrounded by wilderness and wilderness study areas. I pay taxes and spend way more time in the woods than most. I feel that it is high time for us to have the same sort of organization and lobbying effort that the hikers and the equestrians have. Another bill was just introduced to designate hundreds of thousands of acres in southern New Mexico. The effort is being spearheaded by hiking interest groups. What is it going to take to get us bikers together, are we going to loose all of our rights and then say, oh crap we should have done something? I know we are made up of many different groups, downhillers, XC guys, dirt jumpers, but if we were ever going to come together and really lobby our government to represent us the way we should, now is the time. Even if this bill is another waste, there will be another and another after that.

Does anyone ever go against the hiking lobby? Do they ever loose rights? How about the equestrians? I would guess not. Lets go IMBA. If it can't be you then there has to be another group formed, for all bikers. It is time to put down our differences and organize, lest we loose it all.

Like it or not this affects all of us, even if you live far to the east of the wilderness issue, you will come out someday and run into a no bikes allowed sign and you will hate it too.


----------



## wilonpill (Aug 19, 2009)

Please don't turn this into a hikers vs. 4x4's vs. bikers. We all need to work together to preserve the land for everyone to use. Divided we will all lose it.


----------



## scoutcat (Mar 30, 2008)

join imba http://www.imba.com/membership/choose_membership.php and
get active in your community - thats the only way to preserve trails.


----------



## MCsanandreas (Jan 19, 2008)

speaking from England i would love to ride Moab oneday. has any thought been given to the loss of tourist money if this went ahead?


----------



## greg de taos (Jul 23, 2007)

I am not trying to turn this into a us vs. them, just a call to protect ourselves. I agree that working locally is nice but we have to realize that hikers equestrians and even ATV folks have strong representation in DC and they get what they want, sign up for their mailing lists and you will see what I meant. Those that make the most noise win, and we aren't making nearly enough noise in the right places.

I get an email once a week from a hikers group asking me to write my congressmen and senators to help keep bikers off of trails, I always fill out their form letter in favor of us bikers and send it back on American Hiking Society letterhead.

I don't mind seeing others on the trails, but I don't want to be excluded especially from my own backyard.


----------



## hfly (Dec 30, 2003)

Can't say I'm the slightest bit worried over this.

hfly


----------



## cobi (Apr 29, 2008)

Sad to see a CO senator sponsoring this. I'll be emailing him.

I think it's telling that neither of the senators from UT support this. I guess that's how big government works..... let's let everyone else decide what's best for YOUR state.


----------



## mstguide (Oct 20, 2008)

one step closer to communism! 
Government of the people (people= those in the white house with free insurance and pay pentions for the rest of their life.)


----------



## notaknob (Apr 6, 2004)

*So Hardcore*



mstguide said:


> one step closer to communism!
> Government of the people (people= those in the white house with free insurance and pay pentions for the rest of their life.)


You wouldn't know communism, socialism or fascism if it bit you in the ass.


----------



## notaknob (Apr 6, 2004)

*Stick to your guns*



Loudpawlz said:


> You're right. This bill is designed to distract us so they can take our guns.


They already got mine.


----------



## mstguide (Oct 20, 2008)

notaknob said:


> You wouldn't know communism, socialism or fascism if it bit you in the ass.


just keep watching


----------



## notaknob (Apr 6, 2004)

*Eyes of time*



mstguide said:


> just keep watching


You still have no concept about what an "ism" is. You don't even know how this would even bring about such a change, or what that change would be. You can't even identify how this law would even begin to bring about your false charge of communism. You're just spouting something you heard on the TV or radio.

That means you're in the vocal majority. Congratulations.


----------



## mstguide (Oct 20, 2008)

notaknob said:


> You still have no concept about what an "ism" is. You don't even know how this would even bring about such a change, or what that change would be. You can't even identify how this law would even begin to bring about your false charge of communism. You're just spouting something you heard on the TV or radio.
> 
> That means you're in the vocal majority. Congratulations.


your way is the only way INTERESTING.


----------



## greg de taos (Jul 23, 2007)

double post, server is messed up right now.


----------



## greg de taos (Jul 23, 2007)

Notaknob is pointing out that you are mis-using the term communist. How is it communist when you can vote the congressman out of office? Hell, you can call his office anytime you want. The feds are not taking over land that was privately owned, they are simply changing the designation of the land that they already own.

Use of buzzwords and labels that don't even make sense do not help our case, we need intelligent dialog about what we want our wild places to look like in this country, not just spouting of what you hear on Fox News.


----------



## BlueMountain (Nov 8, 2006)

Bring Bush back!


----------



## orangedog (Aug 30, 2008)

cobi said:


> let's let everyone else decide what's best for YOUR state.


similar to Yucca Mountain, right?


----------



## joshman108 (Jul 6, 2009)

auto said:


> They can have my guns after 17K rounds, one at a time.


        AMEN TO THAT!


----------



## Felton_Flyer (Dec 11, 2008)

notaknob said:


> They already got mine...


nice one

(homebrewbandolero)


----------



## M_S (Nov 18, 2007)

Mountain biking isn't a right. Defend continued access with coherent, meaningful arguments, not reactionary, whiny drivel.

Why do the wingnuts always come out in force for these threads?


----------



## mikedirectory2 (Mar 9, 2009)

I had no idea any of this was going on, I should read the news more often...


----------



## greg de taos (Jul 23, 2007)

M_S said:


> Mountain biking isn't a right. Defend continued access with coherent, meaningful arguments, not reactionary, whiny drivel.
> 
> Why do the wingnuts always come out in force for these threads?


I wish we wouldn't call each other names, way too easy to hide behind the internet. I was hoping for some intelligent discussion on what we, as a group, could do about the wilderness issue. I guess this is not the place for that though, just wish I knew what was.


----------



## Trail Cruzer (Nov 11, 2008)

I don't wont to turn this thread into a mountain biker verses ATV fight, but we are loosing many great bike trails to irresponsible motorized use in Utah. Something needs to be done.


----------



## Felton_Flyer (Dec 11, 2008)

notaknob said:


>


this picture nails it ... I'm always amazed at the folks who are willing to take such a vocal stand against their own best interests, including many on this board.

then I recall the words of one of the 'founding fathers', John Adams (certainly not a great example, but in this case it is apt):

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide" - John Adams


----------



## notaknob (Apr 6, 2004)

*Pork Chops & Mustard Greens*



greg de taos said:


> I wish we wouldn't call each other names, way too easy to hide behind the internet. I was hoping for some intelligent discussion on what we, as a group, could do about the wilderness issue. I guess this is not the place for that though, just wish I knew what was.


If there's anybody who would be worried about this, it would be a local. From what I've seen in the news and other discussions, I'm going to follow hfly's lead.



> Can't say I'm the slightest bit worried over this.
> 
> hfly


If it was a corporation interested in exploiting the natural resources, I would be concerned.


----------



## canuckjgc (Jun 22, 2007)

Wow amazing. I shake my head. Americans are currently debating a public health care system, and at the same time, *banning* bicycles from 9 million acres?? 

Seems to me that if a government wants a public health care system, it should open up every square inch of the country to biking and hiking, anything to encourage people to stay fit and stay out of the hospitals with weight related health problems.


----------



## sunset1123 (Apr 28, 2009)

canuckjgc said:


> Wow amazing. I shake my head. Americans are currently debating a public health care system, and at the same time, *banning* bicycles from 9 million acres??
> 
> Seems to me that if a government wants a public health care system, it should open up every square inch of the country to biking and hiking, anything to encourage people to stay fit and stay out of the hospitals with weight related health problems.


+100

Then you just have to pry them out of their sofas and slap 'em around until that glazed look from the hours spent in front of the TV starts to fade...


----------



## VanHalen (Apr 1, 2009)

I think the trails should be closed to quads. I am a mountain biker, dirtbiker, and an equestrian, and these all are sports that require a lot of skill to conquer the terrain.

