# Imba, the people you pay to advocate against us.



## LarryFahn (Jul 19, 2005)

No more love for imba. Don't take our money to be our voice and then turn around and speak against what 96% of riders want. Ttyl, Fahn

https://www.singletracks.com/blog/t...s-proposed-us-bill-allowing-bikes-wilderness/


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

There's got to be a motive for this. Maybe it's part of their overall strategy to start pushing ebikes onto trails?


----------



## injected59 (Aug 14, 2016)

I don’t understand. What’s Imba’s motive or agenda by doing this. Do they have something to gain by conceding? Does IMBA feel by conceding it will make mountain bikers look like superior conservationists and Gov will just grant us more trail access as a reward for our good behavior? Look at the NRA (and I don’t agree with a lot of what they do anymore), they fight tooth and nail on everything. The only thing they’ve conceded on was most recent w Vegas and “looking at” the legality of bump stocks. Give the government an inch and they’ll take a mile. I think IMBA needs to speak up on this very thread and clarify their true motives and explain their concerns. Also could someone explain their mention about possible land seizure in their statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

From a political point of view, it was a complete blunder. If IMBA was against it, they just should have kept their mouth shut, not supported it, and not alienated their members. If they think that by not supporting legislation that they're gaining influence with other orgs and agencies, that would only be short lived or non existent. I don't see a quid pro quo working out here. Even if it was a losing battle, they should have supported it as a symbolic gesture, anyone they are already working with to gain access in a piecemeal fashion would have recognized it as just that.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I think if you look at the overall political landscape in america right now, realistically, you'd realise what was said is most likely very true and the republicans would use this bill to piggyback and remove restrictions so that they can mine/log/frack the crap out of the wilderness and make their friends a crap load of $$$.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

LyNx said:


> I think if you look at the overall political landscape in america right now, realistically, you'd realise what was said is most likely very true and the republicans would use this bill to piggyback and remove restrictions so that they can mine/log/frack the crap out of the wilderness and make their friends a crap load of $$$.


Dontcha think if it was that simple, big oil, etc. would be funding STC up the wazoo? Ha!


----------



## krel (May 9, 2017)

Empty_Beer said:


> Dontcha think if it was that simple, big oil, etc. would be funding STC up the wazoo? Ha!


Buying the politicians directly is a lot easier when you have big oil money.


----------



## injected59 (Aug 14, 2016)

Whatever the matter, is it that hard for IMBA to throw out a social media post saying hey guys and gals here’s what’s going to happen today and this is why were doing it. We just wanted you to know first hand before things got out of control on the forums


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## voghan (Aug 18, 2014)

I'm sure IMBA is probably being told to bend over or else by the Sierra Club and their lackeys. I'm still no going to renew and hope that some other group emerges as a voice for mountain bikers.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

LyNx said:


> I think if you look at the overall political landscape in america right now, realistically, you'd realise what was said is most likely very true and the republicans would use this bill to piggyback and remove restrictions so that they can mine/log/frack the crap out of the wilderness and make their friends a crap load of $$$.


Yes first step we designate bicycles as non-motorized, next come bulldozers. 

I have no choice but to renew as my local club is a charter organization of IMBA. I need that membership for local advocacy and rides... If I had my choice I would not support IMBA any longer. STC has my full support.


----------



## gregnash (Jul 17, 2010)

I would be interested in reading their testimonial at this point and see exactly what was said. It is very easy to take things out of context that may have been explained further in the testimony, HOWEVER, it does seem at first glance like they are doing a complete 180. Looks like this may also have a lot to do with their organizational leadership changes last year.


----------



## injected59 (Aug 14, 2016)

What’s keeping STC from selling memberships. I see they have a donate button. If IMBA doesn’t WOW me by renewal time I will just donate to STC instead. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jestep (Jul 23, 2004)

Maybe they should have kept quiet, but I and a bunch of people I know don't want bikes in wilderness areas.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

jestep said:


> Maybe they should have kept quiet, but I and a bunch of people I know don't want bikes in wilderness areas.


Fair enough, but the flip side is that I don't want Wilderness areas where we've been riding for decades. And that happens.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Lemonaid said:


> There's got to be a motive for this. Maybe it's part of their overall strategy to start pushing ebikes onto trails?


I suspect their motive is political. Today this country is very divided on politics. If a member of on political party proposes something the member in the other quickly assumes it is bad rather than looking at the actual merits of the idea.

IMBA should not be and never be aligned to any political party. They should be aligned to riding bikes. Liberals Ride bikes, Communists ride bikes, Conservatives ride bikes, Libertarians ride bikes. So do a lot of non-political people too.

IMBA should not be tied to the Sierra club or any other club unless our interest specifically align. Now the idea proposed as a remember it was not a blanket allowance on bikes in wilderness, but a measure of local control. So local authorities could then be free to make the call on specific trails and the suitability for bikes. In my experience most wilderness areas are so remote that very people are around so a bike here and there won't be noticed. Or wilderness areas are somewhat arbitrarily limiting so 2 feet over some magic line bikes are bad, but on the the other side they are ok with no real basis in reality of the land.

I personally am not a fan of massive trail building in wilderness as the idea is to mimimize the impact, but allowing bikes on trails that exist seems pretty harmless.

Then again maybe IMBA does not want to support place where there not many IMBA "Standard" trails. I would guess that 99% of wilderness trails would not meet IMBA standards. I personally don't care about that.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

evasive said:


> Fair enough, but the flip side is that I don't want Wilderness areas where we've been riding for decades. And that happens.


I'm guessing the chances of new Wilderness areas (or expansion of existing ones) in the next 3 years are between 0 and 5%.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> I'm guessing the chances of new Wilderness areas (or expansion of existing ones) in the next 3 years are between 0 and 5%.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


What about after 3 years? It not good to rely on the whims of any president to protect what you hold dear. As soon as there is a new President things change. The founding fathers put law making in the hands of congress not the president. They did that for a reason. They did not want that power in the hands of one man. Sadly over the years congress has freely given the president more and more power.

There has been talk about reducing the size of national monuments. Well when congress gives the President the power to do that on his whim then they better be ready to have his whim change as well. Congress should have been the ones to declare monuments. Then you would not have people as upset by some rogue president declaring them one day and then another rogue president erasing them the next.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> I'm guessing the chances of new Wilderness areas (or expansion of existing ones) in the next 3 years are between 0 and 5%.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


That doesn't really matter here. I'm more troubled by R1's unwritten policy of managing RWAs as WAs. No legislation required, just a Supervisor's decision.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

injected59 said:


> What's keeping STC from selling memberships. I see they have a donate button. If IMBA doesn't WOW me by renewal time I will just donate to STC instead.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The STC was never set up to be a membership organization or a general advocacy group. Their sole purpose and reason for existing is to have the Wilderness Act recognized for what was intended when it was written, not what it's been reinterpreted as since. Hence, donating money to help them get the right lobbyists in the right doors, but they have no use for membership.


