# So, how about the former IMBA Chair now moving over to STC?



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

I was surprised to read, on a British mtb website, about this move.

Singletrack Magazine | USA: John Bliss Departs IMBA for STC

As someone who has been an IMBA member for a couple of years now, I see great things at local level but the IMBA 'brain' does seem heavily bureaucratic.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I was encouraged by this, and glad to have more than one organization advocating for mtb access. Bliss certainly adds some additional dimension to the STC effort. I'm comfortable with IMBA taking the back seat on this issue.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

bsieb said:


> I was encouraged by this, and glad to have more than one organization advocating for mtb access. Bliss certainly adds some additional dimension to the STC effort. I'm comfortable with IMBA taking the back seat on this issue.


Yes. The STC's mission isn't to replace IMBA, it's to play Bad Cop to IMBA's Good Cop on the Wilderness Access Issue. Both are getting my money.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Cotharyus said:


> Yes. The STC's mission isn't to replace IMBA, it's to play Bad Cop to IMBA's Good Cop on the Wilderness Access Issue. Both are getting my money.


I think you've got "bad cop/good cop" backwards.

IMBA's the Bad Cop that's been on the "take" from the Sierra Club ("do things our way and we'll see that you get all the Subarus you need")

STC is the Good Cop that's trying honestly to finally get somewhere with bicycle access advocacy.

I'll see that Officer Imba still gets his donuts but I'll take Officer Sustainable out for steak and lobster.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

pliebenberg said:


> I think you've got "bad cop/good cop" backwards.
> 
> IMBA's the Bad Cop that's been on the "take" from the Sierra Club ("do things our way and we'll see that you get all the Subarus you need")
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure you completely misunderstand what I'm talking about. This isn't about corrupt cop straight cop, and it's not about how we view these two advocacy organizations, but how lawmakers and other organizations view them.

IMBA has made its bed with good will. Out of necessity, IMBA has played nice and not tried to throw its weight around, because at first it didn't have much weight to throw around. If you ask me, it still doesn't, if you compare the number of mountain bikers to the number of IMBA members, many people at the table could say IMBA may not represent the majority of mountain bikers, and they couldn't be proved wrong by the numbers. That in itself is either ignorance, laziness, or foolishness on the part of mountain bikers who aren't IMBA members - up until now, we've had one advocacy organization, we expect them to work miracles against much better funded organizations, yet we refuse to support them as a group.

STC has walked into the room with it's middle finger up. They have said we refuse to sit at a table and talk circles around this issue. The intention of an act that was passed has been ignored and twisted, and we're mad, and if we have anything to say about it, you're going to fix this. It's good cop/bad cop.

IMBA offered everyone water. STC walked in and threw the water in everyone's face. I'm NOT bagging on STC - IMBA has tried being nice, and can't afford to start throwing water - someone HAD to do it because IMBA still has to be able to sit at the table with some of these organizations in the future, and IMBA DOES to good things, anyone who denies IMBA has ever accomplished anything has their head in the sand. Like I said, both organizations get my money. If the STC fails, IMBA doesn't get a black eye. If they succeed IMBA hasn't made any enemies in the other organizations. This is a necessary step in diplomacy.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

So, in essence it's just a bunch of pandering so we will pay someone else to represent our best interests, because, you know, we aren't capable of doing it ourselves. It's the whole manifestation of "good" vs "bad" that keeps us divided and throwing money at "charity." One could do far more good to expand their riding opportunities by involving themselves at the local level. Whenever there are people willing to work, there is usually work to be done. 

Keep it Local.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Cotharyus said:


> I'm pretty sure you completely misunderstand what I'm talking about. This isn't about corrupt cop straight cop, and it's not about how we view these two advocacy organizations, but how lawmakers and other organizations view them.
> 
> IMBA has made its bed with good will. Out of necessity, IMBA has played nice and not tried to throw its weight around, because at first it didn't have much weight to throw around. If you ask me, it still doesn't, if you compare the number of mountain bikers to the number of IMBA members, many people at the table could say IMBA may not represent the majority of mountain bikers, and they couldn't be proved wrong by the numbers. That in itself is either ignorance, laziness, or foolishness on the part of mountain bikers who aren't IMBA members - up until now, we've had one advocacy organization, we expect them to work miracles against much better funded organizations, yet we refuse to support them as a group.


Not a misunderstanding; just trying to put forth a different perspective. Yes "lawmakers and other organizations" at a glance will see Good/Bad (IMBA/STC) but from "our" MTB side of things it's Bad/Good.



Cothyrus said:


> STC has walked into the room with it's middle finger up. They have said we refuse to sit at a table and talk circles around this issue. The intention of an act that was passed has been ignored and twisted, and we're mad, and if we have anything to say about it, you're going to fix this. It's good cop/bad cop.
> 
> IMBA offered everyone water. STC walked in and threw the water in everyone's face. I'm NOT bagging on STC - IMBA has tried being nice, and can't afford to start throwing water - someone HAD to do it because IMBA still has to be able to sit at the table with some of these organizations in the future, and IMBA DOES to good things, anyone who denies IMBA has ever accomplished anything has their head in the sand. Like I said, both organizations get my money. If the STC fails, IMBA doesn't get a black eye. If they succeed IMBA hasn't made any enemies in the other organizations. This is a necessary step in diplomacy.


