# Why IMBA Should Not Fight Wilderness



## ragnarok29er (Jul 1, 2005)

Yeah, I understand that IMBA's mission is to keep trails open for mountain bikers. And I'm also aware that lots of folks in California are hell bent against Wilderness because it's closing their somewhat limited trails. But to me, the message in this photo is clear. Would I rather see this photo as is: with bikes (my passion), motos, ATVs and 4 wheelers? Or, would I rather see it as a designated Wilderness? Yes, bikes wouldn't be in the picture, but neither would the motorized vehicles. To me, it's worth not being allowed to bike on this land if it means better preservation. It's a more intelligent, long-term caring approach that in the end will benefit all of us.

Just my $.02.

- Chris Howe, Telluride


----------



## Rockadile (Jun 27, 2005)

ragnarok29er said:


> Would I rather see this photo as is: with bikes (my passion), motos, ATVs and 4 wheelers? Or, would I rather see it as a designated Wilderness?


I agree...and I believe most MTBers would too. The problem with that statement grouping bikes with motos, ATVs and 4 wheelers. They are not in the same category.


----------



## grumpstumper (Dec 22, 2004)

*Yes!*

*Yes! I agree!*

I kind of think it would be nice if they'd take the horses out too though.
It sucks when you pack it in on foot for two days only to be passed by a bunch of fat cowboys on horses that set up a MASH unit in the alpine meadow.

Just have to go higher I suppose.

And hey, what am I saying, the cowboys were there first right? Just like at the Alamo.


----------



## grumpstumper (Dec 22, 2004)

Did I tell you how right you are?


----------



## radbkr (Aug 10, 2004)

*Consider this alternative*

Hmmm, I've always thought the solution to the problem is the lift the ban on mountain bikes in wilderness areas.


----------



## Rockadile (Jun 27, 2005)

grumpstumper said:


> *Yes! I agree!*
> 
> I kind of think it would be nice if they'd take the horses out too though.
> It sucks when you pack it in on foot for two days only to be passed by a bunch of fat cowboys on horses that set up a MASH unit in the alpine meadow.
> ...


I don't mind horses. It's the "land mines" that they leave dead smack in the middle of the trail that I hate.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

You're wrong. 

IMBA should counter Wilderness additions as long as they exclude mountain bikes... Period...

I have no idea where you're photo is. Perhaps it's 2 miles from some town and in the back ground is 2 million acres of Wilderness. Don't 4 wheelers need someplace to go? How much Wilderness is enough?

Several alternatives exist to Wilderness which allow bikes and offer the same level of protection. These alternatives are currently being implemented in many parts of the country where access is in trouble due to new Wilderness proposals.

I also feel the blanket ban on bikes in Wilderness is not consistant with the original intent of Wilderness.


----------



## grumpstumper (Dec 22, 2004)

I can see your point. I just care more about the wilderness than about my bike trails. (which I love too, don't get me wrong) It seems like a selfish motivation for mt. bikers to fight wilderness areas for their bike trails.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

grumpstumper said:


> I can see your point. I just care more about the wilderness than about my bike trails. (which I love too, don't get me wrong) It seems like a selfish motivation for mt. bikers to fight wilderness areas for their bike trails.


It's not mountain bikers fighting wilderness, it's mountain bikers fighting cap. "W" Wilderness. There are plenty of ways to protect land without banning human powered transportation or any thing else that purchased for recreational purposes at your local REI.


----------



## grumpstumper (Dec 22, 2004)

Having spent alot of time in CA's wilderness areas I can honestly say I appreciate whatever solitude I can get there and I'd be bummed if it became any easier for people to get back in.

Make 'em work for it.

Have you spent much time in wilderness areas?


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

*A question...*



grumpstumper said:


> Having spent alot of time in CA's wilderness areas I can honestly say I appreciate whatever solitude I can get there and I'd be bummed if it became any easier for people to get back in.
> 
> Make 'em work for it.
> 
> Have you spent much time in wilderness areas?


Would letting in mountain bikers only strengthen the cause for further capital "W" Wilderness. Any fights or concerns that may have been raised by those cyclists should be greatly reduced.

It might weaken Wilderness protections in the short term, but should help strengthen it overall.

Just a thought.

JmZ


----------



## grumpstumper (Dec 22, 2004)

What do you mean? How so?


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

grumpstumper said:


> Having spent alot of time in CA's wilderness areas I can honestly say I appreciate whatever solitude I can get there and I'd be bummed if it became any easier for people to get back in.
> 
> Make 'em work for it.
> 
> Have you spent much time in wilderness areas?


Here's an example of mt bikers being on board with a Wilderness proposal. There's a link to the full text of the bill if you're really interested.

http://www.imba.com/news/action_alerts/07_05/07_07_virginia.html

I've got lots of time wilderness areas, some privately owned, mostly National Forest, even some areas next door and very similar to "W"ilderness where the only difference is the name and rules regulating the level of protection. As far as time in Wilderness is concerned, not much since my human powered, enviro friendly hobby is currently illegal there.


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

grumpstumper said:


> What do you mean? How so?


How would it strengthen the cause for *W*ilderness?