----------



## injected59 (Aug 14, 2016)

Cotharyus said:


> The STC was never set up to be a membership organization or a general advocacy group. Their sole purpose and reason for existing is to have the Wilderness Act recognized for what was intended when it was written, not what it's been reinterpreted as since. Hence, donating money to help them get the right lobbyists in the right doors, but they have no use for membership.


I was just thinking from the power by numbers aspect to help push through legislation

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## voghan (Aug 18, 2014)

TheDwayyo said:


> Yes first step we designate bicycles as non-motorized, next come bulldozers.
> 
> I have no choice but to renew as my local club is a charter organization of IMBA. I need that membership for local advocacy and rides... If I had my choice I would not support IMBA any longer. STC has my full support.


My local chapter broke away from IMBA but even before that they had a donate option for those that wanted all their money to go to their trails. Maybe make the suggestion to your local chapter? I'd rather reward my local trail builders than some national group that is in opposition to something I believe in.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95124 (Oct 19, 2013)

Here's IMBA's response to the criticism they are getting:

https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness


----------



## bamwa (Mar 15, 2010)

"In 2016, IMBA’s board of directors reaffirmed our position on this issue, which is to respect both the Act and the federal land agency regulations that bicycles are not allowed in existing, Congressionally designated Wilderness areas."

You can still respect the act and the agencies WHILE advocating to allow non-motorized use.....DAVE. Oh, unless you get funded by motorized interests now. I see.....


edit: However much I want to add to the pile on, some decent points were made also.
Such as not pissing off agencies....They do a lot of good, etc.....Letting STC fight this battle alone to stay in good standing with the big dogs.


----------



## bamwa (Mar 15, 2010)

Kind of hard to frown on IMBA's dig in campaign.

https://gearjunkie.com/imba-dig-in-grassroots-mountain-bike-projects

https://win.imba.com/digin


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> I'm guessing the chances of new Wilderness areas (or expansion of existing ones) in the next 3 years are between 0 and 5%.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


How about Wilderness Study Areas?

That's likely the biggest threat to access.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

IMBA to me is sometimes analogous to the AMA. Ostensibly the AMA looks after physician's interests but their agenda and beliefs are so out of sync with mine that I never joined and throw all of their mailers and membership requests directly into the trash.


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

rider95124 said:


> Here's IMBA's response to the criticism they are getting:
> 
> https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness


Wow, that is as weak and as vague as possible. Basically patting the members on the head and saying "we know what we're doing, you wouldn't understand little fella". I'm done with them under current leadership, they are not working aggressively for expanded access, which is what I would be paying for.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

I will never join IMBA now that I am aware of this issue.


----------



## injected59 (Aug 14, 2016)

Almost 1000 views already on this thread. I suspect some within IMBA are monitoring this as it progresses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jasonmason (Mar 21, 2007)

TheDwayyo said:


> Yes first step we designate bicycles as non-motorized, next come bulldozers.
> 
> I have no choice but to renew as my local club is a charter organization of IMBA. I need that membership for local advocacy and rides... If I had my choice I would not support IMBA any longer. STC has my full support.


This is part of the problem. You absolutely have a choice. You can still go help on trail days, participate in events, and make your voice heard without contributing to your local IMBA chapter. Donate the money that would have been your renewal, and in conversation make certain that they know you did.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

rider95124 said:


> Here's IMBA's response to the criticism they are getting:
> 
> https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness


Jesus, what a bunch of political doublespeak BS. I'm not a violent person, but reading that just makes me want to punch them in the face.

I especially like the part where they say they didn't have an "agreement" with STC, it was only a "memorandum of understanding", so it doesn't matter that they made a 180 and stabbed the STC in the back.

And "This is not black and white and it's far from over - no matter the outcome of HR 1349." was a good one too. So, when HR1349 passes, they're STILL not going to support it?!?!

WTF is wrong with these people? Do they somehow believe the people managing wilderness areas are going to suddenly just throw open the gates, and roll in the bulldozers and build a bunch of lift serviced downhill parks when this passes? Of course not. At best, we have years of negotiating for a minuscule number of miles to be opened up in WA's. The BIG impact will be that mountain bikes will no longer be instantly banned in wilderness study areas with the stroke of some anti-bike manager's pen.

My suspicion is that this is ALL about politics. With IMBA being based in Boulder, and being so closely tied to the Sierra Club, they probably can't see past this being introduced by a Republican. Cause you know, all Republicans are evil, and everything they want to do is an affront to all that is good and decent.....which is of course ridiculous. But I get it. They're brainwashed party loyalists, and they sit around in their little echo-chamber telling each other how smart they are, and how the little people (IMBA membership) aren't capable of understanding the broader implications of such actions, which again, is just ridiculous.

Seriously, it's time to cut these people off. They've finally revealed themselves for what they are.

.


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

Haymarket said:


> Wow, that is as weak and as vague as possible. Basically patting the members on the head and saying "we know what we're doing, you wouldn't understand little fella". I'm done with them under current leadership, they are not working aggressively for expanded access, which is what I would be paying for.





_CJ said:


> Jesus, what a bunch of political doublespeak BS. I'm not a violent person, but reading that just makes me want to punch them in the face.
> 
> I especially like the part where they say they didn't have an "agreement" with STC, it was only a "memorandum of understanding", so it doesn't matter that they made a 180 and stabbed the STC in the back.
> 
> ...


^all of that. Screw imba.

Too much mention of " politically divisive times" in that response as well. They are basically saying "we are political activists and this doesn't support our agenda".


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

The underlying message is that they’re focused on new stacked loop systems in suburban settings and avoiding backcountry access issues. From my perspective as someone who’s chosen to live in a small western city surrounded by USFS lands, they’re at best irrelevant.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

They want to keep their seat at the table... but most of their guests have left the table out of disgust.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

rider95124 said:


> Here's IMBA's response to the criticism they are getting:
> 
> https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness


"We know that mountain bikers won't always agree with our approach, and may choose not to support us. That's okay. IMBA will continue to work for the long-term gains of mountain biking, just as we have for three decades."

In other words...."we don't care what you think, we don't need you, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out".

Kinda makes you wonder where their funding really comes from. Is Sierra Club shoveling money in the back door? Is it the corporate money that really keeps them afloat? Democratic party slush fund? Do they even need members? Are their membership numbers even real?


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

- Remember that the former Chair thought IMBA was stupid so he quit and joined STC,
- Remember that half the IMBA board quit because they thought this stance was stupid.
- Remember that the other Chair was fired for being stupid.
- Remember that the new Chair was supposed to be the savior of all and fix this mess, but is also stupid.
- Remember that IMBA is stupid, and if you support them...


----------



## Finch Platte (Nov 14, 2003)

Even Subaru bailed.

Sorry, but I work on my local trails. My IMBA $ goes towards beer.


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

I sent IMBA a strongly worded (yet respectful) email, expressing my shock at its decision. I suggested they just quit after this. And why not, IMBA effectively killed the bill. Now the Sierra Club will use IMBA's position against advancement.