I think you're doing STC a disservice with this stance; you're implying that they're going about this in a vulgar/impolite way when I see that they're being comparatively tactful.

A tactful "in your face" approach.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> So, in essence it's just a bunch of pandering so we will pay someone else to represent our best interests, because, you know, we aren't capable of doing it ourselves. It's the whole manifestation of "good" vs "bad" that keeps us divided and throwing money at "charity." One could do far more good to expand their riding opportunities by involving themselves at the local level. Whenever there are people willing to work, there is usually work to be done.
> 
> Keep it Local.


Sure, the local level is where the work gets done. But from personal experience I can tell you that a group of mountain bikers walking into a local government office saying "We're with IMBA and we want to build trails in this park." gets a whole lot further a whole lot faster than "We have a MTB club and we want to build trails in this park." I've never had any help from "national" on any of my projects, not even a TCC workshop/build day because in my area we "lack enough mass to warrant the attention" - but the name carries weight.

My point is the reason the IMBA name carries weight is because of the way they have approached EVERYTHING, politely, willing to negotiate, basically the very reason "everyone" is now mad at IMBA and it's cool to hate them.

From the outside looking in, the STC isn't being rude, but they sure are rocking the boat.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

Cotharyus said:


> I'm pretty sure you completely misunderstand what I'm talking about. This isn't about corrupt cop straight cop, and it's not about how we view these two advocacy organizations, but how lawmakers and other organizations view them.
> 
> IMBA has made its bed with good will. Out of necessity, IMBA has played nice and not tried to throw its weight around, because at first it didn't have much weight to throw around. If you ask me, it still doesn't, if you compare the number of mountain bikers to the number of IMBA members, many people at the table could say IMBA may not represent the majority of mountain bikers, and they couldn't be proved wrong by the numbers. That in itself is either ignorance, laziness, or foolishness on the part of mountain bikers who aren't IMBA members - up until now, we've had one advocacy organization, we expect them to work miracles against much better funded organizations, yet we refuse to support them as a group.
> 
> ...


And Neville Chamberlain and John Kerry were also diplomats, just not very good ones, because they caved in to our enemies demands. Fortunately, mountain bikers have had years to watch IMBA give in to our enemies and now see a void that is being filled with local groups which you practically dismiss. Go ahead and drink the IMBA kool-aid, if you like. IMBA has a trivial number of members it will do and say anything to protect. It's arrogant to say that up until now we've had only one advocacy group. There are hundreds of local advocacy groups doing great things with no help from IMBA. In recent years, a lot of local groups have had success with land managers using all sorts of methods IMBA wanted no part of. Here in Arizona, new trail construction is happening all over the state. It's an easy sell. We are the majority of trail users, we are willing to do heavy lifting, we show up to volunteer, we spend all sorts of cash locally, we attend meetings, we elect politicians who ride bikes and understand us. We don't need to play nice with Sierra Club folks who view us the same way Palestinians view Jews. IMBA never learned that lesson and that is why we also don't need to play nice with IMBA.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Cotharyus said:


> Sure, the local level is where the work gets done. But from personal experience I can tell you that a group of mountain bikers walking into a local government office saying "We're with IMBA and we want to build trails in this park." gets a whole lot further a whole lot faster than "We have a MTB club and we want to build trails in this park." I've never had any help from "national" on any of my projects, not even a TCC workshop/build day because in my area we "lack enough mass to warrant the attention" - but the name carries weight.
> 
> My point is the reason the IMBA name carries weight is because of the way they have approached EVERYTHING, politely, willing to negotiate, basically the very reason "everyone" is now mad at IMBA and it's cool to hate them.
> 
> From the outside looking in, the STC isn't being rude, but they sure are rocking the boat.


IMBA has mailing lists. That is where their power is.  If a local club could get enough members and a BOD that was organized and knew how to negotiate there would not be a need for IMBA. IMBA has not had a very significant presence here in the past, and what presence there was left a bad taste in peoples mouth.

Again, you can get more done just by motivating the local riders. Unless you want a bike park and/or facility where everything is built to IMBA standards, you are better off fending for yourself.

I still believe the STC is more closely affiliated with IMBA than what they would have us think. The STC is basically damage control for IMBA, IMO. The tell for me is the way the bill is drawn up, and the lack of verbiage regarding "sustainable trails." Who is the best resource for data on "sustainable trails," I wonder...?  As such, I don't have a lot of faith in either organization to fulfill the needs of the masses, in as much as I think there are far more opportunities on a more local level.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Keep it Local.