I can't count the number of times however, I have seen some douchebag on a quad, ripping around without having a clue to what he's doing, out of control and totally disregarding trail etiquette. How many times I've had to do an emergency stop on the dirtbike, just because these vatos come sailing around a blind corner :madman: . Either that or it's some bimbo putsing around well used MX trails at 5MPH being a danger to everybody including herself...:nono: 

When it comes to 4x4's it's kind of half and half. Most guys out there seem to be pretty serious, and have some regard for the safety of themselves as well as other trail users....


----------



## notaknob (Apr 6, 2004)

*God Bless the U.S.A.*



VanHalen said:


> I can't count the number of times however, I have seen some douchebag on a quad, ripping around without having a clue to what he's doing, out of control and totally disregarding trail etiquette. How many times I've had to do an emergency stop on the dirtbike, just because these vatos come sailing around a blind corner :madman: . Either that or it's some bimbo putsing around well used MX trails at 5MPH being a danger to everybody including herself...:nono:


Why do you hate America? That's the sound, feeling of freedom out there!


----------



## VanHalen (Apr 1, 2009)

notaknob said:


> Why do you hate America? That's the sound, feeling of freedom out there!


You can enjoy freedom and be responsible at the same time. If you're sharing an area with other people you need to keep each other safe.... There are certain groups of people out there that abuse that freedom, and it's always a few people that ruin it for the rest. I'm just trying to point fingers here, at the quad peoples


----------



## greg de taos (Jul 23, 2007)

canuckjgc said:


> Wow amazing. I shake my head. Americans are currently debating a public health care system, and at the same time, *banning* bicycles from 9 million acres??
> 
> Seems to me that if a government wants a public health care system, it should open up every square inch of the country to biking and hiking, anything to encourage people to stay fit and stay out of the hospitals with weight related health problems.


Good point.

I wonder if anyone has brought that up to congress? Put a few fit, healthy mountain bikers in front of them, do a little polling about how often those guys end up sick in the hospital, We may get some scrapes and bruises, maybe even a few broken bones, but I am sure that pales in comparison to the illnesses related to sitting on your ass.


----------



## canuckjgc (Jun 22, 2007)

You've got that right. A broken bone might cost a couple of thousand tops to the health care system. A double bypass is hundreds of thousands of dollars, same with weight-induced diabetes, strokes, etc etc etc.

If a kid lives by miles of open bike trails, he or she is more likely to pick up a bike and ride them. If he or she is not allowed to ride anywhere but the street, then on goes the tube more often.


----------



## mstguide (Oct 20, 2008)

greg de taos said:


> Notaknob is pointing out that you are mis-using the term communist. How is it communist when you can vote the congressman out of office? Hell, you can call his office anytime you want. The feds are not taking over land that was privately owned, they are simply changing the designation of the land that they already own.
> 
> Use of buzzwords and labels that don't even make sense do not help our case, we need intelligent dialog about what we want our wild places to look like in this country, not just spouting of what you hear on Fox News.


I agree with you. However we all need to understand the bigger picture. The people have refuse the bill, how come it keeps coming back? Obviously the government does not want to listen to the people. Because it keep on bringing the issue back.


----------



## mstguide (Oct 20, 2008)

Greg de taos
And by the way my remarks was "One step closer. . . "
We still have the powers of choice. We still have the power of vote.
We also have responsibilities to respect each other on our own.


----------



## bulletboy (Sep 6, 2004)

The Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing on October 1 to consider H.R. 1925, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009.

This legislation -- which will ban off-highway vehicle (OHV) access to public lands to those who live and recreate in
Utah -- was introduced by New York Representative Maurice Hinchey.

However, not a single Representative from Utah is supporting H.R.1925.

Specifically, H.R. 1925 would designate more than nine million more acres as federally protected "Wilderness," and directly affect the Moab, San Rafael Swell and Chimney Rock areas (to name a few) in Utah.

These popular OHV areas represent some of the most important remaining OHV recreation areas in Utah, and are some of the most popular with responsible OHV riders. The proposed Wilderness designation would also make the land off limits to ATV riders, mountain bikers and horseback
riders.

Coming on the heels of the recently enacted Omnibus Public Land Management Act, which closed 2 million acres of public lands, this vast Wilderness bill will take away additional recreation opportunities currently enjoyed by local residents and visitors alike.

The AMA needs your help now to stop H.R. 1925. The fastest way to reach your U.S. Representative is to call them. You can find contact information for your elected officials by entering your zip code on AmericanMotorcyclist.com, clicking on "Rights," then "Issues and Legislation." Additionally, a prewritten e-mail is available for you to send to your Representative immediately by following the "Take
Action" option and entering your information.

Please contact your Representative right away and urge them to oppose H.R. 1925.

It's VERY VERY SIMPLE! Just click here...

http://capwiz.com/amacycle/issues/alert/?alertid=13201271CLICK THIS LINK! Tell your rep to vote NO!

... and you will be taken to the AMA's (American Motorcycle
Association) website. Enter your zip code and a letter will be sent to your representative urging them to vote NO on this bill.

Do it NOW! please

Everybody help this Bill Fail!!!

Want to do something about preventing this from passing?

CLICK THE LINK: And tell your representative to vote NO.


----------



## Funrover (Oct 4, 2006)

More BS from our government...When will this crap at least slow down


----------



## notaknob (Apr 6, 2004)

*Letter from the Government*



mstguide said:


> I agree with you. However we all need to understand the bigger picture. The people have refuse the bill, how come it keeps coming back? Obviously the government does not want to listen to the people. Because it keep on bringing the issue back.


Do a bit of research on Constitutional Republics, Representative Democracies and representation by population. It will explain much more than I care to impart to you.

Once you've done that bit of research, go to the govtrack.us site and follow the progression of this bill. Then see who has sponsored it. Backtracking along that site, see what committees that congressperson is on. That would explain why this congressperson is re-submitting this bill continuously.

Or just complain about how the government never listens and can't get anything done.


----------



## Berkley (May 21, 2007)

That's my idiot congressman. Why he thinks he should be wasting his time of trying to shut down the mountain biking capital of the world to mountain bikes is beyond me. It's not like we don't have plenty of **** in our own district that needs fixing.

EDIT: Bulletboy, the link you posted is for H.R. 980, not 1925. There is a difference - the two bills do not overlap.


----------



## crashtestdummy (Jun 18, 2005)

bulletboy said:


> These popular OHV areas represent some of the most important remaining OHV recreation areas in Utah, and are some of the most popular with responsible OHV riders. The proposed Wilderness designation would also make the land off limits to ATV riders, mountain bikers and *horseback
> riders.*
> [/COLOR]


Horses are allowed in wilderness areas.


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

BlueMountain said:


> Bring Bush back!


Here ya go!


----------



## notaknob (Apr 6, 2004)

*Slicin' Sand*



GoGoGordo said:


> Here ya go!


And so it begins...


----------



## Dwight Moody (Jan 10, 2004)

mstguide said:


> Greg de taos
> And by the way my remarks was "One step closer. . . "


Closer to communism by changing the regulations on publicly own lands? Should we privatize the lands? That would be the way to move AWAY from communally owned land, the hallmark of Communism.


----------



## pureslop (Jul 28, 2008)

I own property in Utah and have biked and hiked Moab extensively. Although most users are respectful, there are a certain percentage of users in Utah who have absolutely no concern for the damage they cause. A few are ruining it for everyone else. And its not just the red neck piston heads. A few mtb free riders are building jumps in areas where they shouldn't even be riding.


----------



## jrabenaldt (Feb 24, 2005)

But that is true with pretty much anything. The "few" are causing all of the attention, especially the negative.


----------



## bigpedaler (Jan 29, 2007)

I know it's been said before, long long ago, and nobody professes much of any hope of this, but the whole answer (for us) would be to repeal the amendment to the Wilderness Act of '64 that changed the wording from 'motorized' to 'mechanized'.