----------



## woggy718 (Oct 8, 2017)

rider95124 said:


> Here's IMBA's response to the criticism they are getting:
> 
> https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bruce in SoCal (Apr 21, 2013)

I fail to see how supporting the Bill hurts IMBA's influence or alienates agencies and land managers. I also fail to see how opposing it increases IMBA's influence or ingratiated it with agencies and land managers. 

Agencies and land managers follow what they believe the law to be. If the law is changed to make clear there is no blanket ban on bikes and that decisions on access are made locally, that should not alienate them. If the agencies or land managers have said they oppose the Bill, we, as citizens and users, ought to know about it.

Speakng against the Bill may please those who oppose bikes, but it will not make them like bikes or drop opposition to bikes in other places. In fact, I could forgive IMBA's opposition if there was some quid pro quo, but there does not seem to be.

I realize IMBA does a lot of good, but it's opposition to the Bill may be a deal-breaker.


----------



## LarryFahn (Jul 19, 2005)

As far as "opening it up to bulldozers" and stuff, this is what I found.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1349

One thing that I'm vaguely familiar with is several years ago, Montana lost hundreds of miles of trails due to an area becoming a "Wilderness study" area. To the best of my knowledge, some/all of these trails were built by riders and bicycle clubs.

Thats a kick in the balls... And for imba- our political voice- to turn their backs on the riders, builders and local shops... Is the biggest kick in the balls to us.

I supported imba for 7 years. I even did their work on my end. When we were losing trails to timbering, "I" was imba. But one year I couldn't afford a "$45 pair of socks", Ya know? But I still did my advocating. I worked with The Nature Conservancy to open up 2,250 acres to mountain biking. A first!

I haven't been part of imba (basically meaning that I haven't thrown $45 to them with nothing to show) in 10 years. But I support them. Until now.

How can you not support us as riders, and then go and turn your backs on a group that's advocating for the same sport and paid for by the same members that support you! 96% of riders want these areas opened!

Ttyl, Fahn


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Maybe IMBA would support STC if STC advocated for ebikes in Wilderness.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

jasonmason said:


> This is part of the problem. You absolutely have a choice. You can still go help on trail days, participate in events, and make your voice heard without contributing to your local IMBA chapter. Donate the money that would have been your renewal, and in conversation make certain that they know you did.


No, I'm a trail liaison for a local trail system that I love dearly and it is my membership with the local club, which is an IMBA chapter, that allows me to do so. I cannot contribute in the way I'd like to (and do) without donating to IMBA.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

LarryFahn said:


> One thing that I'm vaguely familiar with is several years ago, Montana lost hundreds of miles of trails due to an area becoming a "Wilderness study" area. To the best of my knowledge, some/all of these trails were built by riders and bicycle clubs.
> 
> Thats a kick in the balls... And for imba- our political voice- to turn their backs on the riders, builders and local shops... Is the biggest kick in the balls to us.


The WSA in the Bitterroot was news a few years ago, but the bigger issue is the Region's policy of managing RWAs as WAs in order to eliminate a constituency that would oppose Wilderness designation. This was well-described in Bike's recent Lines in the Dirt series.

To IMBA's credit, they buried an address to that and a few other things in the Q&A under their response. They describe their efforts to address that at the Secretary and Chief level; we'll see if they have any luck. I give credit for that entirely to Melson. He's out of Montana and is very familiar with the impacts. They also mention the proposed Recreation Not Red Tape Act, which I wasn't previously familiar with.

If they can deliver on those Federal level issues, then I'll reevaluate my position.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

The countdown has begun for IMBA.

https://www.timeanddate.com/countdo...43&year=2018&month=3&day=1&hour=0&min=0&sec=0


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

Part of me says lame. But part of me thinks maybe IMBA should at a minimum try to get the trails back that mountain bikers used before the area was designated wilderness. 

I remember when I could ride the Colorado Trail unobstructed up to a few years ago. Now you must take lengthy detours around the newly designate wilderness areas. Same thing in the San Gabriel mountains near Los Angeles when you could ride from Pasadena to Palmdale on almost all single track. Well, Not any more, because of areas that were recently designated as wilderness. Which shut down all the trails in a huge section of that small mountain range.

If they can at least accomplish this then I would be satisfied.

As for pushing the E-bike issue. They are motorized and not 100% human powered. I think IMBA has their prioritize mixed up on this issue. I wonder how much money the bike manufactures are paying them to fight for the legalization of a motorized bicycle, to turn their backs on what they have been fighting for for all these years. I am blown away. The real winner here on e-bikes is the manufactures who stand to make or lose millions on the new market with the new concept.


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

> I am on the fence with this issue. Part of me says lame. But part of me thinks maybe IMBA should at a minimum try


Good edit. I really don't see a fence for mountain bikers to be on.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

@[email protected] said:


> Good edit. I really don't see a fence for mountain bikers to be on.


Weird. I did edit that part out. Oh well

Cheers


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

MTBforlife said:


> Part of me says lame. But part of me thinks maybe IMBA should at a minimum try to get the trails back that mountain bikers used before the area was designated wilderness.
> 
> I remember when I could ride the Colorado Trail unobstructed up to a few years ago. Now you must take lengthy detours around the newly designate wilderness areas. Same thing in the San Gabriel mountains near Los Angeles when you could ride from Pasadena to Palmdale on almost all single track. Well, Not any more, because of areas that were recently designated as wilderness. Which shut down all the trails in a huge section of that small mountain range.
> 
> If they can at least accomplish this then I would be satisfied.


IMBA doesn't appear to fully acknowledge the scale of trail access losses to WSA's and full Wilderness designations. I don't think that they understand the magnitude of the problem that these access issues pose for so many bikers.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Curveball said:


> IMBA doesn't appear to fully acknowledge the scale of trail access losses to WSA's and full Wilderness designations. I don't think that they understand the magnitude of the problem that these access issues pose for so many bikers.


Eric Melson does. I know him and I know the issues he's worked on here in Montana. I'm glad IMBA brought him into his role. How the executive leadership at IMBA values, prioritizes, and supports his efforts is another question.


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state. 

All the arguments in the world about how mountain biking has the same or less impact than other forms of recreation don't change the fact that it does have an impact. 

If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

MTBforlife said:


> Weird. I did edit that part out. Oh well
> 
> Cheers


You are right. No fence here, people.

I just like most of my fellow riders are tired of getting the short end of the stick. I do feel like the IMBA buddy [email protected] the mountain biking community.

I am good friends with the CORBA president. CORBA is the very first Bicycle Advocacy group before IMBA. I reached out to him, hoping to here back from him soon. I can imagine he would be disappointed considering all he stands for.

Cheers,


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

VBraker said:


> *With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all*. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.
> 
> All the arguments in the world about how mountain biking has the same or less impact than other forms of recreation don't change the fact that it does have an impact.
> 
> If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.


It's IMBA as in International Mountain Biking Association. It's not a political environmental activist advocate organization.