Hard to keep it local when Wilderness designations are made in DC and give a blanket ban to bikes. The whole point of STC's approach is to give local management the ability to manage.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

ACree said:


> Hard to keep it local when Wilderness designations are made in DC and give a blanket ban to bikes. The whole point of STC's approach is to give local management the ability to manage.


For most of the country, Wilderness isn't an issue because it does not exist. I am not aligning myself with STC just to potentially gain access into the Wilders at the cost of more regulation and standards by an agency that pretends to be "neutral." Wilderness IS a "standard" BTW.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Yes, Wilderness is really an issue only to those who live in western states, or who want to visit western states to experience such riding. Wilders on the other hand, does not exist. I fail to see how more regulations and standards could come out of relaxing a blanket ban.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

ACree said:


> Wilders on the other hand, does not exist.


:cornut:


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I think it's important to remember why IMBA even got started. IMBA formed many years ago because bikers were losing access to trails left and right and a some dedicated people wanted to put a stop to it.

STC is getting started by some dedicated and passionate people because, guess what, bikers are still losing access to trails....


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

ACree said:


> Yes, Wilderness is really an issue only to those who live in western states, or who want to visit western states to experience such riding. *Wilders on the other hand, does not exist.* I fail to see how more regulations and standards could come out of relaxing a blanket ban.


Well, they did not just tackle the issue of a blanket ban, or I would have been all for it. They padded it with a lot of potential restrictions including "shuttling," speed limits, use permits and days-of-week. Did you read the draft, bro? Seems it could do little for access in places like Chama, New Mexico, while leaving the door wide open for FS to start "interpreting" the law. But, hey, someday you might be able to ride the CDT in CO, and the PCH in CA (every other odd number Tuesday [except in February] at 8 mph max speed limit). I wish they would have kept it short and sweet. It would have been better to have sought to lift the blanket ban entirely, and force FS show "just cause" as to why a particular Wildertrail should be closed, including a comment period. As it is, they can close any trail for any reason. All the pandering could have been an option when all others have failed. They basically played their ace in the hole right out of the shoot, which means the negotiations can only get worse. Heck, I might have even addressed riding in the Natn'l Parks just so they knew I was serious! :cornut: These guys are definitely not walking in with their middle finger up, but rather their pants down. haha! JK

_*bolded: *_"Wilders on the other hand, does not exist." *YET:thumbsup:*

There is still the very big issue with the condition of most of these trails, which has been mentioned time and again.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Boris Badenov said:


> There are hundreds of local advocacy groups doing great things with no help from IMBA. In recent years, a lot of local groups have had success with land managers using all sorts of methods IMBA wanted no part of. Here in Arizona, new trail construction is happening all over the state. It's an easy sell. We are the majority of trail users, we are willing to do heavy lifting, we show up to volunteer, we spend all sorts of cash locally, we attend meetings, we elect politicians who ride bikes and understand us. We don't need to play nice with Sierra Club folks who view us the same way Palestinians view Jews. IMBA never learned that lesson and that is why we also don't need to play nice with IMBA.


It's an easy sell there and you don't need IMBA - that's great! It's not an easy sell where I am. We have mountain bikers, but they don't really want to work together. Part of that is because a non-trivial number of them are stationed on a military base nearby and will never be permanent members of the community. Part of it is because some of the riders are young enough that they don't remember a time when we didn't have access to any trails around here. The majority of trail users in this area are still hikers and walkers and trail runners and a few ticked off equestrians who got banned from the only local part that had trails when one of their horses kicked someone. We got permission to build an MTB only park, and I still count as many trail runners out there as I do mountain bikers. So for us, saying we are IMBA members, we understand IMBA construction standards, etc - all of this goes over well with land managers. Don't think for a second we rely on IMBA to build our trails, we don't. But even though we are a local group (we don't have a local IMBA chapter) using the name helps us here.


----------



## BonkedAgain (Aug 23, 2005)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> _*bolded: *_"Wilders on the other hand, does not exist." *YET:thumbsup:*


Nope, never gonna happen. Just give it up... :skep:


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

Suppose you take a mountain biking trip to Sedona, AZ, one of the great Mecca's of our sport. It would be difficult to go for a ride and not be out on a trail built by mountain bikers, not the Forest Service, Park Service, BLM, or some other government agency. And the riders didn't ask permission, they just built beautiful trails all users wanted.