Allowing bikes creates another user group who would support the creation of further areas, instead of fighting those very same areas.

How could it weaken it in the short term?

Other groups may try to mimic our success. Hang gliders, etc,. Wouldn't motorized users just claim that mountain bikes are similar (and therefore they should be allowed too?).
Other groups will try to fight that change, and instead of fighting for areas to be protected from development, they will be wasting resources (time, money, talent) saying that *W*ilderness areas need to be protected from us.

Once it's been established and codified, these concerns could be minimized.

That's all I was thinking.

JmZ


----------



## grumpstumper (Dec 22, 2004)

*Increased access means increased impact.*

More bikers in the wilderness means more people in the wilderness means *GREATER IMPACT* on the wilderness.

I feel like the wilderness is _sacred_ and not just a nice place to ride. It is so much more important than that. On a weekend, most of the people are impacting the first mile or two of trail. If we start riding in wilderness areas, the first 10 or 20 miles of trail are going to be impacted. If you have experienced a pristine, untouched environment, you know how easily it is ruined by human feet, trash, urine, excrement, food waste, soap, fire pits, noise, etc. It is often an irreversable impact on vegetation and wildlife. It takes one person one day of use to leave a significant impact on an alpine environment. There is so little untouched land left I don't see why mt. bikers, who are lovers of nature, would want to increase impact.

It isn't about the riding, it's about protecting what little wilderness we have. I think it is more important than our hobby/love. Don't you want there to be some places left that aren't heavily impacted by people?

One of the best things about backpacking into the wilderness is the feeling of leaving all the people behind. The feeling of entering a relatively untouched natural environment, where you can hear the silence ring. A place where you can walk for days without seeing anyone. Where you can connect with your instincts. Where you can forget about your worldly life. Where you can escape. Where you can sit quietly at a beautiful clean high alpine lake all day, and the day feels like a year. There is nothing like the feeling of hiking further and further into the wilderness as the sounds, smells and thoughts of human civilization fade into the distance behind you.

It is more than coincidence that mt. bikers want to let bikes into the wilderness, it is clearly a selfish motivation. It's not about us, it's about the wilderness.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

IMBA seems to be primarily focused on maintaining EXISTING access. All the Wilderness work and issues revolve around trails where mt bikes are ALREADY allowed or were previously allowed before they were banned by Wilderness legislation! 

I'm sure you're familiar with the access issues in Marin County. Having San Fran next door isn't an ideal situation for low impact, and I feel this has clouded your view of the rest of the country.


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

Why is wilderness more sacred than something that _Congress_ has not designated as Capital W - *W*ilderness?

We are *not*, I repeat, *NOT* looking for access to every square acre of *W*ilderness. If the *w*ilderness designation wasn't being used, repeatedly, taking huge chunks of property off the map, and potentially closing existing trails on both coasts, then there wouldn't be nearly as much fight against it. Is the designation of *w*ilderness a new way for the anti-bike groups to close huge swaths of currently legal trails? From most of the areas I've heard proposed for new designation have been logged, have cell phone towers, and even have, gasp, existing mountain bike trails. This *does* lead me to question the motivation of designating some of these areas as *w*ilderness.

Most of the new *w*ilderness areas are not pristine untouched areas, and that's half the point, the second half of the point is why do you think that we'll leave trash, urine, excrement, food waste, soap, fire pits and the like along the trail? Most mountain bike trails I've ridden only show tire prints.

I don't think that the feeling of leaving it all behind, the feeling of a remote wilderness (notice the small w), where silence and tranquility reign needs to be reserved by those who tread with boots instead of tires. My experiences are somehow less than yours? I don't understand that.

Allowing mountain bikers in, where appropriate, will allow our voices to be in unison with the rest of those that want more protection for our undeveloped areas. If we don't fight for our _selfish_ motivation will we end up with any place to ride at all? Will we all become hikers? Wilderness will remain as a place that has minimal impact, the simple fact that most of these areas are not right downtown will keep traffic away and limit the number of users. If we further want to reduce the number of users, I have no problem with a permit system for *all* users of the area. You limit the usage, by limiting the total number of users, not just a single group.

I doubt that anyone disagrees with protecting the land, calling it *w*ilderness, and removing bikes is what most of us disagree with. Call it something other than *w*ilderness and we will be among the first to support protecting the area. Alternative designations, or intelligently altering the current designation are what we ask. Protection of an area is still the end goal, but the approach is not exactly the same.

It's about protecting the land, and how is really best to do that. We all want wilderness, not necessarily *w*ilderness. *W*ilderness is a human construction done in the past century that didn't even contemplate mountain bikes, and all we are really asking, is if that needs to be re-examined. At best it hasn't been addressed in over 20 years, at worst it has *never* been addressed.

JmZ



grumpstumper said:


> More bikers in the wilderness means more people in the wilderness means *GREATER IMPACT* on the wilderness.
> 
> I feel like the wilderness is _sacred_ and not just a nice place to ride. It is so much more important than that. On a weekend, most of the people are impacting the first mile or two of trail. If we start riding in wilderness areas, the first 10 or 20 miles of trail are going to be impacted. If you have experienced a pristine, untouched environment, you know how easily it is ruined by human feet, trash, urine, excrement, food waste, soap, fire pits, noise, etc. It is often an irreversable impact on vegetation and wildlife. It takes one person one day of use to leave a significant impact on an alpine environment. There is so little untouched land left I don't see why mt. bikers, who are lovers of nature, would want to increase impact.
> 
> ...