----------



## LargeMan (May 20, 2017)

VBraker said:


> With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.
> 
> All the arguments in the world about how mountain biking has the same or less impact than other forms of recreation don't change the fact that it does have an impact.
> 
> If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.


So, you are okay with designating entire areas as Wilderness and keeping you out of the same trails you built and have used for 20 plus years. Has nothing to do with conservation but everything to do with control. How about we designate the entire state of CA as Wilderness, you okay with that?


----------



## scottcsc (Apr 9, 2013)

I have been done with IMBA and redirected my funds to STC for a couple of years now.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

evasive said:


> Eric Melson does. I know him and I know the issues he's worked on here in Montana. I'm glad IMBA brought him into his role. How the executive leadership at IMBA values, prioritizes, and supports his efforts is another question.


Yeah, I've heard of Eric's tremendous efforts. My post was more directed at the executive leadership.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

VBraker said:


> With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.
> 
> All the arguments in the world about how mountain biking has the same or less impact than other forms of recreation don't change the fact that it does have an impact.
> 
> If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.


If that's how you feel, then Wilderness areas should also be closed to foot, canoe, and horse traffic. All of those activities have impacts too.


----------



## jonz50 (Jun 10, 2011)

20 or 30 years ago, I never believed I'd be against wilderness designations because I believed the powers that be would stick to wilderness as defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act, i.e. “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” I've seen a lot of the desert closed off as "wilderness" that is not even close to falling under that definition. And the Wilderness Study Areas - what a bad joke. I've been giving some money to STC for a couple years and thought STC and IMBA had worked out their differences when there was a change at the top of IMBA a while back. But now this crap.


----------



## Jovian (Jun 18, 2013)

Pulled my money from IMBA a while ago and have been giving to local groups which are far more affective in the Bay Area.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

VBraker said:


> With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.
> 
> All the arguments in the world about how mountain biking has the same or less impact than other forms of recreation don't change the fact that it does have an impact.
> 
> If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.


On top of mountain biking, I am also an avid hiker and backpacker, and I believe in saving something for future generations.

This is what makes me crazy, For example: I have climbed Mt. Whitney several times. That trail is covered in trash and wag bags. Folks are even throwing there wag bags into the Lone Pine Creek, Lakes and ponds. Leaving trash everywhere. The Forestry Service only allows a certain amount of hikers to enter the Whitney Portal per day. I heard the number is 100 per day. Even with that it does not matter. The trail gets trashed. No bikes allowed in the Whitney Portal.

I have scene trails get shut down and wilderness areas established for a lizard who was never impacted by mountain bikers because the trail we road did not interfere with the lizard, or its water or food sources. The trail did not come with-in 5 miles of the animal or any of its migratory patterns. There are trails near the lizard but those trails where already designated "No Bikes". Yet they established a wilderness that covered almost 75 square miles and gave us the boot. Yet, hikers can still go in there and they are trashing that area. Guess what no bikes allowed.

The majority of Mountain Bikers understand what "Tread Lightly" means and to be a good steward to the environment. Unfortunately, there will always be that dude in Brojamas. I feel it is wrong to punish or hold the majority back because of the 1% who do not understand proper trail etiquette.

I feel there is a double standard.


----------



## anustart (Jun 3, 2013)

With the way the sport is sold to us riders and the non-riding public, let me say, thank you IMBA. There are too many jackasses out there creating a bad imagine of what mountain bikers are and what we do to the trail. No one wants to be hiking into the wilderness for a relaxing long weekend or epic week loop with their 60 pounds of kit and get blasted around a blind corner by some screwball jamming to Metallica or Eminem on their iPhone at 35 miles per hour. 

I'd rather us fight for what we have and expand trails on that land than create more adversaries.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

LargeMan said:


> So, you are okay with designating entire areas as Wilderness and keeping you out of the same trails you built and have used for 20 plus years. Has nothing to do with conservation but everything to do with control. How about we designate the entire state of CA as Wilderness, you okay with that?


California is Environmental Extremism Central. I would not be surprised if that happened for real.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

MTBforlife said:


> The majority of Mountain Bikers understand what "Tread Lightly" means and to be a good steward to the environment.
> 
> ...1% who do not understand proper trail etiquette.


Ha ha.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

VBraker said:


> With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.


Which has nothing to do with the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Perhaps you should start your own group, and lobby congress to establish new "nature preservation areas", instead of trying to pervert existing laws in an attempt to steal public lands to satisfy your own selfish desires.

.


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

_CJ said:


> Which has nothing to do with the Wilderness Act of 1964.
> 
> Perhaps you should start your own group, and lobby congress to establish new "nature preservation areas", instead of trying to pervert existing laws in an attempt to steal public lands to satisfy your own selfish desires.
> 
> .


The Wilderness Act, signed into law in 1964, created the National Wilderness Preservation System and recognized wilderness as "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." The Act further defined wilderness as "an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions

Lots more here: https://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

Curveball said:


> If that's how you feel, then Wilderness areas should also be closed to foot, canoe, and horse traffic. All of those activities have impacts too.


All those user groups accessed that terrain the same way 200 years ago. You're not putting that genie back in the bottle.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

VBraker said:


> The Wilderness Act, signed into law in 1964, created the National Wilderness Preservation System and recognized wilderness as "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." The Act further defined wilderness as "an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions
> 
> Lots more here: https://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm


Two things are painfully clear here.

1. You have a superficial understanding of the Wilderness Act, at best.
2. You're trolling this thread with a fake ID.

What's not clear is if you're a regular member of this forum, or if you're a Sierra Club / IMBA board member who came here to derail the discussion.....or both?

Thankfully, you have no power to change the course of Congress from righting the wrongs perpetrated by you and your kind all those years ago.

.


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

IMBA's been circling the drain for awhile now in their little Boulder Bubble.

They're so irrelevant now, I don't even care what they do anymore.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

_CJ said:


> Two things are painfully clear here.
> 
> 1. You have a superficial understanding of the Wilderness Act, at best.


Can you explain the Wilderness Act?


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

Nat said:


> Can you explain the Wilderness Act?


"wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use."

(it's not terribly long, you can find it at Wilderness.net - 1964 Wilderness Act )


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

_CJ said:


> Two things are painfully clear here.
> 
> 1. You have a superficial understanding of the Wilderness Act, at best.
> 2. You're trolling this thread with a fake ID.
> ...


Nope, not a regular member of the forum, nor a member of Sierra Club / IMBA, just a long time mountain biker with access to the internet. Does that mean I don't get to have an opinion? Or substantiate it with evidence? Or reach out to my Congressional representatives to request that they don't change the current law?

If you really think you understand the Wilderness Act at a higher level, by all means, please share. Point out why you think it requires "righting the wrongs" and the negative effects, besides not being able to ride your bike in Wilderness areas.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

the one ring said:


> And who the **** carries 60 lbs of kit for a long weekend? That is so 1970s&#8230;:nono:


LMAO!!! My Backpacking kit base weight is 6 pounds.