There's all kinds of environmental studies that show the LACK of impact MTB tires have on the earth, especially compared to horse hooves. So the 'concern for the environment' is a crock, it's all a special interest land grab.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

mstguide said:


> I agree with you. However we all need to understand the bigger picture. The people have refuse the bill, how come it keeps coming back? Obviously the government does not want to listen to the people. Because it keep on bringing the issue back.


B/C some tool has people voting for them that support banning travel there even though they will never go there.

Remember "all politics is local." While that is not always true it often is.

There are all sorts of stupid things that go on b/c some constituents like it. They get placated with a bill that has no chance of passing, and then vote the incumbent back in.



nonoy_d said:


> Another waste of tax dollars just to introduce this frivolous bill!!!


True


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Write , email or otherwise let your representitive your views on this and other issues. More importantly VOTE, get rid of these morons .


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bigpedaler said:


> I know it's been said before, long long ago, and nobody professes much of any hope of this, but the whole answer (for us) would be to repeal the amendment to the Wilderness Act of '64 that changed the wording from 'motorized' to 'mechanized'.
> 
> There's all kinds of environmental studies that show the LACK of impact MTB tires have on the earth, especially compared to horse hooves. So the 'concern for the environment' is a crock, it's all a special interest land grab.


:thumbsup:

That amendment is idiotic. Damn horse lobby and Sierra Club morons.


----------



## LarryFahn (Jul 19, 2005)

Carry on...



Edit


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Write , email or otherwise let your representitive your views on this and other issues. More importantly VOTE, get rid of these morons .


Voting is nice, but unless you happen to live in NY in the right district you cant get rid of the person introducing this crap.


----------



## LncNuvue (May 28, 2008)

I have always wondered why mountain bikes get lumped in with dirt bikes and 4x4's. Doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

LncNuvue said:


> I have always wondered why mountain bikes get lumped in with dirt bikes and 4x4's. Doesn't make much sense to me.


Because horse owners, anti-human "environmentalists" and idiot politicians do not like sharing our land with either.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

LncNuvue said:


> I have always wondered why mountain bikes get lumped in with dirt bikes and 4x4's. Doesn't make much sense to me.


The forest service and BLM has changed this. "Mechanized" is it's own categorization.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Curmy said:


> Because horse owners, anti-human "environmentalists" and idiot politicians do not like sharing our land with either.


Not only is this statement foolish, childish and wrong, it's not useful.


----------



## orangedog (Aug 30, 2008)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Write , email or otherwise let your representitive your views on this and other issues. More importantly VOTE, get rid of these morons .


Yes! After doing a little reading, I may also sign up with IMBA.

After the Public Lands Omnibus Management Act was voted on by Congress and signed by Obama, it may be premature to assume that this will just get brushed aside as it has in the past.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-146

check out the cosponsors


----------



## LncNuvue (May 28, 2008)

zrm said:


> The forest service and BLM has changed this. "Mechanized" is it's own categorization.


That's good to know. I need to learn more about this stuff. I joined IMBA last year and contribute what I can. I guess that's a start.

"Mechanized" use in wilderness would solve 99.9% of our access issues, right?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

LncNuvue said:


> "Mechanized" use in wilderness would solve 99.9% of our access issues, right?


Depends on where you live.

Right hear there are some public land agencies, like in the East Bay, that are using land acquired on our tax dollars to subsides local cattle ranchers and horse owners. Bikes are mostly excluded.

But winning access to the wilderness on the equal footing with at least the destructive and polluting horse traffic will go a long way.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Sweetheart deals with cattle operations go back 150 years , it is going to take some time to reverse that trend .


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

zrm said:


> Not only is this statement foolish, childish and wrong, it's not useful.


It is on topic and correct, unlike your post which failed on both of those counts.


----------



## ErickKTM (Jul 29, 2004)

Typical we know whats good for you, better than you, mentality from this guy in NY and I know way more than I would like about Durban. I vote against him every election and he keeps winning.

Doesn't matter what party you support, guys like this need voted out. 

Bush has more miles on a MTB than people on this sight....Just saying


----------



## De La Pena (Oct 7, 2008)

*Why the hell is.........*

Why the hell is a congressman in New York writing bills for a state clear across country??!!! :madmax:

He has probably never even been to Utah....... much less Moab :madman:


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

6bobby9 said:


> Why the hell is a congressman in New York writing bills for a state clear across country??!!! :madmax:
> 
> He has probably never even been to Utah....... much less Moab :madman:


Congressmen sponsor bills that effect parts of the countries all the time. It's been going on as long as there has been a congress. As to whether he has been in the canyon country of Utah, I don't know. Do you? Why don't you do a little research, find out and post what you find.


----------



## Mordy (May 31, 2006)

Congressmen write and vote on bills to help themselves get re-elected, not to benefit the people. Its only when the two are in line do we the people win. 

These guys introduce and vote for bills like this so they can publicize to their constituents that they helped save millions of acres of land from destruction, or something. 

The current guys on The Hill are so good at this cycle, that we need to implement real term limits in the House. They need to focus on what should really be done, not whats going to keep them in office for the next 40 years.


----------



## auto (Aug 27, 2009)

Mordy said:


> .
> 
> The current guys on The Hill are so good at this cycle, that we need to implement real term limits in the House. They need to focus on what should really be done, not whats going to keep them in office for the next 40 years.


Term Limits???? Please, we only intelligent voters. Something like a net taxpayer would seem to be a start.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

According to 21 senators and 146 congressmen listed as cosponsors on those bills, you should not be allowed to bike in:

(b) Designation- In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are designated as wilderness areas and as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System:

(1) Arches Adjacent (approximately 12,000 acres).
(2) Beaver Creek (approximately 41,000 acres).
(3) Behind the Rocks and Hunters Canyon (approximately 22,000 acres).
(4) Big Triangle (approximately 20,000 acres).
(5) Coyote Wash (approximately 28,000 acres).
(6) Dome Plateau-Professor Valley (approximately 35,000 acres).
(7) Fisher Towers (approximately 18,000 acres).
(8) Goldbar Canyon (approximately 9,000 acres).
(9) Granite Creek (approximately 5,000 acres).
(10) Mary Jane Canyon (approximately 25,000 acres).
(11) Mill Creek (approximately 14,000 acres).
(12) Porcupine Rim and Morning Glory (approximately 20,000 acres).
(13) Renegade Point (approximately 6,600 acres).
(14) Westwater Canyon (approximately 37,000 acres).
(15) Yellow Bird (approximately 4,200 acres).

Endorsed by:

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] - 9/30/2009
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 9/30/2009
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 4/2/2009
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 4/2/2009
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 4/2/2009
Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 4/2/2009
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 4/2/2009
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 6/15/2009
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 6/9/2009
Rep Connolly, Gerald E. "Gerry" [VA-11] - 4/2/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 4/2/2009
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] - 4/2/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 5/15/2009
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 9/15/2009
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 4/2/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 9/30/2009
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 4/2/2009
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] - 4/2/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 4/2/2009
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] - 9/15/2009
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] - 7/8/2009
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 9/30/2009
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 4/2/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 4/2/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 4/2/2009
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 4/2/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] - 9/30/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 4/2/2009
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 4/2/2009
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 4/2/2009
Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1] - 7/31/2009
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] - 7/23/2009
Rep Hill, Baron P. [IN-9] - 4/2/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Hodes, Paul W. [NH-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 4/2/2009
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 4/2/2009
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 4/28/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 7/8/2009
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 4/2/2009
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] - 7/8/2009
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] - 4/2/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 4/28/2009
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 9/30/2009
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] - 7/14/2009
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 4/2/2009
Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-12] - 4/2/2009
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 4/28/2009
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 7/23/2009
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 4/2/2009
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 4/2/2009
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] - 4/2/2009
Rep Maffei, Daniel B. [NY-25] - 9/30/2009
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 4/2/2009
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 4/2/2009
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep McNerney, Jerry [CA-11] - 4/2/2009
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 4/2/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 7/23/2009
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 4/2/2009
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 4/2/2009
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 4/2/2009
Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 4/2/2009
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 4/2/2009
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 7/8/2009
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 4/2/2009
Rep Peters, Gary C. [MI-9] - 6/15/2009
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 5/15/2009
Rep Pierluisi, Pedro R. [PR] - 4/2/2009
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep Quigley, Mike [IL-5] - 6/9/2009
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 4/2/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 4/2/2009
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 6/9/2009
Rep Sablan, Gregorio [MP] - 4/28/2009
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 6/18/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 4/2/2009
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 4/2/2009
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Scott, David [GA-13] - 9/30/2009
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 4/2/2009
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 4/2/2009
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 4/28/2009
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] - 6/9/2009
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. [SC-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 4/2/2009
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 4/2/2009
Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5] - 6/9/2009
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 9/30/2009
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] - 9/30/2009
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 4/2/2009
Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] - 9/15/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 4/2/2009
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 4/2/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 4/28/2009
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 4/2/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 6/9/2009
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] - 4/2/2009

Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Burris, Roland [IL] - 7/29/2009
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 4/2/2009
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] - 4/2/2009
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 5/21/2009
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Kaufman, Edward E. [DE] - 7/9/2009
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 4/2/2009
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 4/2/2009
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 4/2/2009
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 4/2/2009
Sen Merkley, Jeff [OR] - 7/23/2009
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 4/2/2009
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 4/2/2009
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 6/4/2009
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 4/2/2009
Sen Udall, Mark [CO] - 5/6/2009
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 4/2/2009


----------



## ProfGumby (Feb 27, 2008)

orangedog said:


> ....
> 
> So, while the assumption may be that it won't go anywhere this time (historical trend), *trail and park advocacy is still a good idea and, IMO, support should be given to those with the voices who reflect our interests (IMBA, local volunteers, etc.).* :thumbsup:
> 
> .....


Fantastic Point! For my money, everyone here who rides and does not support advocacy groups or belong to such a group might as well take their bike, toss it off a pier and take up knitting!

Get out, get involved and tell the folks in elected places to back off!

And thanks Curmy, this is the longest list of panderers and political hacks I have ever seen! If they are your local elected types, email and call them! Tell em what you think. The day for guys and gals to sit back and let "someone else" get involved are over!

*
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] - 9/30/2009
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 9/30/2009
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 4/2/2009
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 4/2/2009
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 4/2/2009
Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 4/2/2009
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 4/2/2009
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 6/15/2009
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 6/9/2009
Rep Connolly, Gerald E. "Gerry" [VA-11] - 4/2/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 4/2/2009
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] - 4/2/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 5/15/2009
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 9/15/2009
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 4/2/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 9/30/2009
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 4/2/2009
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] - 4/2/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 4/2/2009
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] - 9/15/2009
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] - 7/8/2009
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 9/30/2009
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 4/2/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 4/2/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 4/2/2009
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 4/2/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] - 9/30/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 4/2/2009
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 4/2/2009
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 4/2/2009
Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1] - 7/31/2009
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] - 7/23/2009
Rep Hill, Baron P. [IN-9] - 4/2/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Hodes, Paul W. [NH-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 4/2/2009
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 4/2/2009
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 4/28/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 7/8/2009
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 4/2/2009
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] - 7/8/2009
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] - 4/2/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 4/28/2009
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 9/30/2009
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] - 7/14/2009
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 4/2/2009
Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-12] - 4/2/2009
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 4/28/2009
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 7/23/2009
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 4/2/2009
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 4/2/2009
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] - 4/2/2009
Rep Maffei, Daniel B. [NY-25] - 9/30/2009
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 4/2/2009
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 4/2/2009
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep McNerney, Jerry [CA-11] - 4/2/2009
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 4/2/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 7/23/2009
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 4/2/2009
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 4/2/2009
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 4/2/2009
Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 4/2/2009
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 4/2/2009
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 7/8/2009
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 4/2/2009
Rep Peters, Gary C. [MI-9] - 6/15/2009
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 5/15/2009
Rep Pierluisi, Pedro R. [PR] - 4/2/2009
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 4/2/2009
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep Quigley, Mike [IL-5] - 6/9/2009
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 4/2/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 4/2/2009
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 6/9/2009
Rep Sablan, Gregorio [MP] - 4/28/2009
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 6/18/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 4/2/2009
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 4/2/2009
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Scott, David [GA-13] - 9/30/2009
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 4/2/2009
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] - 4/2/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 4/2/2009
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 4/28/2009
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 4/2/2009
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] - 6/9/2009
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. [SC-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 4/2/2009
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 4/2/2009
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 4/2/2009
Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5] - 6/9/2009
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 9/30/2009
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] - 9/30/2009
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 4/2/2009
Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] - 9/15/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 4/2/2009
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 4/2/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 4/28/2009
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 4/2/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 6/9/2009
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 4/2/2009
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] - 4/2/2009

Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Burris, Roland [IL] - 7/29/2009
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 4/2/2009
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] - 4/2/2009
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 5/21/2009
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Kaufman, Edward E. [DE] - 7/9/2009
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 4/2/2009
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 4/2/2009
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 4/2/2009
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 4/2/2009
Sen Merkley, Jeff [OR] - 7/23/2009
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 4/2/2009
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 4/2/2009
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 6/4/2009
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 4/2/2009
Sen Udall, Mark [CO] - 5/6/2009
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 4/2/2009*

And has been said before, don't be a hot head and start the labeling, especially when speaking to them. You start ranting, they label you a crack pot or extremeist and you might as well sing them a show tune for as much good as your call or letter will do.

They are your elected officials, they work for you. And for the love of all, do not re elect them if they go against what you stand for! Vote based on their voting record, not their tv commercials!


----------



## gtluke (Aug 15, 2007)

This is what you get for voting for democrats


----------



## ProfGumby (Feb 27, 2008)

gtluke said:


> This is what you get for voting for democrats


Now, that is not entirely true, is it? I see that my local Democrat Senator is not on that list. No matter if I agree with their political philosophy or not, can't paint with a broad brush. See they (your opposition, especially if they have media backing) will label you as a hater and crackpot.

Gotta play smarter than them.


----------



## bikerjay (Sep 16, 2007)

It seems like progress is slowly being made on this front. I would think a year ago people posting on this very site would have made posts in favor of Wilderness designation. At least I dont see lots of those here. There is a lot of pointless off topic banter but that can be expected since this is after all the internet. After our recent crushing defeat against the Wilderness act people who ride are starting to get it. Wilderness designation is obsolete, when agency's strive to live up to the full intention on the National Environmental Policy act the system frequently does work and such congressional intervention is neither necessary or welcome. 

Remember the only things that currently protect federal lands from wilderness designation for good are alternative federal land designations, sale to private individuals, development, oil, gas, grazing, and mineral leasing. Oil and gas leasing are one of the nasty things that present a real appeal for Wilderness, but there are other ways to stop that are far more effective. We must never let any one call Wilderness conservation - plants and animals do not have congressional representatives and wilderness bills are not even required to have scientific support the US fish and wildlife.


----------



## hfly (Dec 30, 2003)

A closer review of the actual maps shows how little of Moab's riding areas are involved. I cannot name a single major trail that would be closed as I see it. Unless you are on intimate terms with some extremely obscure terrain (in much of which I have _never_ seen tracks), this will not affect you as a rider coming to Moab.

Examples:

Gold Bar Canyon Unit: affects everything below the Golden Spike Jeep Road (Culvert Canyon, GB Canyon, Wags?, Rusty Nail, etc.). No big loss for the average rider. Gold Bar ST across the top of the Rim is outside this area.

Behind the Rocks Unit: already a WSA. Already off limits. Same for Morning Glory area (aka ***** Bill Canyon). Porcupine Rim Unit is everything north of the Porcupine Trail (such as Mat Martin Point), not the corridor of Porc proper.

Arches Adjacent Unit: unless you poach the area around Lost Spring Canyon, accessed from obscure spurs from Yellow Cat, this doesn't affect you.

Dome Plateau: I have never heard of anyone riding out here (across the River from Fisher Towers area), though I'm sure some people have. There are some sandy 4X4 roads and views, but I've never heard rave reviews of the riding quality.