Just for a moment, view trail building like you view the speed limit on the roads you drive on. Each and every one of you looks at the posted speed limit sign and you make the decision to travel 5 or ten miles an hour faster. You know it's illegal but you figure you won't get caught. The big difference between breaking that law and going out and building trails is that building trails is hard work. It requires skills and tools and time. It requires a plan not to get caught, just like when you speed. Most people don't realize the land managers don't have people or money to patrol trails looking for new trails being built. They rely on a user reporting a new trail. Then the land managers go out and look at it. Sometimes they toss a log across the trail and walk away. The next day a rider moves the log and rides the trail. Maybe the land manager gets another call. Maybe not. Either way, they want nothing to do with going out and dealing with a new trail. They ignore it for a while, maybe for years. Then, when it becomes popular, they decide to put up a sign and name the trail and adopt it into the trail system. Then people can officially maintain the trail, trim brush and keep drains working and make needed repairs. But it all began with a vision by a small group of mountain bikers who wanted to connect two trails or create new single track so they could avoid using an old road to get from one place to another. They did volunteer trail work many times to learn the skills and the tools needed. They may have even asked the land manager how he felt about turning an old game trail into an approved trail. Then they proceeded. They worked from the middle out, preventing anyone from discovering the new trail until it was completed. They told all local riders to use the trail a lot to establish it, to break it in, and to encourage all other users to try it out. Then they knew there would be a lot of others who liked the trail and would not want to lose it. Most of these new users probably thought the land manager built the trail. The land manager then looks at the situation and thinks, why not keep the trail. It's already built. They don't need funding or environmental studies. If it was built well, it is going to be sustainable. It might have been something the land manager thought about doing anyway, in the next ten years. Now it's done. He can take credit for it. 

That is the reality. Yes, there are risks. You can't do it in wilderness and you won't be as successful if you are only building free ride type trails that all other users won't enjoy. You might want to schedule work on days and during hours you know the land manager and his crews are not working, to avoid them showing up. If you know someone working on the inside, maybe they can tell you if or when the trail is discovered and how they plan to react. Talk to local riders who do a lot of volunteer work and are known to play by the rules. Get them to show support for the work, while saying they had no actual knowledge of the work. Get other users to make calls to the land manager saying they just discovered the new trail and they highly approve of it and want to see more trails just like it. I've seen land managers cover a new trail and two days later, when users uncover it and there is a big increase in usage, the land manager gives up trying to close it down and they allow it to stay open. You can also sit down with a local paper and get them to write a positive story about people who love the outdoors and saw that the government was unable to fund new trails, so they took initiative and made it happen. Yes, there will be critics and negative fall out. It goes away in time. Over 90% of the last 50 trails built in Sedona were built by users. Many of them are now adopted into the system trail network. Many more will be. What are you willing to do to get more trail access?


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Cotharyus said:


> It's an easy sell there and you don't need IMBA - that's great! It's not an easy sell where I am. We have mountain bikers, but they don't really want to work together. Part of that is because a non-trivial number of them are stationed on a military base nearby and will never be permanent members of the community. Part of it is because some of the riders are young enough that they don't remember a time when we didn't have access to any trails around here. The majority of trail users in this area are still hikers and walkers and trail runners and a few ticked off equestrians who got banned from the only local part that had trails when one of their horses kicked someone. We got permission to build an MTB only park, and I still count as many trail runners out there as I do mountain bikers. So for us, saying we are IMBA members, we understand IMBA construction standards, etc - all of this goes over well with land managers. Don't think for a second we rely on IMBA to build our trails, we don't. But even though we are a local group (we don't have a local IMBA chapter) using the name helps us here.


Are you saying that the brand "IMBA" helps improve relationships with trail users, or land managers?

None of what you said makes any sense if you don't have a core group of riders. Stop focusing on what you don't have and start focusing on what you do have. That would be my advice. IMBA will only get you so far without dedicated people working towards a common goal <--whatever that may be. you have to decide.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Hey, Boris. Man, you've got good imagination!  I'm not completely sure I understand your "vision." There has been at least as many new trails added to our system as there have been bootleg trails. Heck, even the bootleg trails were approved by previous FS management, albeit without a lot of red tape. Unfortunately, when the FS trails manager cut them loose with a skeleton crew of people they were more interested in mileage than sustainability. As new FS district leadership moved in many of those trails plus some additional non-sanctioned trails have been adopted. That said, we have a very active trails coordinator and as he closed some sections he also established new corridors. As a result, I think we have improved our overall experience here. Now, when new management comes in (pretty soon) they might not be as open to new trails. It really is a crapshoot when dealing with FS, so we have to be careful what we agree to.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

Mtn. Biker 123, nothing was imagined. These are personal experiences.

I'm watching the opening scene of Red Dawn. They show a statue of "THE ROUGH RIDER". Under it reads;

"Far better it is to dare mighty things than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat." 

- Theodore Roosevelt 1899


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Boris Badenov said:


> Mtn. Biker 123, nothing was imagined. These are personal experiences.
> 
> I'm watching the opening scene of Red Dawn. They show a statue of "THE ROUGH RIDER". Under it reads;
> 
> ...


I was referring more to your analogies. 

Good words and godspeed, bro.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Boris Badenov said:


> Mtn. Biker 123, nothing was imagined. These are personal experiences.
> 
> I'm watching the opening scene of Red Dawn. They show a statue of "THE ROUGH RIDER". Under it reads;
> 
> ...


Hate to break this to you; Teddy was a real person but _Red Dawn_ is fiction.

The spirit of T. R. may work in wide-open spaces but becomes inverted when urban populations are nearby.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

pliebenberg said:


> The spirit of T. R. may work in wide-open spaces but becomes inverted when urban populations are nearby.