----------



## jonz50 (Jun 10, 2011)

VBraker said:


> besides not being able to ride your bike in Wilderness areas.


And also not ride in the wilderness study areas which IMO is even more bogus as local managers can lock bikes out with the stroke of a pen.

Also, have you read what STC is actually trying to do? Not trying to open all wilderness as you seem to think but allowing individual trails to be evaluated on a case by case basis for use by mountain bikes

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## yzedf (Apr 22, 2014)

IMBA as in International? As in e-bikes are saving the euro bike market? Uhm.. yeah.


----------



## Thor29 (May 12, 2005)

I am a long time granola crunching tree hugger. I will always support anything that protects wildlife and ecosystems against the continuous onslaught of humanity. That said, even I think that there ought to be a little bit more leeway in allowing mountain bikes in wilderness areas. When I lived in Colorado I was hiking a section of the Colorado Trail and encountered a mountain biker walking his bike through a wilderness area in an attempt to comply with the law. Whether or not pushing a bike is legal in wilderness areas, it was absolutely silly. Riding the bike would not have impacted anything at all. Not the wildlife, not my hiking experience, nothing. 

The idea that DH bros are the problem is a red herring. I like to let it rip downhill no matter what kind of bike I am riding. But most wilderness areas are going to be deep in the back country where caution dictates a very controlled descent since help is far away if you crash hard.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Thor29 said:


> When I lived in Colorado I was hiking a section of the Colorado Trail and encountered a mountain biker walking his bike through a wilderness area in an attempt to comply with the law.


The mere possession of a wheel inside WA boundaries is a "crime", and people have been ticket for it. I recall seeing an article about some hikers using some sort of backpack supported by a wheel, and some Barney Fife wrote them a ticket for it, even though they were legitimately disabled. It's but one example of what's wrong with the current interpretation of the WA.

There were discussions of what "mechanized" meant at the time, and in the example of a horse and buggy, the buggy was not to be banned from wilderness areas "because it doesn't have a motor". Pretty clear example of the intent of the act.

Then you have one of the original sponsors writing an objection to the banning of bicycles, saying that was never their intent.....but what does he know, right? Clearly, the selfish desires of special interest groups are more important. 

.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

Thor29 said:


> I am a long time granola crunching tree hugger. I will always support anything that protects wildlife and ecosystems against the continuous onslaught of humanity. That said, even I think that there ought to be a little bit more leeway in allowing mountain bikes in wilderness areas. When I lived in Colorado I was hiking a section of the Colorado Trail and encountered a mountain biker walking his bike through a wilderness area in an attempt to comply with the law. Whether or not pushing a bike is legal in wilderness areas, it was absolutely silly. Riding the bike would not have impacted anything at all. Not the wildlife, not my hiking experience, nothing.
> 
> The idea that DH bros are the problem is a red herring. I like to let it rip downhill no matter what kind of bike I am riding. But most wilderness areas are going to be deep in the back country where caution dictates a very controlled descent since help is far away if you crash hard.


I Absolutely Agree with you!!!

I remember when you could ride the entire Colorado Trail before the wilderness areas were established.

Most of the DH guys are not going to go somewhere unless they can get shuttled to the top. There are few roads through wilderness areas.

As a hiker, most trails I have hiked in the wilderness would prevent someone from just letting go of the brakes. Most trails are primitive and crude in the wilderness, compared to the standards of what most mountain bikers would ride anyways.

There are trails such as the several sections of the Colorado Trail or the Burkhart trail in California which were open to mountain bikes before Wilderness areas were established. I hope to get that access back some day. Unfortunately, they also incorporated the Burkhart in to the PCT as well so double wammy on this trail.


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

_CJ said:


> Clearly, the selfish desires of special interest groups are more important.
> 
> .


Kinda like STC, with their objective of opening trails within Wilderness Areas to mountain bikes?

Or is the "selfish desires" description only limited to those that don't want you to do what you want to do?

This is the flaw in logic that advocates for opening trails are bringing to the table. Because they have surrounded themselves with like thinkers, they somehow believe they hold a widely popular view. However, mountain bikers are a pretty insignificant portion of the overall population, and policies regarding land use have to look at the big picture. IMBA, because of an long history of dealing with these policies, understands this.


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

MTBforlife said:


> I remember when you could ride the entire Colorado Trail before the wilderness areas were established.


I've been riding MTBs for 30 plus years, and I'm pretty sure there have been sections of the Colorado trail that have been Wilderness for quite a bit longer than that. My first rides around Durango had to take in to account the Weminuche wilderness.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

VBraker said:


> I've been riding MTBs for 30 plus years, and I'm pretty sure there have been sections of the Colorado trail that have been Wilderness for quite a bit longer than that. My first rides around Durango had to take in to account the Weminuche wilderness.


You are right. That Weminiche wilderness was there, but it wasn't until the 1993 expansion that mountain bikers got the pinch.

It was in 1993 when the Wilderness areas in the Rockies was expanded and when things started to get stupid. I think that was almost 140 miles of the Colorado trail 
closed with-in the Lone Creek area alone, and no real bypass was established.

My buddies bike packed the Colorado Trail last year and it took them four extra days to find a way around the Lone Creek wilderness alone. They said the last time they Bike packed that section it was open to bikes.

Pure craziness


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

JoePAz said:


> What about after 3 years? It not good to rely on the whims of any president to protect what you hold dear. As soon as there is a new President things change. The founding fathers put law making in the hands of congress not the president. They did that for a reason. They did not want that power in the hands of one man. Sadly over the years congress has freely given the president more and more power.
> 
> There has been talk about reducing the size of national monuments. Well when congress gives the President the power to do that on his whim then they better be ready to have his whim change as well. Congress should have been the ones to declare monuments. Then you would not have people as upset by some rogue president declaring them one day and then another rogue president erasing them the next.


On the other hand, a president can't just increase the size of national monument on a whim, either, like President Obama did. You can't have it both ways just because on one occasion the President exercises dictatorial powers in a manner of which you approve.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

VBraker said:


> With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.
> 
> All the arguments in the world about how mountain biking has the same or less impact than other forms of recreation don't change the fact that it does have an impact.
> 
> If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.


Jesus. Mountain biking does not have an impact on the environment. It shifts a few pounds of dirt here and there and maybe you run over some grass or something but this is not "impact."

As long as you let the marxists who direct the environmental activists to define the terms of the debate you will never win.

"Impact." Good Lord.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

VBraker said:


> If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.


Straw man. Clearly you disapprove of this behavior under any circumstances, so why stop at Wilderness?

Anyplace with sufficient remoteness to justify Wilderness designation is backcountry exploration riding on primitive trails.


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to _CJ again.


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

Ailuropoda said:


> Jesus. Mountain biking does not have an impact on the environment. It shifts a few pounds of dirt here and there and maybe you run over some grass or something but this is not "impact."
> 
> As long as you let the marxists who direct the environmental activists to define the terms of the debate you will never win.
> 
> "Impact." Good Lord.