What is lost in the arguments here is that Moab already has three distinct Wilderness Study Areas that gulp up huge chunks of land and allow no riding. Yet the riding goes on in other places. Not to mention two National Parks with no riding. Again, the riding goes on. To suggest that this would be an economic catastrophe for our community is simply false. The same arguments were leveled at the Sand Flats Team when the decision was made to clean up, regulate and restrict the area around Slickrock Trail. Few consider that a failure.

What is _really_ lost is that I can imagine only very, very few who have actually ridden in any of the proposed areas for Wilderness Designation. Think you have? Let me know. I'd be curious.

BTW, I'm neither for nor against this designation. I see pros and cons. I respect the agendas of both SUWA and Shared Access Alliance (I'm strange that way!). Moab is far, far larger than any one user group. Bikes are merely another point on the user continuum.

Be interesting to see what happens, though my hunch is this won't pass, and my stronger hunch is that if it does, the average tourist and even the Moab riding-connoisseur simply won't notice.

hfly

(Please pardon my second-person stylings)


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

Great research Tim. Thanks for that clarity.

I have to side with the bill falling once again, on the wayside. This issue would have been a real concern in 1995. Now it seems like an overreaction to worry.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

hfly said:


> A closer review of the actual maps shows how little of Moab's riding areas are involved. I cannot name a single major trail that would be closed as I see it. Unless you are on intimate terms with some extremely obscure terrain (in much of which I have _never_ seen tracks), this will not affect you as a rider coming to Moab.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> ...


Amazing what happens when you actually examine something closely and objectively.

Actually, the image of Moab being "closed" brings up some amusing images. Gates across the highways into town. Newspapers and tumbleweeds clogging the streets, plywood over store front windows, Moab refugees living in shanty towns in Cisco.

Hubris is never in short supply.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

hfly said:


> A closer review of the actual maps shows how little of Moab's riding areas are involved. I cannot name a single major trail that would be closed as I see it. Unless you are on intimate terms with some extremely obscure terrain (in much of which I have _never_ seen tracks), this will not affect you as a rider coming to Moab.


Here is a quote from short *BLM* testimony:

"_One use that conflicts with wilderness is mountain biking; an increasingly popular outdoor activity on BLM lands. In the Moab area, for example, both BLM's Bar M Mountain Bike Focus Area and parts of the Klondike Bluffs Mountain Bike Focus Area are within the Arches Adjacent area proposed in section 104(b)(1) of the legislation. Both of these areas, specifically designated by the BLM for mountain biking, receive substantial use -as many as* 20,000 bikers annually *on a single bike trail - which would be inconsistent with wilderness designation._ "

Anything designated as wilderness is lost for us forever. Adding those areas patch by patch, so that people are not not worried in the beginning, is the strategy they use.

Unless Wilderness act is modified we should have zero tolerance for new wilderness proposals.


----------



## crashtestdummy (Jun 18, 2005)

Curmy said:


> Anything designated as wilderness is lost for us forever. Adding those areas patch by patch, so that people are not not worried in the beginning, is the strategy they use.
> 
> Unless Wilderness act is modified we should have zero tolerance for new wilderness proposals.


How does preserving land equate to "lost to us forever"? Is this somehow like a "death panel"?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

crashtestdummy said:


> How does preserving land equate to "lost to us forever"? Is this somehow like a "death panel"?


How is it preserving if I can not enjoy it?

No, it is not something like a "death panel". It is actually taking something that belongs to us and kicking us out for no good reason.


----------



## steadyflow (Apr 25, 2006)

hfly said:


> A closer review of the actual maps shows how little of Moab's riding areas are involved. I cannot name a single major trail that would be closed as I see it. Unless you are on intimate terms with some extremely obscure terrain (in much of which I have _never_ seen tracks), this will not affect you as a rider coming to Moab.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> Gold Bar Canyon Unit: affects everything below the Golden Spike Jeep Road (Culvert Canyon, GB Canyon, Wags?, Rusty Nail, etc.). No big loss for the average rider. Gold Bar ST across the top of the Rim is outside this area.


I have ridden this area and it is awesome, some of the best rock in Moab. There is so much more to Moab than the standard trails in the books. The rock is what is amazing there and there are ways to put together rides that do no damage to the soil....you can ride rock all day long if you want. Personally I think there is already a lot of protected land in Utah and the state of Utah should be able to decide what it wants.

I can also say that lower area of the Gold Bar does not get much use, we saw no one for 7 hours out there....what is the point of designating it?


----------



## cannonballtrail (Sep 14, 2004)

Funny, I ran into a ranger who gave me directions through a wilderness area while I was mtbing. I was a bit surprised, but he said the district is near broke, there is no money to enforce a mtb ban, the roads are overgrown and fire fighting is more difficult, and the wilderness area is now home to drug smugglers and border crosses. As long as we didn't show up in any large groups, there will be no problems. 

Now, I don't condone riding closed trails or ignoring the ban, but it was a reality check to hear from law enforcement that the ban is utter BS and wilderness=enforcement=money=taxes.


----------



## crashtestdummy (Jun 18, 2005)

Curmy said:


> How is it preserving if I can not enjoy it?
> 
> No, it is not something like a "death panel". It is actually taking something that belongs to us and kicking us out for no good reason.


I haven't found *any* wilderness that I'm not allowed in, but I did have my mountain bike surgically removed from my a$$. However if Federal land is being mined, drilled or logged, there is a real good chance that I won't be allowed in.


----------



## cobi (Apr 29, 2008)

crashtestdummy said:


> I haven't found *any* wilderness that I'm not allowed in, but I did have my mountain bike surgically removed from my a$$.


So basically you're saying you're all for closing trails to mountain bikers?

I really enjoy hiking as well.. but it doesn't mean I want to give up mountain biking.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

lidarman said:


> Great research Tim. Thanks for that clarity.
> 
> I have to side with the bill falling once again, on the wayside. This issue would have been a real concern in 1995. Now it seems like an overreaction to worry.


A dangerous attitude, this is the first time this bill has even gotten a hearing. IMBA and AMA may not be a match for the Sierra Club which is well funded plus has become very partisan and does not support MTBs in wilderness areas.

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

They are salivating on HR1925 and S.799 which are identical since being redrafted by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance ( a link to their clickable map showing the area afflicted)

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

This is one of the Sierra Club's 3 top priorities, in their own words

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/layoftheland/2009/05/sierra-club-gears-up-for-next-round-of-wilderness-bills.html

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/layoftheland/2009/10/hearing-on-red-rocks-wilderness-bill-signals-a-huge-shift-in-utahs-wilderness-rhetoric.html

Also noted the lack of party affiliation on these sponsors list above, lest anyone think these cannot go thru, since they are not funding bills I believe all they require is simple majorities in other words the Dems can push it thru with or without opposition with easy numbers unless a tax increase of some type gets thrown in requiring a super majority. The last Wilderness Omnibus bill got huge bi-partisan support(390-something votes) but it's not clear anyone had read the bill, Dems forced a vote on this and others at the time under suspension of rule, i.e. no debate.