So say the timid. A few days ago I mentioned to a riding buddy that I was getting badly cut up doing brush work on a trail. He gave me a machete. Two days ago I took it to a fellow trail builders work place and sharpened it. Yesterday, I wrapped it and strapped it on my hydration pack and took it with me on a ride. I spent four hours cutting brush. This in a metropolitan area of 4.3 million people.

You can get to work or you can make excuses.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Boris Badenov said:


> So say the timid. A few days ago I mentioned to a riding buddy that I was getting badly cut up doing brush work on a trail. He gave me a machete. Two days ago I took it to a fellow trail builders work place and sharpened it. Yesterday, I wrapped it and strapped it on my hydration pack and took it with me on a ride. I spent four hours cutting brush. This in a metropolitan area of 4.3 million people.
> 
> You can get to work or you can make excuses.


Just out of curiosity did you get the permission of the land manager to do the trail maintenance? If so, that's a beautiful thing and props to you.

If you didn't ask for permission I suggest you may be the timid one.

Cheers from a metro area of 7.5 million people.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

pliebenberg said:


> Just out of curiosity did you get the permission of the land manager to do the trail maintenance? If so, that's a beautiful thing and props to you.
> 
> If you didn't ask for permission I suggest you may be the timid one.
> 
> Cheers from a metro area of 7.5 million people.


You've missed the point of every post I have made on this forum.

You can write a letter. You can leave a message with someone who may or may not get back to you. You can spend a lot of time trying to get through to whoever is in charge. Then they will tell you they have procedures in place to take care of trail maintenance. You will grow fatigued when you realize the land the trail sits on is State Trust Land and there is nobody managing it or maintaining it. That's part of how the trail got built originally by motorized users and the reason it isn't getting routine maintenance, including brush work.

If you were awake during history class, you'd know exactly how Teddy Roosevelt and the rough riders would proceed, when faced with these options. Timidity would not best describe the response. Seriously, get off your backside and go improve a trail that needs it. Internet forums drain the life out of people who spend their time more concerned about their reputation rating than getting something done where it matters. So the answer to your question is no, I didn't ask. Nor should you.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Boris Badenov said:


> You've missed the point of every post I have made on this forum.
> 
> You can write a letter. You can leave a message with someone who may or may not get back to you. You can spend a lot of time trying to get through to whoever is in charge. Then they will tell you they have procedures in place to take care of trail maintenance. You will grow fatigued when you realize the land the trail sits on is State Trust Land and there is nobody managing it or maintaining it. That's part of how the trail got built originally by motorized users and the reason it isn't getting routine maintenance, including brush work.
> 
> If you were awake during history class, you'd know exactly how Teddy Roosevelt and the rough riders would proceed, when faced with these options. Timidity would not best describe the response. Seriously, get off your backside and go improve a trail that needs it. Internet forums drain the life out of people who spend their time more concerned about their reputation rating than getting something done where it matters. So the answer to your question is no, I didn't ask. Nor should you.


And if you knew your history you'd know that T.R. had _petitioned_ the Secretary of War to form the Rough Riders and they went to Cuba under _orders_; in other words, he had _permission_ to do what he was doing.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

pliebenberg said:


> And if you knew your history you'd know that T.R. had _petitioned_ the Secretary of War to form the Rough Riders and they went to Cuba under _orders_; in other words, he had _permission_ to do what he was doing.


I get it. You don't design trails. You don't build trails. You don't restore trails. You don't maintain trails. I've logged over 5000 hours doing all of the above while you've posted 2605 times giving people history lessons.

*"&#8230;the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done."*

* - Theodore Roosevelt*


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Boris Badenov said:


> I get it. You don't design trails. You don't build trails. You don't restore trails. You don't maintain trails. I've logged over 5000 hours doing all of the above while you've posted 2605 times giving people history lessons.


You are so wrong.

I don't have to brag about my accomplishments.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

You guys are both doing the job you need to do. Keep up the good work!


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Hey, Boris. Man, you've got good imagination!  I'm not completely sure I understand your "vision." There has been at least as many new trails added to our system as there have been bootleg trails. Heck, even the bootleg trails were approved by previous FS management, albeit without a lot of red tape. Unfortunately, when the FS trails manager cut them loose with a skeleton crew of people they were more interested in mileage than sustainability. As new FS district leadership moved in many of those trails plus some additional non-sanctioned trails have been adopted. That said, we have a very active trails coordinator and as he closed some sections he also established new corridors. As a result, I think we have improved our overall experience here. Now, when new management comes in (pretty soon) they might not be as open to new trails. It really is a crapshoot when dealing with FS, so we have to be careful what we agree to.


Hey, Mtn. Biker123.

I find your comments, criticism of Boris, rabid participation, and obsession with Quebecois cuisine interesting.

What is the name of the National Forest and district you are referring to in the quote above?