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

*Faulty premise = Bad conclusion*

Some of you have more or less said this, but the original poster started this whole thread based on a false premise, that IMBA is opposed to wilderness, period. It's not as clear cut as that. Most of the letters I've read from IMBA have been about asking for boundary adjustments or grandfathering in existing bike use on specific trails.

Not all wilderness proposals are of equal merit. Sometimes folks who don't like mtn bikes try to get already protected areas designated as wilderness, just so they can kick the bikes out. This is happening up in the sierras in a couple places right now.


----------



## spaeth (May 24, 2004)

I have been watching this thread in both Passion and here. It is somewhat bothersome to me as here in Oregon IMBA is not saying "no" to Wilderness but "no" to Wilderness as it is currently written. It seems that here they are making some pretty good progress. At least they have some higher ups listening to them. In the Hood River / Mt Hood area we could lose almost half of our really cool riding trails in areas that it is currently fair game for riding in. What they are pushing for is to allow riding to continue in these areas. 

I wonder how into "Wilderness" areas people would be if they just made them completely off limits to all un-authorized people. That would be the most natural state the areas could exist in. It would be interesting to see how many hikers and outdoors people would be against Wilderness areas if they were the ones being kicked out.

Just some of my random thoughts,
Craig


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

spaeth said:


> I have been watching this thread in both Passion and here. It is somewhat bothersome to me as here in Oregon IMBA is not saying "no" to Wilderness but "no" to Wilderness as it is currently written. It seems that here they are making some pretty good progress. At least they have some higher ups listening to them. In the Hood River / Mt Hood area we could lose almost half of our really cool riding trails in areas that it is currently fair game for riding in. What they are pushing for is to allow riding to continue in these areas.
> 
> I wonder how into "Wilderness" areas people would be if they just made them completely off limits to all un-authorized people. That would be the most natural state the areas could exist in. It would be interesting to see how many hikers and outdoors people would be against Wilderness areas if they were the ones being kicked out.
> 
> ...


Craig,

Sounds like you and I are pretty much in agreement. Your thoughts seem far from random.

I'd go a step further and suggest that while not speaking for IMBA, my impression is that there are lots of places they have no quarrel with being wilderness and no bikes allowed. There are places I've been where it took a couple hard days of hiking with a pack to get there, and that was the only way to get there. What you are describing is not that sort of situation. I've traveled in Oregon and been to Mt. Hood. I'd bet there are other, more remote parts of Oregon that are or could be wilderness without the loss of active riding area you are describing.

HC


----------



## kadeater (Aug 16, 2005)

*Are you kidding?*



ragnarok29er said:


> Yeah, I understand that IMBA's mission is to keep trails open for mountain bikers. And I'm also aware that lots of folks in California are hell bent against Wilderness because it's closing their somewhat limited trails. But to me, the message in this photo is clear. Would I rather see this photo as is: with bikes (my passion), motos, ATVs and 4 wheelers? Or, would I rather see it as a designated Wilderness? Yes, bikes wouldn't be in the picture, but neither would the motorized vehicles. To me, it's worth not being allowed to bike on this land if it means better preservation. It's a more intelligent, long-term caring approach that in the end will benefit all of us.
> 
> Just my $.02.
> 
> - Chris Howe, Telluride


Supporting the designation of more wilderness area is supporting the demise of our opportunity to ride mountain bikes. I am very involved in fighting against these environmental advocacy groups for one simple reason. The ultimate goal of these dumb asses is to remove everyone from the mountains except themselves! Don't you realize that what the ultimate goal of these groups is? They first say we need to remove motorized vehicles then it is bikes then horses, then people. I am with you that it would be nice to remove motorized vehicles from some areas. I am a mountain biker and backcountry skier. I do not like motorized vehicles on our trails whether it is summer or winter, but if you remove them, bikes are next to go, that I will promise you. The IMBA is a good environmentally conscious group that realizes that our bikes are second on the chopping block only to motorized vehicles. We need to support them in what they are doing for our sport. We can not sacrifice a little area of mountain biking to remove motorized vehicles, if we do that we are only giving the environmental waccos a more sure foot hold. If we want to keep our National Forests "public lands" as they were designed to be we have to deal with the bad to enjoy the good. Anyone who is a mountain biker is an idiot, in my opinion, if they support any group who wants to remove motorized vehicles from our public lands. THE REMOVAL OF BIKES FROM THE NATIONAL FORESTS ARE SECOND ONLY TO MOTORIZED VEHICLES.


----------



## kadeater (Aug 16, 2005)

grumpstumper, you are an idiot! Its morons like you that have no real clue about the environment and mans impact on it. The Forests are public land so why in the hell should we limit it to only those who are physicaly able to hike to somewhere "pristine"? I have taken horse pack trips, with as many as 6 horses in our group, through hundreds of miles of Wilderness area and you couldn't find where we camped if you had to because we like you clean up our mess and leave the area as we found it. Just because someone has a different way to enjoy the wilderness dosn't meen we shouldn't allow them to.