Sponsors HR1925 146 139-Dems or I(usually hard left), 7-Rep

Only 218 needed to pass

Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Gregorio Sablan [I-MP]
Gary Ackerman [D-NY5]
John Adler [D-NJ3]
Robert Andrews [D-NJ1]
Brian Baird [D-WA3]
Tammy Baldwin [D-WI2]
Shelley Berkley [D-NV1]
Howard Berman [D-CA28]
Judy Biggert [R-IL13]
Earl Blumenauer [D-OR3]
Leonard Boswell [D-IA3]
Robert Brady [D-PA1]
Bruce Braley [D-IA1]
Corrine Brown [D-FL3]
Lois Capps [D-CA23]
Michael Capuano [D-MA8]
André Carson [D-IN7]
Ben Chandler [D-KY6]
William Clay [D-MO1]
Emanuel Cleaver [D-MO5]
Steve Cohen [D-TN9]
Gerald Connolly [D-VA11]
John Conyers [D-MI14]
Jerry Costello [D-IL12]
Joe Courtney [D-CT2]
Elijah Cummings [D-MD7]
Danny Davis [D-IL7]
Susan Davis [D-CA53]
Peter DeFazio [D-OR4]
Diana DeGette [D-CO1]
William Delahunt [D-MA10]
Rosa DeLauro [D-CT3]
Norman Dicks [D-WA6]
Lloyd Doggett [D-TX25]
Michael Doyle [D-PA14]
Vernon Ehlers [R-MI3]
Keith Ellison [D-MN5]
Eliot Engel [D-NY17]
Anna Eshoo [D-CA14]
Sam Farr [D-CA17]
Bob Filner [D-CA51]
Barney Frank [D-MA4]
Charles Gonzalez [D-TX20]
Raul Grijalva [D-AZ7]
Luis Gutiérrez [D-IL4]
John Hall [D-NY19]
Phil Hare [D-IL17]
Jane Harman [D-CA36]
Alcee Hastings [D-FL23]
Martin Heinrich [D-NM1]
Brian Higgins [D-NY27]
Baron Hill [D-IN9]
Mazie Hirono [D-HI2]
Paul Hodes [D-NH2]
Rush Holt [D-NJ12]
Michael Honda [D-CA15]
Jay Inslee [D-WA1]
Steve Israel [D-NY2]
Jesse Jackson [D-IL2]
Eddie Johnson [D-TX30]
Henry Johnson [D-GA4]
Timothy Johnson [R-IL15]
Marcy Kaptur [D-OH9]
Patrick Kennedy [D-RI1]
Dale Kildee [D-MI5]
Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI13]
Mark Kirk [R-IL10]
Dennis Kucinich [D-OH10]
Leonard Lance [R-NJ7]
James Langevin [D-RI2]
Rick Larsen [D-WA2]
John Larson [D-CT1]
Barbara Lee [D-CA9]
Sander Levin [D-MI12]
John Lewis [D-GA5]
Daniel Lipinski [D-IL3]
Frank LoBiondo [R-NJ2]
David Loebsack [D-IA2]
Zoe Lofgren [D-CA16]
Nita Lowey [D-NY18]
Stephen Lynch [D-MA9]
Daniel Maffei [D-NY25]
Carolyn Maloney [D-NY14]
Edward Markey [D-MA7]
Eric Massa [D-NY29]
Betty McCollum [D-MN4]
James McDermott [D-WA7]
James McGovern [D-MA3]
Jerry McNerney [D-CA11]
Kendrick Meek [D-FL17]
Michael Michaud [D-ME2]
Bradley Miller [D-NC13]
George Miller [D-CA7]
Gwen Moore [D-WI4]
James Moran [D-VA8]
Christopher Murphy [D-CT5]
Jerrold Nadler [D-NY8]
Grace Napolitano [D-CA38]
Richard Neal [D-MA2]
John Olver [D-MA1]
Frank Pallone [D-NJ6]
William Pascrell [D-NJ8]
Donald Payne [D-NJ10]
Gary Peters [D-MI9]
Collin Peterson [D-MN7]
Jared Polis [D-CO2]
David Price [D-NC4]
Mike Quigley [D-IL5]
Charles Rangel [D-NY15]
Steven Rothman [D-NJ9]
Bobby Rush [D-IL1]
Timothy Ryan [D-OH17]
Loretta Sanchez [D-CA47]
Janice Schakowsky [D-IL9]
Adam Schiff [D-CA29]
Allyson Schwartz [D-PA13]
David Scott [D-GA13]
José Serrano [D-NY16]
Joe Sestak [D-PA7]
Carol Shea-Porter [D-NH1]
Brad Sherman [D-CA27]
Albio Sires [D-NJ13]
Adam Smith [D-WA9]
Christopher Smith [R-NJ4]
Jackie Speier [D-CA12]
John Spratt [D-SC5]
Fortney Stark [D-CA13]
Betty Sutton [D-OH13]
Ellen Tauscher [D-CA10]
Michael Thompson [D-CA1]
John Tierney [D-MA6]
Niki Tsongas [D-MA5]
Nydia Velázquez [D-NY12]
Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL20]
Melvin Watt [D-NC12]
Henry Waxman [D-CA30]
Anthony Weiner [D-NY9]
Peter Welch [D-VT]
Robert Wexler [D-FL19]
Lynn Woolsey [D-CA6]
David Wu [D-OR1]
John Yarmuth [D-KY3]
Pedro Pierluisi [D-PR]

Sponsors S.799 21-Dems or I, 0-Rep

Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
Roland Burris [D-IL]
Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Russell Feingold [D-WI]
Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
Edward Kaufman [D-DE]
Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
John Kerry [D-MA]
Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]
Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Jeff Merkley [D-OR]
John Reed [D-RI]
Bernard Sanders [I-VT]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Debbie Ann Stabenow [D-MI]
Mark Udall [D-CO]
Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

cobi said:


> So basically you're saying you're all for closing trails to mountain bikers?


That is what he is saying.


----------



## orangedog (Aug 30, 2008)

socal_jack said:


> A dangerous attitude, this is the first time this bill has even gotten a hearing. IMBA and AMA may not be a match for the Sierra Club which is well funded plus has become very partisan and does not support MTBs in wilderness areas.
> 
> http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/mtnbike.aspx
> ...


Great post socal_jack - thanks for the effort.

For those who are interested in the discussions of "fellow trail users", check out:
http://connect.sierraclub.org/forums/Group1992.aspx
...the traffic is a little slower than mtbr.


----------



## orangedog (Aug 30, 2008)

orangedog said:


> Great post socal_jack - thanks for the effort.
> 
> For those who are interested in the discussions of "fellow trail users", check out:
> http://connect.sierraclub.org/forums/Group1992.aspx
> ...the traffic is a little slower than mtbr.


oh, and check out this thread in particular.

I was at a race last weekend that was marked by volunteers who built an entire network (200+ miles) of single track trails for all non-motorized users (as well as separate motor-friendly trails). Some mechanized-hating douche-nozzles decided to go out right before the race to take down segments of the markings. What was their intent? To have people get lost? Very considerate. I guess this is somewhat common, but its crap. :madmax: :madmax: :madmax: :madmax: :madmax: ut: ut: ut: ut: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :cornut:

Maybe I'm just joining the party, but this isn't about Moab now. Its about people getting along and not being unnecessarily exclusionary. Sierra Club is on the list.


----------



## crashtestdummy (Jun 18, 2005)

cobi said:


> So basically you're saying you're all for closing trails to mountain bikers?
> 
> I really enjoy hiking as well.. but it doesn't mean I want to give up mountain biking.


Would you please point out where I'm saying that.


----------



## Ledge (May 21, 2008)

*The Change has come!*

Give me SINGLETRACK or Give me DEATH!!!!!! Hahahaha:madman:


----------



## ionsmuse (Jul 14, 2005)

Two things:

-Mountain bikes didn't exist (for the most part) when the Wilderness Act was passed. Hence the "mechanized" restriction.

-They are federal lands. They just happen to be in Utah. Legally locals have no special right to influence. I shudder to think what would happen if Bennett and Hatch got to make all the calls about Utah land use.


----------



## cobi (Apr 29, 2008)

crashtestdummy said:


> Would you please point out where I'm saying that.


Um, I quoted it directly above my statement!

You said...



crashtestdummy said:


> *I haven't found any wilderness that I'm not allowed in, but I did have my mountain bike surgically removed from my a$$. *


I took that to mean you are able to enjoy all wilderness areas, but you have to get off the bike to do it ("have my mountain bike surgically removed from my a$$"). As in hiking, etc...

If that's not what you meant, well... that's how it read to me. Please explain your comment if I am misunderstanding you.


----------



## LncNuvue (May 28, 2008)




----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

ionsmuse said:


> Two things:
> 
> -Mountain bikes didn't exist (for the most part) when the Wilderness Act was passed. Hence the "mechanized" restriction.
> 
> -They are federal lands. They just happen to be in Utah. Legally locals have no special right to influence. I shudder to think what would happen if Bennett and Hatch got to make all the calls about Utah land use.