Thanks,
CB


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

CANADIANBACON said:


> Hey, Mtn. Biker123.
> 
> I find your comments, criticism of Boris, rabid participation, and obsession with Quebecois cuisine interesting.
> 
> ...


Cibola Ntn'l Forest, Sandia Ranger District. Our trails coordinator is Kerry Woods.

Thanks.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Are you saying that the brand "IMBA" helps improve relationships with trail users, or land managers?
> 
> None of what you said makes any sense if you don't have a core group of riders. Stop focusing on what you don't have and start focusing on what you do have. That would be my advice. IMBA will only get you so far without dedicated people working towards a common goal <--whatever that may be. you have to decide.


Land managers. We have a core group of riders, but it's about 10 people, very small compared to the number of people riding and the significantly larger group of trail users.

Don't assume you know what I'm dealing with, focusing on, or doing. I've gotten permission to build legitimate trails in three different parks over the last 8 years. The small group of us that do this stuff around here build good trails, trails that people want to ride, hike, and run on. But our land managers and municipalities would NEVER have let us do it if we couldn't walk in and hand them some IMBA books ( Trail Solutions, Managing Mountain Biking ) tell them we're IMBA members, this is what we want to do, this is how we're going to do it, and we use these sustainability guidelines. If we just walked in and said "Trust us." they'd tell us to get stuffed. Instead, we have discussions about how many people want these trails, who can use them, what it's going to cost them (usually nothing) and what it's going to do for them.

As a result, we don't have a bunch of middle aged fathers sneaking around in the woods on city or county property building illegal trails, no matter how good the illegal trails are, and we CAN advertise our trails, our build projects and what we're doing for the community. True, for the past two years or so, as our reputation has grown, we NEED that IMBA branding a little less, but it still doesn't hurt our case. Is it sometimes slow going when only one or two of our group can show up to build? Yes. Are we expanding our trail systems anyway? Yes.

So look, what I'm saying is, I'm not focused on what I don't have, or whining about what someone else can or can't do for me, I'm pointing out to you the difference between what you have and what I have. And that difference makes IMBA an asset to me. I'm sure I can point to several other places it's been the exact same foot in the door. In other words, you shouldn't assume that just because you have no use for IMBA no one else does either.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

Cotharyus said:


> Land managers. We have a core group of riders, but it's about 10 people, very small compared to the number of people riding and the significantly larger group of trail users.
> 
> Don't assume you know what I'm dealing with, focusing on, or doing. I've gotten permission to build legitimate trails in three different parks over the last 8 years. The small group of us that do this stuff around here build good trails, trails that people want to ride, hike, and run on. But our land managers and municipalities would NEVER have let us do it if we couldn't walk in and hand them some IMBA books ( Trail Solutions, Managing Mountain Biking ) tell them we're IMBA members, this is what we want to do, this is how we're going to do it, and we use these sustainability guidelines. If we just walked in and said "Trust us." they'd tell us to get stuffed. Instead, we have discussions about how many people want these trails, who can use them, what it's going to cost them (usually nothing) and what it's going to do for them.
> 
> ...


I think you may be selling yourself short. Look what you accomplished without IMBA. You organized a work force, determined a group that had the need for new trails in parks, had a plan on how you wanted to proceed, went to the people in charge and made your case, then went and built trails. You never needed to be IMBA members. Sure, their book helped you make your presentation, but it was you who sold the project. Any future trail proposals you make will be easy to sell because you did quality work and people are using the trails. You won't need IMBA or their books moving forward. You are a model for others to copy.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

I've spent 18 years doing trail work. I've worked with the BLM, Forest Service, State Trust Lands, National Park Service, and County Government. I played by their rules. Together, we got some things done. Maybe 10% of what we could have, or should have gotten done. Mostly because they lacked passion for what mountain bikers love. But also because they are government agencies filled almost entirely with lazy stupid people who would starve if they had to get jobs where there were expectations of achievement. 

I liked partnering with the BLM. They were the only agency where the supervisor actually went out into the field and visited the trail project. 

I proposed a trail system for a county park back in the late 90's. The supervisor was an avid cross country skier, so I went to him and proposed a cross country ski course. He wasn't very bright and agreed without knowing the new trails would never see any skiers. Because it was a park, we got to skip all the NEPA, so no environmental studies or wildlife concerns. I had a route flagged and after proposing it on a Wednesday, and getting his approval, we actually began work the following day, using 20 Americorps funded crew members for labor. A month after completion, the state mountain bike championship race was held on the trail.

The above trail was built with little concern that it traveled through State Trust Land. When I went to them and mentioned we had routed our new trail through land they manage, they shrugged their shoulders and said they didn't care. They may be my favorite land managers.