----------



## lovemonkey (Jan 5, 2005)

grumpstumper said:


> Having spent alot of time in CA's wilderness areas I can honestly say I appreciate whatever solitude I can get there and I'd be bummed if it became any easier for people to get back in.
> 
> Make 'em work for it.
> 
> Have you spent much time in wilderness areas?


No, I can't get there on my bike. Haven't we already covered this?


----------



## lovemonkey (Jan 5, 2005)

There is a Wilderness area near my house that I don't have a problem with. The boundary was drawn to maintain existing trail networks. . Amazing what can be done when the advocacy groups work together, instead of just getting into a pissing contest.


----------



## SANDTOAD (Aug 2, 2005)

Heck with it, 

Get a set of hookworms and huck the courthouse stairs...


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

i think wilderness should only be accessed by Native Americans such as myself. Unless you are tribal you shouldn't have access because you've spoiled the resources and defiled the land here enough, and honestly continue to do so while participating in an industrialized society.

All kidding aside isn't my crazy statement just as absurd as what many people here offer up as valid reasons for it.

Certainly there are many good reasons to have wilderness, or rather sections of federal land that are managed to handle and best accomodate whatever recreation that makes sense. Yet today we have vast sections of land and much more being suggested for closure, and the primary reason all boils down to a stubborn desire of wilderness users to selfishly HOG the trails to themselves. They use the word "pristine" to mask their true desire to have solitude. 

If you are into wilderness your mission is to destroy access to enjoy your recreation, and mask it behind ridiculous claims of caring for the environment. Well shame on you, and your disrespect for other persons who choose to recreate. You name other trail users as enemies when they are people like you wishing to recreate. Really how better to appreciate nature than to allow people to enjoy it. Just because they don't and/or cannot enjoy it the same way you can. 

There are many recreational groups, IMBA included that care for the environment. The fact that wilderness advocates mantain a hardline stance against mt. biking only reveals the hypocrisy. Because like i've said before if you want true wilderness you need to walk in mocassin and loincloth, and sorry horses are not native either, so they shouldn't be allowed.

Wilderness here in Washington State has thousands of trails vs the hundreds that are off wilderness. Of which many are still closed to varied multi uses and many are open just to hiking. Fine that makes sense for some of the trails. But the fact remains that many of the trails within the wilderness boundary should be open to mt. bikes, and that's a fact.


----------



## kadeater (Aug 16, 2005)

Skookum said:


> i think wilderness should only be accessed by Native Americans such as myself. Unless you are tribal you shouldn't have access because you've spoiled the resources and defiled the land here enough, and honestly continue to do so while participating in an industrialized society.
> 
> All kidding aside isn't my crazy statement just as absurd as what many people here offer up as valid reasons for it.
> 
> ...


I would just like to say AMEN to that!


----------



## paul (Jan 13, 2004)

*The issue is new Wilderness designations . . .*

Folks, the issue is that access to some current legal trails, which mountain bikers may take for granted, is in jeopardy because of proposed new Wilderness Area designations. The question is not whether riders should be allowed in current Wilderness Areas, it is about other outdoor areas open to mountain bikers today, which could be designated as Wilderness tomorrow. Maybe only to stop logging, road development or motor vehicles. Does it matter that cyclists are usually the 2nd most popular users of these trail areas after hikers and yet have less impact on the areas than equestrians, which are allowed in Wilderness? If you consider that mountain bikers volunteer one million hours per year of trail work worldwide, some of which is on trails that would close to riders if designated Wilderness. I grew up riding the trails near San Jose and Santa Cruz, where mountain bike access is frequently challenged, many times by one group of trails users who wish to restrict access to most other trail users. On the other hand, mountain bikers around here always seem cooperate with the other trail users, or least with the hikers, equestrians and fellow riders - a community of natives, immigrants and visitors who all love these trails and the wonderful outdoor environment, which benefits us all in so many healthy ways.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

*I'll take your absurd premise....*



Skookum said:


> i think wilderness should only be accessed by Native Americans such as myself. Unless you are tribal you shouldn't have access because you've spoiled the resources and defiled the land here enough, and honestly continue to do so while participating in an industrialized society.
> 
> .


And trump it:
There ARE no native americans.
Every human here in the Americas came from somewhere else....only the Caribou, Elk, Bear, Deer, etc have the right to be on any trail.
Until the earth is restored to a non-human habitat, Humans should live in pods, preferably somewhere near detroit.  (I cannot believe that I had to add the smiley...yeesh)


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

rideit said:


> And trump it:
> There ARE no native americans.
> Every human here in the Americas came from somewhere else....only the Caribou, Elk, Bear, Deer, etc have the right to be on any trail.
> Until the earth is restored to a non-human habitat, Humans should live in pods, preferably somewhere near detroit.


Guess we'll all have to move back to Africa, yourself included idaho boy.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

paul said:


> a community of natives, immigrants and visitors who all love these trails and the wonderful outdoor environment, which benefits us all in so many healthy ways.