I knew I took an unpopular position, and expected opposing responses, but this one made me laugh out loud.

Anyone that believes that advocating for the environment is somehow a Marxist action is not particularly adept at critical thought, nuance, or history.

Yeah, riding bikes on dirt isn't the same as strip mining, but moving a a few pounds of dirt, or rolling over some grass, in an ecosystem that is ideally minimally affected by mankind's activities, that is an impact, regardless of how insignificant you think it is.


----------



## zon (Nov 4, 2004)

_CJ said:


> ,,,,
> 
> My suspicion is that this is ALL about politics. With IMBA being based in Boulder, and being so closely tied to the Sierra Club, they probably can't see past this being introduced by a Republican. Cause you know, all Republicans are evil, and everything they want to do is an affront to all that is good and decent.....which is of course ridiculous. But I get it. They're brainwashed party loyalists, and they sit around in their little echo-chamber telling each other how smart they are, and how the little people (IMBA membership) aren't capable of understanding the broader implications of such actions, which again, is just ridiculous.
> ,,,
> ...


Ding ding ding,, we have a winner.

.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

If you have time to post on MTBR today, you have time to contact committee member TODAY!




__ https://www.facebook.com/SustainableTrailsCoalition/posts/1371763669599094



-------URGENT ACTION ALERT!------- 
DO NOT WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW. 
MAKE TIME TODAY... 3 MINUTES MAX! 
GET 3 OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THE SAME.

Tomorrow morning (12/13/17) HR 1349 will go through full mark up in the House Committee on Natural Resources. This is the crucial day for all we have worked hard for! The bill will be debated and amended among committee members. There have already been some good clarifications since last week's hearings.

You need to call and/or email your representative on the committee TODAY and express your support for HR 1349. We understand opponents are lighting them up. They need to hear from A LOT more people who support this modest legislation.

Here is the list of members:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/about/members.htm

Find phone numbers and member websites here:
https://www.house.gov/representatives
(click on name to open page... go to "contact me"... enter your zip+4 digits (https://tools.usps.com/go/ZipLookupAction_input)... fill out form and state your support. So easy to do!)

Best to speak from your heart, but here's a simple statement:
"Dear Congresswoman/man__________
As you consider HR 1349 during tomorrow's mark up, I want you to know this bill has my full support. It is simple, provides modest reform, and helps restore the intent of those who worked so hard to create our Wilderness Preservation System. It does NONE of the things the opponents of it are likely screaming at you about. None! Some Wilderness areas and their trails are suitable for all types of human powered recreation, some trails are not. I know my local forest officials are capable of determining such things, as they already do that in all public lands. Thank you in advance for supporting HR 1349."

Double down and email the committee: *<<<If you aren't from any committee member's state/district, use this!>>>*
https://naturalresources.house.gov/contact/

Post to their FB page using the "Constituent Badge"... we are told many members of Congress are getting quite FB savvy and this badge thing shows who is their constituent and who is not. They'll be paying attention to what you write on FB.
https://www.facebook.com/help/157047021494292

Here's a proposed (positive for us) amendment that the committee will vote on tomorrow morning. This is just informational; you don't need to comment on it.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/markup_memo_--_h.r._1349_12.12.17__12.13.17.pdf


----------



## swiftfixbike (Aug 31, 2017)

I just came here to say.. 1 Whoever is running imba pr needs to be fired. 
2 Imba trails by large suck and are just glorified fire roads. 
3 Support your local trail builders.
4 Support STC or don't. 
5 Imba should not be based in Boulder if they care about policy they should be in DC. 
6 We as members should of demanded elections.


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

_CJ said:


> ah yes, the old " I know you are, but what am I" argument.
> 
> Contrary to your tired talking point, my only concern is with honoring the original intent of the WA.....which was to include bicycles, game carts, wheel barrows, buggies, etc.
> 
> ...


I think I've made it pretty clear I am a mountain biker, so why would I advocate for anti mountain bike activity?

I'm not really sure how my desire to keep wilderness areas in as natural a state as possible is selfish? Selfish implies I want it all to myself, and I don't. I spend a handful of days in wilderness areas each year, and simply have no desire to ride my bike there, as I have seen the impact of bikes on trails I've been riding for 30 years. It's not strip mining, but it's not insignificant.

While it may get you all twitterpated by the evolution of the Wilderness Act to not allow mechanical assistance, it does NOT mean you are not allowed to go in to those areas. Laws change all the time, and at the heart of the WA is the desire to ensure that these areas remain pristine.


----------



## zon (Nov 4, 2004)

Loosing long standing access to vast trail systems is a very real threat to mountain biking. As recently as 2015 when the White Cloud Wilderness was designated, one of the very best mountain bike destinations in Idaho was closed overnight with the stroke of a pen. 
What's ironic is at the time IMBA wrote the following article criticizing the move to close the trails. My how a couple of years can change the mission of IMBA.

A STINGING LOSS IN IDAHO
https://www.imba.com/blog/mark-eller/idaho-trails-lost

.


----------



## zon (Nov 4, 2004)

Empty_Beer said:


> If you have time to post on MTBR today, you have time to contact committee member TODAY!
> 
> .....


Done.

.


----------



## zon (Nov 4, 2004)

VBraker said:


> ...
> 
> While it may get you all twitterpated by the evolution of the Wilderness Act to not allow mechanical assistance, it does NOT mean you are not allowed to go in to those areas. Laws change all the time, and at the heart of the WA is the desire to ensure that these areas remain pristine.


And how does allowing bike access make the WA less pristine?

.


----------



## jestep (Jul 23, 2004)

zon said:


> And how does allowing bike access make the WA less pristine?
> 
> .


More people = less pristine.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

DethWshBkr said:


> Hu?


Leading rides. Which is far less of a concern (and occurrence) for me, however if you read my later comment I'm a trail liaison for a local trail system. If I stop paying my club dues, which in part go to IMBA, then I lose the ability to do either.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

TheDwayyo said:


> Leading rides. Which is far less of a concern (and occurrence) for me, however if you read my later comment I'm a trail liaison for a local trail system. If I stop paying my club dues, which in part go to IMBA, then I lose the ability to do either.


You can't volunteer at a trail if you're not a dues paying member of your club (and an IMBA member by proxy)? That doesn't make sense to me.

Certainly the LM has volunteers outside of the mountain biking organization?


----------



## pOrk (Jan 16, 2015)

VBraker said:


> I think I've made it pretty clear I am a mountain biker, so why would I advocate for anti mountain bike activity?
> 
> I'm not really sure how my desire to keep wilderness areas in as natural a state as possible is selfish? Selfish implies I want it all to myself, and I don't. I spend a handful of days in wilderness areas each year, and simply have no desire to ride my bike there, as I have seen the impact of bikes on trails I've been riding for 30 years. It's not strip mining, but it's not insignificant.
> 
> While it may get you all twitterpated by the evolution of the Wilderness Act to not allow mechanical assistance, it does NOT mean you are not allowed to go in to those areas. Laws change all the time, and at the heart of the WA is the desire to ensure that these areas remain pristine.