The NPS is full of lunatics. The worst government bureaucrats imaginable. We began two different projects restoring some existing trails. The first project was abruptly stopped in the first ten minutes. A crew member dug into the ground and flipped over some dark soil. The archaeologist we were required to have on site stated the burnt remains of a fire could be something historically significant, so he stopped the entire project for two weeks, while they further examined what turned out to be a controlled burn remains. The most expensive project I worked on was a 20 week restoration project at Walnut Canyon National Monument, outside of Flagstaff. On day one, someone in charge made a presentation about the project to all of us, mentioning they decided to restrict the use of power tools and not allow us to start work until 8am each day because of noises that could disturb endangered Mexican spotted owls nesting in trees on the canyon wall. Wer asked them how many owls there were. The answer was ZERO. They had spent two years sending wildlife people out at night calling owls and hopig some would show up. None did. They told us the canyon would be an ideal place for owls to nest and therefore they were interpreting the endangered species act as though there was already an owl on the land. The project then became a 54 week project, nearly tripling the budget. They said they didn't care. Then when were were removing asphalt from the trail a few weeks later, we found a chunk of concrete under it. The archaeologists stated that it might be historically significant concrete and stopped the project for a week. All during the project, the archaeologist require my crews to sift every shovel full of soil, looking for pottery shards. Then she would log the fingernail size findings into her notebook, with gps coordinates before tossing them back onto the ground and telling us we could cover them up. It was astounding. 

A few years later I convinced the NPS to pony up $25k for a trail reroute I had wanted to do for years. They agreed to fund my trail project if I agreed to route the new trail outside of their property, onto State Trust Land and Forest Service Land. 

I'm saving the Forest Service for last. They are clearly the most inept land managers I ever worked for or worked with. The only thing they are good at is putting lots of miles on those green trucks. If you were employed by them and accomplished 10% of what you planned to do, you'd be an over-achiever in their eyes. They can figure out ways to take ten years to do NEPA studies. They will hold public meetings where they delay or cancel a trail proposal if one single homeowner shows up and rambles on about how new trails will only bring burglars closer to their property. If the head man at the FS is an equestrian, he will likely use FS trail crews exclusively to build horse trails out in rural areas he knows mountain bikers don't want to ride. They can't even skim money illegally out of RTP Trail grants competently. I was hired to supervise a trail crew one summer working on 34 miles of trails. We were funded by an RTP (Recreational Trails Program). They decided to skim $5000 off the top to buy themselves some chainsaws and other tools for the Forest Service. But they were so lazy, by the time they got around to shopping for the tools and saws, the grant money had expired and was lost. Bunch of idiots. In recent years, the man in charge of trails near where I was living, realized he could earn a lot more money each season by getting red card training and skipping out of town during peak trail season and going to do support work on wild land fires. Seriously. He abandons his post each summer to go earn time and a half dropping off groceries at fire camps hundreds of miles away. 

So when someone suggests to me that I should play by the governments rules and wait for them to move forward on new trail construction, i try to explain I've tried doing that and it resulted in me growing old waiting for them to do something. Consequently, other more creative methods of building new trails has resulted in over 50 well used and loved trails being built by users, most that the FS has adopted into their system of legitimate trails. They actually reward people for building wildcat trails. Their ineptness is a benefit to all trail users in the long run.

...end of rant...off to ride.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Boris Badenov said:


> So when someone suggests to me that I should play by the governments rules and wait for them to move forward on new trail construction, i try to explain I've tried doing that and it resulted in me growing old waiting for them to do something. Consequently, other more creative methods of building new trails has resulted in over 50 well used and loved trails being built by users, most that the FS has adopted into their system of legitimate trails. They actually reward people for building wildcat trails. Their ineptness is a benefit to all trail users in the long run.
> 
> ...end of rant...off to ride.


I'm glad your system is working for you; I've used it before with mixed results. Keep in mind that what works in your neck of the woods won't work everywhere.

My experience is limited to California and what you are advocating would be bad medicine here. We've got people just like you who now have criminal records because of extemporaneous trail work; having to pay fines in the order of tens of thousands of dollars.

Your form of advocacy can not be left unchallenged, sorry.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I wonder if land managers relate to IMBA because they are fellow bureaucrats?


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

I don't care what a disgruntled former associate does. Our area has worked to be a good participant in the chapter program, and IMBA has worked to earn their portion.


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

bitflogger said:


> I don't care what a disgruntled former associate does. Our area has worked to be a good participant in the chapter program, and IMBA has worked to earn their portion.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

What's not clear is how you rationalize your participation in IMBA's Chapter Program in relation to the mountain bike organizations who predate IMBA? Haven't they "worked to earn their portion"?

Lets be honest... This isn't about the brand name of an advocacy group or club.

Mountain bikers simply want to have the same access to designated Wilderness as cattle, equestrians, and hikers.

Much of the mountain bike advocate saber rattling and territoriality (here and elsewhere) has little to do with access, principle, or strategy, and a TON to do with job security (competition for donations and grant money/scale).

Sure, research the candidates but... keep your eye on the prize:

THE ISSUES!

CB


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

IMBA is a tool, STC is a different tool, as are local and regional advocacy groups. How about we use the tool made for the job? Let's get over this zero sum competitive mentality and use the full set of tools, and keep them clean, sharp, and well oiled. They don't do that on their own, you know, they get dull and useless. Plenty of dull tools on the trails too.  