Understood, seems like whenever i bring that topic up it always seems to defocus the real issue at hand. Touches a nerve in many people who want to fight over a completely different topic.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

*I guess....*



Skookum said:


> Guess we'll all have to move back to Africa, yourself included idaho boy.


My tongue was not firmly enough lodged into my cheek....
That was my whole point: where does one stop with 'history'?
Our time here is but a blip....where that leaves us in day to day management, I have no idea.
But yes, the rest is just self serving parsing of time...nothing more.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

rideit said:


> My tongue was not firmly enough lodged into my cheek....


My bad, the "wilderness" of the intrawebbe hosts many varied "e-scavengers" eager to fight, especially on this board where nobody seems to ever be wrong. Without use of smilies it's pretty easy to mininterpret tone, and i was actually wanting to delete the last post to not have the thread meander off topic.

i guess what i'm trying to say is i don't mind arguing opinions on wilderness, but from a prior argument on the same topic on this web forum, and a topic of which i really don't like arguing, left me wondering why i even brought up the analogy.

To further defile and stray from the argument i'm left to complain that there is no delete function for posts on this board and that really sucks.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

Skookum said:


> To further defile and stray from the argument i'm left to complain that there is no delete function for posts on this board and that really sucks.


Just edit your post; I went back once and deleted what I had originally posted and wrote something like "Never mind".


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

Well to me wilderness and the fact that it eliminates bicycles is enought to make me against any further wilderness designations.

Forget horses, sloppy hikers or skidding bicyclists, some of the biggest dangers to wilderness is fire supression and sudden summer thunderstorms. They can do more damage in hours than all the bicyclists that could possibly access the trails.

We had a major fire go through our neighborhood less than 2 years ago. It took out most of the trees in Cuyamaca Park, INCLUDING THE WILDERNESS SECTIONS OF IT!!! For some funny reason the fires did not notice the wilderness boundaries. Do you want me to send you some pictures of it???? Would we be better off with tree and brush thinning and controlled burns. Heck yes!

Then the summer thunderstorms created another mess since there was no plant life to hold things together.

A trail is such a small portion of the wilderness and to say that bicycles will negatively impact the wilderness that they go through is laughable. Just how do bicycles negatively impact wilderness particularly on existing trails??

I personally believe hikers cause more damage in wilderness because they tend to go off trail much more and then they pack in all this gear and camp and leave human waste and trash they haul in. Most bikers go in and come out in a short period of time. It is all about other user groups not wanting us in there. Somehow they have come to the conclusion that hiking and riding a horse is so much purer than bicycling. These are the same idiots that try to run us off the road when we dare take our bicycle on the road.

Hey I am all for preservation too, but I am against the rules that keep bicyclists out of wilderness areas. Just who made up that rule in the first place? A bike is a human powered device, not a motorized device and to lump it in with motorcycles and atv's and cars and jeeps is beyond me. I can see separation or closure of trails when there is just too much foot traffic such as in national parks, but a sweeping closure to all wilderness does not make sense.


----------



## hardtail05 (Oct 11, 2005)

*Danger: strong opinion here*



richwolf said:


> I personally believe hikers cause more damage in wilderness because they tend to go off trail much more and then they pack in all this gear and camp and leave human waste and trash they haul in. Most bikers go in and come out in a short period of time.
> .


(please pardon spelling mistakes, have no spellcheck) 
Too true.
I see this all the time. But Also, to lump bikes with ATV's, Jeeping, & Motorcycles is wrong. I don't believe we, as Mountain bikers, are "second on the chopping block" as was previously stated (I hope I'm right). 
However, I've seen so much trail damage, from ATV's in particular, that it sickens me that they even exist for recreational purposes. If they were used only on a motocross track or similar, no big deal, but on delicate public lands ?
No bike has the horsepower to shred the landscape like an ATV does. That power goes straight to the rider's head and the vast majority of them that I've seen in person don't give a [email protected] about what they destroy (obligatory exceptions aside)- They are focused only on the rush. 
I have seen first hand countless abuses of delicate areas by motorized vehicles including: a relativley "pristine" area just east of the Needles District of Canyonlands National park covered in cryptobiotic crust absolutely SHREDED by motorcycles in about 10 minutes. These guys were riding off the road and using the few solitary bushes as jumps. The hillside looked like the tiretracks were a handfull of wet spaghetti thrown down afterwards.
(I have video footage of this and would post it if it were in digital format).
And also in a National Forest and wetland area on the north side of Grand Mesa where even mountain bikes were not allowed with ATV tracks running right through the thickest stands of wetland vegitation- crushing sevaral lines through a meadow and the tracks lead up a forested hillside where said tire tracks turned into a trench (at least 1.5 ft deep) that ran straight up the hillside to a spot where the rider did several doughnuts between the trees. The marsh creek used to be crystal clear but now is nothing more than a mudpit after this. 
No mountainbike would have had the ability to do that. 
I wish these were isolated incidents, but they are the norm. I've been all over Colrado and a good deal of Southern Utah for 15 years now and I don't form opinions without reason or quickly. 
Mountain bikers are not at war with nature, although we might seek out some adrenaline here and there, the psychology of riding via your own power & gravity is so different than harnesing an internal combustion engine and tearing cross-coutry through the landscape.