It's pretty clear that many felt the consensus position was access to WAs, and many of those same people expected IMBA to represent that position. They did not, so quite a few of us are pissed and will move on to other avenues and organizations to achieve those ends. Are you here to just argue for the sake of arguing? This issue is not new, and you aren't changing any minds, no matter how much 'experience' you have.

Maybe you need need realize that this bill is the next evolution of the Wilderness Act and that the 1984 additional language was based in ignorance and fear, and now with this potential reversal, we are returning to the intent of this. As you said, laws change all the time.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

VBraker said:


> I knew I took an unpopular position, and expected opposing responses, but this one made me laugh out loud.
> 
> Anyone that believes that advocating for the environment is somehow a Marxist action is not particularly adept at critical thought, nuance, or history.
> 
> Yeah, riding bikes on dirt isn't the same as strip mining, but moving a a few pounds of dirt, or rolling over some grass, in an ecosystem that is ideally minimally affected by mankind's activities, that is an impact, regardless of how insignificant you think it is.


It's just as bad to walk on it with your feet, and worse if it's a horse.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

This act will let people drive Cattle across the area...guess that will have no impact.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Cerberus75 said:


> This act will let people drive Cattle across the area...guess that will have no impact.


The recent expansion of the Bob Marshall eliminated bike access to an amazing backcountry loop on the Rocky Mountain Front. The last time I rode (and pushed my bike) up one of the headwaters drainages comprising the route, there were cattle grazing in the stream. That watershed is now in Wilderness, but (riparian) grazing is still allowed, with the resulting bank trampling and overwidening. Any discussion of soil dislocated by MTB tires is laughable in that context.


----------



## dv8zen (Nov 30, 2017)

The more context you know, the wiser judgment you can make...

People here are way too quick to judge, especially on very basic info.

I personally, only have questions regarding the deep considerations being factored in here. I have a feeling that it's very political. Can't avoid political stuff if one believes in Plato's teachings, but I don't like all the lines being drawn based on bias/prejudice, taking sides and berating the opposition, etc. Just bringing out the ugliness in people...

The only significant facts I know are:
- The amendment is 1 sentence
- The person who introduced it is anti-environmentalist* opposes environmentalists' policies

The 2nd fact seems to be a bigger problem than it should be. Reminds me of a skit in which random college students were interviewed, who responded to tax reform differently when it was said that it was brought up by the Trump administration, vs being brought up by Bernie...

Edit: clarify 2nd fact, as some interpreted it as being against environment, instead of against environmentalists


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

Re-opened. Keep it clean guys.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Lots of asses being made of u and me here.


----------



## cdparks (Apr 24, 2017)

bamwa said:


> Kind of hard to frown on IMBA's dig in campaign.
> 
> https://gearjunkie.com/imba-dig-in-grassroots-mountain-bike-projects
> 
> https://win.imba.com/digin


Except they take 20% off the top. Had I known that I would have just donated directly. I will do that from now on especially since they are acting very political and not supporting my views.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

evasive said:


> The recent expansion of the Bob Marshall eliminated bike access to an amazing backcountry loop on the Rocky Mountain Front. The last time I rode (and pushed my bike) up one of the headwaters drainages comprising the route, there were cattle grazing in the stream. That watershed is now in Wilderness, but (riparian) grazing is still allowed, with the resulting bank trampling and overwidening. Any discussion of soil dislocated by MTB tires is laughable in that context.


Yeah, I've read about that. Beef lobbiest can persuade access. Equestrian lobbiest can persuade access, But ours chooses to not try. Even though there is proof that biking and hiking have the same impact. While larger non native animals have more.


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

My experience with wilderness areas is that I like them and the idea of them as they exist. I'm surrounded by huge tracts of public land with varying limitations on user access. The WA portion of this public land stands in contrast to most of the other areas because there is a general lack of trails. I like this. There are amazing basins, isolated alpine lakes and remote peaks that have no trails to them. You are required to navigate the natural terrain to get to these places and there is something special about that. I think these areas also allow game animals, especially animals who are more sensitive to human intrusion such as sheep and wintering elk and deer herds, to be less impacted and stressed due to relative inaccessibility. These WA areas also provide excellent opportunity for remote Backcountry skiing with no snowcats or snowmobiles permitted and can make for Super committing paddling experiences since there are few to no options for take out. Personally, I'd prefer to see the use of livestock restricted in WAs as well, but I have also read compelling arguments for them being allowed. 

Anyway, I am an avid Mtn biker, but am also a general proponent of public lands, game habitat preservation, Backcountry hunter and Backcountry snowboarder. I think having a certain percent of public land being WAs brings a valuable set of diversity to the public lands offerings and I don't think it places unreasonable burden on mountain bikers as a user group. Keep in mind that there are ORV forums levying the some complaints and hiking forums complaining about having to share existing trail networks with Mtn bikes. IMHO, there are other and more worthwhile battles to be fought other than access to WAs and I personally will likely never support or get behind lobbying efforts to change that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

101 said:


> Personally, I'd prefer to see the use of livestock restricted in WAs as well, but I have also read compelling arguments for them being allowed.


I'd love to see what those are. Grazing results in significant effects on the landscape, even changing fire behavior. It seems inconsistent to cherish a landscape free of human influence but tolerate commercial grazing of it.

I'm all for conservation and land protection, but frankly, the idea of capital W Wilderness is a quasi-religion made possible by the eradication of native populations. There is considerable archaeological evidence of longstanding human presence and use of even alpine landscapes in the West.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

101 said:


> My experience with wilderness areas is that I like them and the idea of them as they exist. I'm surrounded by huge tracts of public land with varying limitations on user access. The WA portion of this public land stands in contrast to most of the other areas because there is a general lack of trails. I like this. There are amazing basins, isolated alpine lakes and remote peaks that have no trails to them. You are required to navigate the natural terrain to get to these places and there is something special about that. I think these areas also allow game animals, especially animals who are more sensitive to human intrusion such as sheep and wintering elk and deer herds, to be less impacted and stressed due to relative inaccessibility. These WA areas also provide excellent opportunity for remote Backcountry skiing with no snowcats or snowmobiles permitted and can make for Super committing paddling experiences since there are few to no options for take out. Personally, I'd prefer to see the use of livestock restricted in WAs as well, but I have also read compelling arguments for them being allowed.
> 
> Anyway, I am an avid Mtn biker, but am also a general proponent of public lands, game habitat preservation, Backcountry hunter and Backcountry snowboarder. I think having a certain percent of public land being WAs brings a valuable set of diversity to the public lands offerings and I don't think it places unreasonable burden on mountain bikers as a user group. Keep in mind that there are ORV forums levying the some complaints and hiking forums complaining about having to share existing trail networks with Mtn bikes. IMHO, there are other and more worthwhile battles to be fought other than access to WAs and I personally will likely never support or get behind lobbying efforts to change that.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If bikes are regulated to staying on the trail, and if bikers could access the same trials horses can. It would be fair. But also trekking on areas that have no trail have more of an eviromental impact then staying on the trail.