The actual phrasing is not very clear that they were really talking about non-motorized vehicles, as it was a string of motorized vehicles and uses leading up to that

"no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport"

http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents//publiclaws/PDF/16_USC_1131-1136.pdf

Some good background to suggest that folks at the time thought otherwise;

http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/bikesbelong/mechanical_transport.html


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

orangedog said:


> oh, and check out this thread in particular.
> 
> I was at a race last weekend that was marked by volunteers who built an entire network (200+ miles) of single track trails for all non-motorized users (as well as separate motor-friendly trails). Some mechanized-hating douche-nozzles decided to go out right before the race to take down segments of the markings. What was their intent? To have people get lost? Very considerate. I guess this is somewhat common, but its crap. :madmax: :madmax: :madmax: :madmax: :madmax: ut: ut: ut: ut: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :cornut:
> 
> Maybe I'm just joining the party, but this isn't about Moab now. Its about people getting along and not being unnecessarily exclusionary. Sierra Club is on the list.


Thanks, but yeah almost ashamed to admit it but I was a member of that dbag club about 12 years ago for some years. Mailings/mag started getting so far left/partisan and agenda went way off the original intent of the club and reasons that I joined, finally couldn't take it anymore and quit last straw was when they announced their mtb policy I think.


----------



## crashtestdummy (Jun 18, 2005)

ionsmuse said:


> -They are federal lands. They just happen to be in Utah. Legally locals have no special right to influence. I shudder to think what would happen if Bennett and Hatch got to make all the calls about Utah land use.


I'm a long time Utard and I agree 100%


----------



## crashtestdummy (Jun 18, 2005)

cobi said:


> Um, I quoted it directly above my statement!
> You said...
> I took that to mean you are able to enjoy all wilderness areas, but you have to get off the bike to do it ("have my mountain bike surgically removed from my a$$"). As in hiking, etc...
> If that's not what you meant, well... that's how it read to me. Please explain your comment if I am misunderstanding you.


I did say that, I never said anywhere that I was "all for closing trails to mountain bikers".

Believe it or not, a lot of mountain bikers are both pro singletrack and pro wilderness. I don't feel the need to have to ride my bike everywhere. That would be the same entitlement problem as the motor heads that think they should be able to 4 wheel everywhere.

Obviously (at least to those with logical thinking) there should be a middle ground somewhere. As *hfly* (someone who actually lives in Moab) pointed out "_*A closer review of the actual maps shows how little of Moab's riding areas are involved. I cannot name a single major trail that would be closed as I see it. Unless you are on intimate terms with some extremely obscure terrain (in much of which I have never seen tracks), this will not affect you as a rider coming to Moab."*_

I don't even have children and most likely never will, yet I think it is very short sighted to not set aside land and wilderness for future generations.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

Typical Sierra Club Crackers, most of them don't even get out to these places they're trying to rope off.

So how do we ammend the Wilderness Act to let bikes in?


----------



## greg de taos (Jul 23, 2007)

snowdrifter said:


> Typical Sierra Club Crackers, most of them don't even get out to these places they're trying to rope off.
> 
> So how do we ammend the Wilderness Act to let bikes in?


Write your congressman or woman. Write your senator. If you don't like a law work to change it. I think it is a duty. I wrote my congressman Tom Udall today and know he got at least 5 other letters regarding the same thing, because I encouraged my friends to write. To me this is not about Moab in particular, it is about Wilderness and what those areas should be like. I don't think bikers should be allowed everywhere, but wilderness does seem appropriate.

Writing is a long shot, but it is something.


----------



## orangedog (Aug 30, 2008)

greg de taos said:


> Write your congressman or woman. Write your senator. If you don't like a law work to change it. I think it is a duty. I wrote my congressman Tom Udall today and know he got at least 5 other letters regarding the same thing, because I encouraged my friends to write. To me this is not about Moab in particular, it is about Wilderness and what those areas should be like. I don't think bikers should be allowed everywhere, but wilderness does seem appropriate.
> 
> Writing is a long shot, but it is something.


anyone interested in following the dbag Sierra Club method?

We can create two template letters (maybe Greg you could help out here since you've done it) - one on this particular piece of legislation, and one on sponsoring/creating legislation to amend the definition of wilderness. Passion sticky, perhaps.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

orangedog said:


> anyone interested in following the dbag Sierra Club method?
> 
> We can create two template letters (maybe Greg you could help out here since you've done it) - one on this particular piece of legislation, and one on sponsoring/creating legislation to amend the definition of wilderness. Passion sticky, perhaps.


Agreed, that's the best tactic as a bill to cleanup the original 1964 Wilderness Act by expicitly explicitly defining what "other form of mechanical transport" means to motorized transport would re-open much land lost over the last 20 years.

"no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport"

http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/docum..._1131-1136.pdf


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

I wrote my State Rep last week, I'm more interested on how we start a bill to ammend the wilderness act to allow bicycles. that would fix a lot of BS.


----------



## greg de taos (Jul 23, 2007)

Would love to help. I am worried that the form letter often goes right to the recycle bin. Is there any way that we can get people to speak from the heart? I think it would go a lot further. Maybe we need both a form and to implore people to write their own.

My major points were:
1. Increased tourist dollars with more open trails, especially here where we are so limited by millions of acres of wilderness and WSA.

2. Health benefits of biking and that we should be encouraging more riding not less.

3. Personal observations of how MTB's interact with the trail as opposed to horses and hikers.

If we continue to hammer home these points I think at least a few legislators will have to take a look.


----------



## Spankaliscious (Sep 22, 2009)

steadyflow said:


> There is so much more to Moab than the standard trails in the books. The rock is what is amazing there and there are ways to put together rides that do no damage to the soil....you can ride rock all day long if you want.


It's rare that I truly laugh out loud but in this case I did. That's the funniest thing that I've read on MTBR in a very long time.

steadyflow "educating" hfly about non-standard trails in Moab and the possibility of putting together all day long rock rides

Bravo!


----------



## orangedog (Aug 30, 2008)

greg de taos said:


> Would love to help. I am worried that the form letter often goes right to the recycle bin.


Valid point - one I kind of had in the back of my mind but didn't want to admit.

I know a couple of people who used to/currently run in political circles. I'm not sure how much impact registered voters have (outside of voting) compared to special interest groups and campaign contributors, but that's due to my lack of knowledge. I'm up for a writing thread, and I think a standardized letter can still be "from the heart" as our views on this topic aren't that varied.

Give me a few days and I'll follow up on the idea. :thumbsup:


----------



## notaknob (Apr 6, 2004)

*Everywhere*



crashtestdummy said:


> Believe it or not, a lot of mountain bikers are both pro singletrack and pro wilderness. I don't feel the need to have to ride my bike everywhere. That would be the same entitlement problem as the motor heads that think they should be able to 4 wheel everywhere.


The problem is that there are exceptions to every rule.

If mountain bikes were allowed in wilderness, all mountain bikers would be pro wilderness.

As they way it stands now, I am not pro wilderness anywhere.


----------



## hfly (Dec 30, 2003)

Curmy, thanks for pointing out my error regarding the "Arches Adjacent" Area. That actually would affect the newly minted Moab Brand Trails and perhaps some of the Klondike variations. I had zeroed in on the east side of Arches when I saw SUWA's Redrock Wilderness Proposal map for Utah.

hfly


----------



## 11 Bravo (Mar 12, 2004)

greg de taos said:


> Would love to help. I am worried that the form letter often goes right to the recycle bin. Is there any way that we can get people to speak from the heart? I think it would go a lot further. Maybe we need both a form and to implore people to write their own................