In my own case, I would rather send money than go to a meeting, but I do plenty of both, as well as designing and building local trails. Since we Americans live in a country that is increasingly top down, it is necessary to act in unison at times in order to affect change at the top level, and I hope we can use our tools to effectively do that. The most powerful tool we have is unity, but it's a hard one to use effectively, as it requires some streamlining of interests, and violates our oh so special and precious personal concerns for attention and power at times. If we would grow up a little and get serious the trail fruit is ripe for the picking.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

I would agree with your point for the most part, except that a lot of people do indeed pay others to attend meetings and make decisions on their behalf. The way the STC went about accepting donations for a "straight forward" agenda, and later "bundling" some not-so-crafty compromises seems to me to be dishonest. I went down that road with IMBA. Once bitten, twice shy. With good reason!

PS: I've used the same tools for almost 7 years. Bought them at harbor freight for a fraction of the cost, and keep them stashed in various locations. Surprisingly, they still do the job without much maintenance at all. I suppose it has more to do with learning and taking care of your "tools."

Point is, I buy tools so they will work for me. Not the other way around...


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^I guess it's all in your head, eh? Quit obsessing about other people and your personal politics and let a group effort flow. Drama...


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> ^I guess it's all in your head, eh? Quit obsessing about other people and your personal politics and let a group effort flow. Drama...


Yeah, you like those flow trails with no obstacles, huh? 

The group effort will flow with a strong enough current, Bill. You should not let my experience influence you at all.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Curveball said:


> I think it's important to remember why IMBA even got started. IMBA formed many years ago because bikers were losing access to trails left and right and a some dedicated people wanted to put a stop to it.
> 
> STC is getting started by some dedicated and passionate people because, guess what, bikers are still losing access to trails....


No, that is not how I would put it.

IMBA was formed to gain a more California state-wide and national presence by the BTCEB (Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay), ROMP (Responsible riders of Mid-Peninsula) and MBTC in (Marin Bicycle Trails Council) the SF Bay area. The trouble is that IMBA took the assets and did their work out of state leaving us high and dry.

The BTCEB now BTC still exists, ROMP is now SVMTB (Silicon Valley Mountain Bikers), and Marin BTC dissolved with the gauntlet being picked up by Access4Bikes and MCBC (Marin County Bicycle Coalition.) These groups do all the heavy lifting in the area, not IMBA.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

bsieb said:


> IMBA is a tool, STC is a different tool, as are local and regional advocacy groups. How about we use the tool made for the job? Let's get over this zero sum competitive mentality and use the full set of tools, and keep them clean, sharp, and well oiled. They don't do that on their own, you know, they get dull and useless. Plenty of dull tools on the trails too.
> 
> In my own case, I would rather send money than go to a meeting, but I do plenty of both, as well as designing and building local trails. Since we Americans live in a country that is increasingly top down, it is necessary to act in unison at times in order to affect change at the top level, and I hope we can use our tools to effectively do that. The most powerful tool we have is unity, but it's a hard one to use effectively, as it requires some streamlining of interests, and violates our oh so special and precious personal concerns for attention and power at times. If we would grow up a little and get serious the trail fruit is ripe for the picking.


STC personalities represent a more imaginative and aggressive approach to advocacy than the groups from which they have come: BTC, ad hoc Marin advocates, NorCal advocates and Access4Bikes. IMBA comes from a watered-down version of advocacy born in the SF Bay Area.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

More from STC's John Bliss, from The Angry Singlespeeder:

Interview with new STC board member John Bliss - Mtbr.com


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Don't know where I should start distributing my "cartoon"; guess this tread is as good a place as any:


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> Don't know where I should start distributing my "cartoon"; guess this tread is as good a place as any:


IeBMA ?


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Man, people sure like to ***** about what other dedicated people working their @$$es off are doing wrong. 

I support both IMBA and STC. IMBA can't be everything, and it should not try to be. I think having a different group (in the case STC) take a the more aggressive approach works out well.


----------



## Woodman (Mar 12, 2006)

The ST article is a bit misleading. He did not leave his postion on IMBA's board to join STC Board. John has not served on IMBA's board (or as chair) for a number of years now.



TooTallUK said:


> I was surprised to read, on a British mtb website, about this move.
> 
> Singletrack Magazine | USA: John Bliss Departs IMBA for STC
> 
> As someone who has been an IMBA member for a couple of years now, I see great things at local level but the IMBA 'brain' does seem heavily bureaucratic.


----------



## HypNoTic (Jan 30, 2007)

pliebenberg said:


> Don't know where I should start distributing my "cartoon"; guess this tread is as good a place as any:


Might as well drop the I. IMBA was never about International. It should read "US-MBA"


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

kapusta said:


> I think having a different group (in the case STC) take a the more aggressive approach works out well.


I agree with this part.


----------