I know this might sound like a "foaming rant" but it is all based on years and years of observation of the facts without prior bias.

If we lump ourselves with the motorsports, we won't have anything left to ride but a torn-up wasteland in a few decades- "second on the chopping block" or not ...


----------



## kadeater (Aug 16, 2005)

hardtail05 said:


> (please pardon spelling mistakes, have no spellcheck)
> But Also, to lump bikes with ATV's, Jeeping, & Motorcycles is wrong. I don't believe we, as Mountain bikers, are "second on the chopping block" as was previously stated (I hope I'm right).
> 
> Hardtail05 you are right we shouldn't lump bikes in with the ATV's and Jeeps etc. But believe me groups like the Autobahn Society, Sierra Club, Nordic United, and other environmental groups do have bikes second on their "chopping block". As I stated earlier I was involved with a mediation group between snowmobilers and back country skiers where the skiers were primarily represented by these groups and they point blank told us numerous times that motorized vehicles are the most damaging and that is why they are fighting them first. Upon successful removal of all motorized vehicles bikes will be the next target, then horses. This was them speaking. That is why I fight to keep our National Forests public to all wether motorized or non motorized recreationalists. There has to be multiple use even though I agree that ATV's and Jeeps should not be allowed to destroy the countryside like they do. We have to fight for responsable ATV use and punishment for those who do such stupid things as you explained seeing. I agree with what most have written here that it would be nice to not have ATVers destroying our trails but the sad reality is if they are gone we will be next.


----------



## Mike Brown (Mar 12, 2004)

Opinions:

1) Advocacy might be more effective to designate "recreation areas" rather than *W*ilderness. This would encompass the efforts to prevent more logging, etc. but allow for designated multi-use trails.
2) I have always stated, and will continue to state, that the existence of spaces that are acccessible only by foot and completely protected from development to be enjoyed at a slow, absolutely quiet pace is good for the soul. Having a designation to that effect is essential.
3) In response to horses having access, I believe that is only under special permit for groups that as part of their permitting process have to commit to no impact practices and perform trail work. MTB'ers could, within reason, advocate for access like that...also, it is important for MTB'ers to remember that w/o the historic efforts of lobbies like hunters and equestrians, there would likely be much less public land to access. We owe these lobbies and have to develop bridges with them, not burn them. 
4) The fight to prevent new Wilderness stopping existing access is important and valuable- see#1 above...
5) The fight to gain access to existing Wilderness should not be a priority IMO. There are many more winnable battles that could be focussed on...

Again, these are just opinions- thanks, Mike


----------



## hardtail05 (Oct 11, 2005)

kadeater said:


> hardtail05 said:
> 
> 
> > (please pardon spelling mistakes, have no spellcheck)
> ...


----------



## CE750 (Feb 12, 2006)

It always amazes me when I hear complaining about the loss of Wilderness and the encroachment of man on to nature... Why? I've spent the last 10 years mainly earning a living as a pilot, both for airlines and for private jet operations.. There is very little to do in the cockpit 95% of the time but look out the window..

I can tell you without any uncertainty that the US is overwhelmingly Wilderness... Especially west of the rockies until you get to the coast of CA.... Except for Las Vegas, Phoenix (where I now live), Salt Lake and a few smaller towns.. there are millions of square miles of extremely rugged wilderness than nobody will ever set foot in.. It's never stops to amaze me how much wide open land there is north of Vegas and all the way to the North Pole. It's amazing to see the endless mountains stretching from Colorado to Idaho and the vast ranges of hills over the Virginias.. The south west (less Florida and the gulf coast) Never mind Alaska, and Canada (not US, I know.. but).


I'm not saying we don't need to protect and preserve it, we do.. but to disallow the limited number of bike trails that are already in place today makes no sense. The 300,000,000 people living in the US today, mostly concentrated in the "Midwest" and NE and on the west coast barely make up a 1% footprint of the land mass of the USA.. much less the North American continent.. 

Lets be reasonable.. Status Quo is good, any more preservation and take back of land makes no sense.

IMBA's purpose is to keep trails open, not to preserve wilderness.. though I'm sure their purpose has no negative effect on any reasonable measures to keep the overwhelming part of the wilderness wild.


----------



## Drewdane (Dec 19, 2003)

I find the attitude of several of the anti-wilderness posters in this and other threads disturbing and frustrating. For one thing, the Sierra Club is not the be-all and end-all of enviro groups. By lumping all wilderness/enviro groups together as "hiking nazis" (AKA: *indulging in stereotypes*), we are throwing away a chance to build what should be a natural alliance against developers and motorized recreation (ATV) advocates - groups who pose a *far greater threat* to trail access than wilderness advocates ever will.

Yeah, it sucks the SC and others have chosen to forgo our support; in my view that means we just need to work harder to convince them to embrace mountain biking as a legitimate wilderness activity so that we can work together on what* should be* a common cause.

It really all boils down to one, and only one question: Which do you prefer, being blocked from Wilderness but having the land stay open to fight another day, or keeping the land open to be sold off and built up into housing developments, golf courses and ski resorts? Which do you think poses the _real_ threat to MTB access? (OK,_ two_ questions. Still...)