It is my understanding that very few of these letters actually make it to the congress person. Staffers scan through them and pass on the general idea or trend in opinions. In this respect, bulk mailings have some effect. Just for example, the congress person may be told something like "you got 150 e-mails, 50 paper letters and 25 phone calls supporting the wilderness proposal and 20 e-mails opposing it". I am sure this does not have as much effect as face to face contact with a lobbyist who makes nice campaign contributions to congress persons who vote the "right" way, but it has some effect.

I have written my congressmen many, many times over the years on a variety of subjects. In general, when I write letters during a run up on a high profile issue I don't get a personalized response. When I write about subjects expressing my concerns or opinions during a quieter time I almost always get a personal letter back.

Wyoming does not have many residents, so my Senators probably don't get a huge volume of mail but I think it is obvious that when they are getting a large volume of mail on heated votes they don't have time to read them all and the staff picks up the volume. Letters sent when they have more time and less mail will get looked at.

If you guys are serious about tackling this, lets war game it a little and come up with the best plan to get something. That"s how the other side gets things done. They don't go for everything all at once, they take it in chunks.

Trying to open wilderness areas to bicycles will probably not even get much consideration. I think it would make more sense and have more chance of consideration if we pursued bicycle corridors through wilderness areas in selected cases.

For example, the Colorado trail section that passes through the Lost Creek Wilderness. I am working from memory here, so if I am wrong somebody please correct me. The trail passes through about 8 miles of wilderness. The detour for bicycles to get around this and back to the trail is about 70 miles.

The trail through the wilderness already exists. Why not allow a corridor through this small section for non motorized travel? Even ask for stipulations like "the bicycle tires cannot leave the trail tread" and "no prolonged stopping" . All we are asking is passage through this narrow area so we can through ride the complete trail. What reasonable person could oppose this?

A small step that opens up the door a little. There are lots of examples where new wilderness has blocked out existing trails. Once the corridor idea is accepted it would not be a big leap to expand it to allow continued use of selected trails with all the area surrounding the trail as wilderness.

Again, we could make the argument that no reasonable person could oppose this. If congress thinks they could make a lot of people happy and not piss anyone else off too badly, they might be open to the idea.


----------



## ionsmuse (Jul 14, 2005)

socal_jack said:


> Some good background to suggest that folks at the time thought otherwise;
> 
> http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/bikesbelong/mechanical_transport.html


Excellent link! I'm rather embarrassed to admit that I've never pursued that avenue of inquiry. The article linked to (as a full-text PDF) at the bottom of the above page is a good one.

The last paragraph for those who don't enjoy reading law journals:

"As this article has explained, the law favors mountain bike access to Wilderness. If federal agencies agree and rewrite their regulations, those who would prefer to
exclude bicycles from Wilderness will face major difficulties in trying to
overturn the changed rules through judicial review. To be sure, the
Wilderness Act of 1964 could always be amended to favor either side's
position, and that would be the end of the matter.125 But it is not in the
interest of Wilderness proponents to go so far. If Congress were to
amend the Act, as it has done only once before, more than 25 years
ago,126 it might make changes far beyond amending the text of the nonmechanical-
transport clause-changes that could undermine the
character of Wilderness and diminish its luster."

The article cites the 1980 language which created that Rattlesnake Wilderness in Montana, and which (back then) explicitly allowed cycling. That's particularly interesting, as the Rattlesnake Wilderness boundary is less than 10 miles from where I'm sitting drinking coffee right now.

I'll have to look into what caused the change in the last three decades. I've hiked the wilderness trails, and ride adjacent to them several times a week. Overuse is not a salient issue in the wilderness itself.

It would be fantastic if the Bob Marshall were open to cycling. It'd become the premier bikepacking destination in the country overnight.


----------



## Dgtlbliss (Aug 21, 2008)

gtluke said:


> This is what you get for voting for democrats


My local Republican congresswoman is on that list. The same one who believed the gov't wanted to put seniors to death.


----------



## LncNuvue (May 28, 2008)

A boilerplate letter to use as framework would be nice to have. It would help increase the volume of letters sent do to its convenience. Can we get a draft going? Someone?


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

Yes, + 1, a Sticky with a link to send it, would be stellar! Let's see some real passion, not a bunch of the same people posting photo's of the same ole ride.


----------



## orangedog (Aug 30, 2008)

> A boilerplate letter to use as framework would be nice to have. It would help increase the volume of letters sent do to its convenience. Can we get a draft going? Someone?


Yes - I'm starting on drafts. Anyone who has written their congressperson, if you don't object, please pm me with the text of the letter. I'd like to get some ideas and compile the best, and prepare it for review by others in the know. I'm reaching out to IMBA as well - figure they've done a lot of this work.



> Yes, + 1, a Sticky with a link to send it, would be stellar! Let's see some real passion, not a bunch of the same people posting photo's of the same ole ride.


I agree a Sticky would be good - I'm starting a thread on the topic now. does anyone know of a resource that has the email and mailing address for every congressperson and governor? one could be compiled, but I'm sure this work has been done elsewhere.


----------



## orangedog (Aug 30, 2008)

also fyi:

IMBA Link on Moab


----------



## greg de taos (Jul 23, 2007)

As I am sure you guys have figured out there is not much of a list of congressional email addresses, you pretty much have to go to the individuals web site and send email from there.

Therefore, I do not have a copy of the letter I sent to Sen. Tom Udall.

Why has IMBA not lobbied hard on this in the past?

Here is my idea of a very rough draft, have at it or toss it but it is a general idea.


Dear Hon. _____________________,
My name is ________________ and I live in your district. I am writing to encourage you to look into changing the wording of the The Wilderness Act of 1964. As the wording now reads, bicycles are excluded from all federal wilderness areas. In a time when we are arguing heavily over public health care and the overall health of our country, I believe that our Federal Government should be encouraging more healthy outdoor activity instead of restricting it.
The original wording of the Federal Wilderness Act was meant to keep motorized vehicles out of our most pristine lands. Over the last two decades, mountain bikes have proven to be both wonderful exercise and a way for people to enjoy America's wild places. In no way do mountain bikes harm the land as a much more powerful motorcycle or ATV would do. Unfortunately, mountain bikes are lumped into the same "mechanized" category as their gasoline-powered brethren and have been kept off of some of this country's most beautiful trails. As mountain bikers, we have the utmost interest in keeping our trails as pristine as possible.
As an avid cyclist I implore you to look into changing this wording. As the law now stands I have to oppose the Federal Government deeming any more land as Wilderness. This is contrary to my instincts, as I feel setting aside land for future generations is a very important act. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

______________


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

hfly said:


> Curmy, thanks for pointing out my error regarding the "Arches Adjacent" Area. That actually would affect the newly minted Moab Brand Trails and perhaps some of the Klondike variations. I had zeroed in on the east side of Arches when I saw SUWA's Redrock Wilderness Proposal map for Utah.
> 
> hfly


That is my point - even if we do not use some of the lands right now, it takes away our ability to open new trails - forever, unless the wilderness act is amended to allow all forms of low impact recreational use.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Ledge said:


> Give me SINGLETRACK or Give me DEATH!!!!!! Hahahaha:madman:


No, not at all.

There are a lot more important things than where I can or cannot ride my bicycle.


----------



## Dwight Moody (Jan 10, 2004)

LncNuvue said:
 

>


What's wrong with a dad pulling his kid around the block?

Did Bush do a single thing for bicyclists?


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

The point may have been that he's not mountain biking like the previous shot of Bush. Bush may have not done anything pro-MTB but he didn't push anything negative that I can find, whereas BHO has already signed the Omnibus bill which already closed off huge areas to MTB.


----------



## LncNuvue (May 28, 2008)

I just think the photos depict opposing lifestyles. And, whether we like it or not, lifestyle and philosophy can shape ones policy. It's obvious GWB likes to get out and explore the outdoors whether it's running, hiking, mtbing, hunting, fishing. We're not sure about BHO. Hopefully, we're not one day told "why ride in the woods when you can ride in your neighborhood park". Some from the city, NOT ALL, may question "why would anybody want to ride a bike in the forest or desert?" Kind of like the dude in NY trying to push through this latest bill. They may not get it and probably never will.


----------