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

Drewdane said:


> I find the attitude of several of the anti-wilderness posters in this and other threads disturbing and frustrating. For one thing, the Sierra Club is not the be-all and end-all of enviro groups. By lumping all wilderness/enviro groups together as "hiking nazis" (AKA: *indulging in stereotypes*), we are throwing away a chance to build what should be a natural alliance against developers and motorized recreation (ATV) advocates - groups who pose a *far greater threat* to trail access than wilderness advocates ever will.
> 
> Yeah, it sucks the SC and others have chosen to forgo our support; in my view that means we just need to work harder to convince them to embrace mountain biking as a legitimate wilderness activity so that we can work together on what* should be* a common cause.
> 
> It really all boils down to one, and only one question: Which do you prefer, being blocked from Wilderness but having the land stay open to fight another day, or keeping the land open to be sold off and built up into housing developments, golf courses and ski resorts? Which do you think poses the _real_ threat to MTB access? (OK,_ two_ questions. Still...)


It should not be your either or scenario. You can have preservation without restricting mountain bike access. Let it go to wilderness and hopefully see mountain bike access? Not in my lifetime. I prefer preservation and access. Their are other ways to protect land without the wilderness designation. I have worked with the people hell bent on wilderness designations and I can tell you they don't want access for anyone but themselves. You want some examples? I would be happy to give you several!


----------



## 9.8m/s/s (Sep 26, 2005)

My anwsers in bold.



grumpstumper said:


> More bikers in the wilderness means more people in the wilderness means *GREATER IMPACT* on the wilderness.
> 
> I feel like the wilderness is _sacred_ and not just a nice place to ride. It is so much more important than that. On a weekend, most of the people are impacting the first mile or two of trail. *Not a lot of hikers in your region huh? Look at the AT, the CDR, and the PCT. Tons of traffic, still feels remote.* If we start riding in wilderness areas, the first 10 or 20 miles of trail are going to be impacted.
> 
> ...


----------



## Drewdane (Dec 19, 2003)

richwolf said:


> It should not be your either or scenario. You can have preservation without restricting mountain bike access. Let it go to wilderness and hopefully see mountain bike access? Not in my lifetime. I prefer preservation and access. Their are other ways to protect land without the wilderness designation. I have worked with the people hell bent on wilderness designations and I can tell you they don't want access for anyone but themselves. You want some examples? I would be happy to give you several!


You're right, of course, and I agree. What I _see_, however, is an environment of polarization that drives mountain bikers and wilderness advocates away from each other, which can only help those who see open space as nothing more than a potential oil well or housing development.

I'd be willing to bet that for every "hiking nazi" wanting to kick MTBers off the trails, there are several folks who are perfectly willing to share the trails but who feel forced to go along with the extremists because that's who they see as defending their interest in maintaining places to hike. Frankly, I think mountain bikers who paint hikers/equestrians/"environmentalists" as "the enemy" are engaging in the exact same myopic, "us or them" behavior, and that doesn't help the cause of maintaining long-term access to open space for everybody.

I maintain that IMBA and other MTB advocates could and should do a lot more to build partnerships with environmental groups and wilderness advocates instead of entering into faustian bargains with extraction and development front groups and apologists such as the Blue Ribbon Coalition and the "Wise Use" movement.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

Drewdane said:


> You're right, of course, and I agree. What I _see_, however, is an environment of polarization that drives mountain bikers and wilderness advocates away from each other, which can only help those who see open space as nothing more than a potential oil well or housing development.
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that for every "hiking nazi" wanting to kick MTBers off the trails, there are several folks who are perfectly willing to share the trails but who feel forced to go along with the extremists because that's who they see as defending their interest in maintaining places to hike. Frankly, I think mountain bikers who paint hikers/equestrians/"environmentalists" as "the enemy" are engaging in the exact same myopic, "us or them" behavior, and that doesn't help the cause of maintaining long-term access to open space for everybody.
> 
> I maintain that IMBA and other MTB advocates could and should do a lot more to build partnerships with environmental groups and wilderness advocates instead of entering into faustian bargains with extraction and development front groups and apologists such as the Blue Ribbon Coalition and the "Wise Use" movement.


The problem is when you align yourself with these groups it is their way or the highway. They make try to sound like they will listen to your side BUT once you turn your backs on them they will do what they want to do and that is limit access to just about everyone. Now I don't have a problem with hikers or equestrians (we have plenty of horses) nor do I think mountain bikers as a whole should either. Edward Abbey said it best. Screw the visitor centers and the car camp sites and let the hikers horses and bicyclists at it equally. Put up some neon sign at the preserve entrance and leave it at that.
I don't really want to go into my experiences with what has happened here in my neck of the woods since I have written about it plenty in my other posts on this forum.
Bikers need to get more demanding and make a heck of a lot more noise to get any more access instead of ***** footing around.
A local trail area here was suppose to open to horses, hikers and bikers BUT guess who got excluded? Any good guesses? Yes it was the bikers because they wanted to open the park up and see how it goes. Well how in the heck can they evaluate it unless the let bikers in? I say let us all in and then do exclusions from there. Do you think being polite and nice and quiet will get anything done?


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

*Maybe this is why IMBA should fight wilderness*

On april 24 in Bozeman's paper, this article was displayed.

Apr 24, 4:26 PM EDT

Timber companies, environmental groups offer alternative plan

DEER LODGE (AP) -- A coalition of conservation groups and timber industry companies on Monday offered an alternative plan for managing the state's largest national forest, calling the idea a "thoughtful proposal" that balances industry and environmental needs.

The plan for the 3.3 million-acre Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest recommends setting aside 573,000 acres for proposed wilderness designation. It also recommends that designated routes across about 1.6 million acres forest remain open to motorized vehicles.

The preferred alternative the Forest Service proposed recommends wilderness designation on about 250,000 acres.

The coalition's plan calls for timber harvests to continue mostly under "stewardship contracts," which typically require timber companies to use a portion of the money they make from timber sales to do other work on public lands, such as weed control, road restoration or trail maintenance.

"It's encouraging that everyone involved in this partnership agrees that we need to work together to put an end to the gridlock that exists today on forest lands," said Sherm Anderson, president and owner of Sun Mountain Lumber in Deer Lodge, one of the companies involved in the agreement. "This proposal is an entirely new approach to managing forest lands that we feel will have a wide range of appeal and support from other groups."

"This agreement is about protecting Montana's outdoor heritage and open spaces for future generations and putting Montanans to work today," added Tim Baker of the Montana Wilderness Association. "It is a victory for conservation and timber groups alike."

The group said it submitted its proposal to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, which currently is revising its existing management plan.

Jack de Golia, a spokesman for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest, said officials had received the coalition's plan, but had not had a chance to review it thoroughly.

"They developed a proposal on their own and asked us to look at it and we welcome the opportunity to do that," de Golia said.

But he noted that the agency began working on its revised forest plan in 2002 and took public comment on it until last October.

"It's a little late in the process," he said. "But the real issue for us is the budget. We're funded to work on the plan through the end of September."

The coalition said its proposal calls for thinning high-density timber areas, with requirements that the land be reclaimed within five years.

It has been a tough struggle to get any organization among mountain bikers here in montana. The environmentalists have several dozen organizations, and they are very willing to talk with each other and colaborate on projects. That is why we need to join IMBA and need IMBA to fight wilderness.

Greg


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

*New newspaper article*

One week later, more information comes to light. It seems that after they declare our riding areas as wilderness, and cut most of the woods down, we will have to ride on trashed trails in the clearcuts, or down lower in the gumbo soil grasslands. This is why we need IMBA to fight wilderness. It's the unholy unions now of enviros and loggers. They have different agendas, and unfortunately, it's not about biking, or the good of the land. What do you get when you mate an enviromentalist and a logger? I don't know, but it won't be pretty!

-------------
Wilderness, logging interests offer plan for forest

DILLON (AP) -- A coalition of wilderness and logging interests have offered an alternative to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest management plan that would set aside more acres for wilderness and allow more logging.
However the agreement - a compromise among the Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Trout Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation, Sun Mountain Lumber, RY Timber and Smurfitt Stone Container - was offered six months after public comment on the forest plan closed.
"When all the public comment came rolling in, this idea wasn't there," said Jack de Golia, public information officer for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.
The environmental and timber groups say the agreement is a chance to end years of fighting over logging and new wilderness designations and create a stable supply of timber. It would designate 573,000 acres of new wilderness and set aside 713,000 acres as suitable timber base. Both numbers are far more than the preferred alternative that forest officials are considering.
Key to the agreement is the incorporation of stewardship contracting, a policy that allows companies to exchange timber harvests for infrastructure improvements or wilderness acreage.
De Golia said stewardship contracts are an option a ranger has on individual timber sales - not an across-the-board policy - and the coalition is asking for stewardship contracts on every sale.
"We've learned the hard way that each and every timber sale has to pass on its own merits," de Golia said.
Ed Regan, resource manager for RY Timber, said the timber groups hired a consulting firm in Missoula to develop the alternative plan, which would allow timber harvest in roadless areas as long as those areas were restored.
Tim Baker, executive director of the Montana Wilderness Association, said the compromise is meant as a starting point to bring in other groups interested in the forest management plan.
"We believe that this proposal will attract other supporters," Baker said.
Commissioners in Beaverhead and Madison counties aren't happy with the proposal.
Beaverhead County Commissioner Garth Haugland said the county had been working with the Montana Wilderness Association, trying to agree on lands that could be taken off the table as wilderness in exchange for the county's support for wilderness designation in other areas.
The timber-wilderness proposal more than doubles the amount of wilderness, Haugland said.
Madison County commissioners were also upset about the amount of wilderness proposed.
"Their proposal says let's get rid of a lot of roads, too," Commissioner Dave Schulz said. "We never had any input on that."
The Forest Service has been working on revising the draft forest management plan since 2002. The draft was released last summer and the public comment period closed in October.
De Golia said he's not sure the forest can consider the coalition's plan, which was submitted on April 20.
"Any new information that was provided would have to be within the range of alternatives we've already looked at so that it's something the public has had a chance to consider," de Golia said.


----------