The bottom line is that if the area is for recreational enjoyment, it shouldn't matter how people enjoy the access this enjoyment as long as the trails don't change. But many people complain because of the sight of people enjoying an area differently. Where I live there have been technical trails filled in and smoothed out because of the horse causing areas not to be able to dry out.

If the area is blocked off for environmental preservation, then no one should be able to access it.


----------



## dv8zen (Nov 30, 2017)

After thinking about this for a short while, I came up with an analogy.

Our bodies are in a constant state of decay and reconstruction. It rebuilds itself to be more efficient at the more common tasks that is demanded of it, and lets other less utilized parts of the body waste away. Are trails kind of like this too?

What if high quality trails were located very close to you, with enough diversity and room to expand to account for a growing number of daily users and natural progression of rider skill levels? How many and how often would people drive their car 3+ hours, with part of the route through narrow winding roads, to get to wilderness? What if this wilderness adventure thing were like a scheduled permit based thing with groups going out, rather than individuals going whenever they want? Wouldn't these individuals be a burden on public services overseeing the land?

It's sad to see some loss of trail, but why not stop dwelling on that and instead seek to build better trails that better suits people's modern tastes, in an even better location? If people don't want glorified fireroads, get involved and design & build trails that aren't so.


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

dv8zen said:


> - The amendment is 1 sentence
> - The person who introduced it is anti-environmental
> ...


I highly, HIGHLY, doubt that the person who introduced it is "anti" environmental. I do not consider myself an environmentalist, but those who do aren't more "environment" than me, nor am I "anti" environmental.


----------



## dv8zen (Nov 30, 2017)

I dunno why I edited that word, but I did just now in order to clear up that I meant to say they oppose the policies of environmentalists. xD

Didn't realize there were semantics regarding what was anti-environment. Negligence or not supporting/taking action to protect the environment isn't anti-environment? Supporting activities, esp at industrial/commercial scale, that destroy the environment is or isn't? Seems the same to me. Just people set the severity level higher or lower, in order to not put negative classifications on people they care about.

In the end, I only pointed it out to say that I question judging based on titles. That's just arrogance, another one of the ugly sides of humans, thinking that titles and associations demand a certain level of respect.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

if you have been involvolved in the wilderness debate for awhile, you are wondering why all the uproar on imba. this has been there stance for over 10 years. nothing new here, same **** different day for imba.


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

evasive said:


> I'd love to see what those are. Grazing results in significant effects on the landscape, even changing fire behavior. It seems inconsistent to cherish a landscape free of human influence but tolerate commercial grazing of it.
> 
> I'm all for conservation and land protection, but frankly, the idea of capital W Wilderness is a quasi-religion made possible by the eradication of native populations. There is considerable archaeological evidence of longstanding human presence and use of even alpine landscapes in the West.


I should clarify. I meant horses. I'm not a fan of grazing, particularly domestic sheep. Those "land maggots" have a big impact and have killed off a number of wild sheep by passing a flu along. Several state game agencies have had to eradicate and restock big horn sheep who have contracted disease from domestic sheep. As a hunter, it's frustrating to have a Basin full of elk scouted out only to return and be greeted by a pack of Great Pyrenees and 1,000 head of sheep. Sheep grazers have gotten away with land overuse for quite some time.


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

Cerberus75 said:


> If bikes are regulated to staying on the trail, and if bikers could access the same trials horses can. It would be fair. But also trekking on areas that have no trail have more of an eviromental impact then staying on the trail.
> 
> The bottom line is that if the area is for recreational enjoyment, it shouldn't matter how people enjoy the access this enjoyment as long as the trails don't change. But many people complain because of the sight of people enjoying an area differently. Where I live there have been technical trails filled in and smoothed out because of the horse causing areas not to be able to dry out.
> 
> If the area is blocked off for environmental preservation, then no one should be able to access it.


So, you'd be ok with motorcycles on wilderness area singletrack?


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

101 said:


> So, you'd be ok with motorcycles on wilderness area singletrack?


At the heart of it, this is the issue. Where do you draw the line for what constitutes appropriate recreation on Wilderness Areas? Would everyone that is advocating for bicycles passionately support Ebike riders that want access? Then it's a motorized bike, so now the internal combustion crowd has a viable argument. First, motorcycles, then ATVs. All can claim "It's not fair I can't recreate the way I want to, where I want to."

It's a slippery slope premise, but a very real concern that allowing bikes will be a precedent that will enable a variety of new user groups to seek, and gain, access to Wilderness Areas.


----------



## zon (Nov 4, 2004)

jestep said:


> More people = less pristine.


Oh so it's not bikes,, you just want to eliminate people from your private playground. Got it.

.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

I hope this gets sorted out so my grandkids can ride legally in the wilderness, I'm getting older and I just have to pick my spots and times wisely or else I'll never get to do it. On a side note I've met horses many times in places where bikes weren't allowed, never once have I had a bad reaction. Maybe we need to enlist them into the fight against those who would love to see bikes and horses banned.


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

VBraker said:


> At the heart of it, this is the issue. Where do you draw the line for what constitutes appropriate recreation on Wilderness Areas? Would everyone that is advocating for bicycles passionately support Ebike riders that want access? Then it's a motorized bike, so now the internal combustion crowd has a viable argument. First, motorcycles, then ATVs. All can claim "It's not fair I can't recreate the way I want to, where I want to."
> 
> It's a slippery slope premise, but a very real concern that allowing bikes will be a precedent that will enable a variety of new user groups to seek, and gain, access to Wilderness Areas.


I agree. And given that designated wilderness areas make up about 1/6th of total public land (and less than 2% of the lower 48 public land), I really don't see the need for Mtn bikers as a user group to be cry babies about it because, as you point out, every user group is going to want their piece of the candy store as well. Really, what's so bad about having some public land set aside for wilderness designation? If this were an aggressive takeover of public land with cyclists losing trail access left and right, maybe I'd find some sympathy, but, cry me a river, you have to reroute some portions of the CT or the divide trail all the while having access to hundreds of millions of acreage of public lands open to bicycles? In the grand scheme of things to care about when it comes to public land, this really seems petty, if not entirely childish to me.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

101 said:


> So, you'd be ok with motorcycles on wilderness area singletrack?


No, I had it in my my post. Edited it and forgot to put it back. Out under own power.


----------



## jestep (Jul 23, 2004)

zon said:


> Oh so it's not bikes,, you just want to eliminate people from your private playground. Got it.
> 
> .


Bikes would significantly increase the number of people in wilderness areas, potentially by multiple factors, I'd argue double digits in some areas, it's pretty obvious cause and effect in relation to the statement of less pristine. People make **** less pristine, period. And I'm 18 hours from the nearest WA at this point, not my playground...


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

jestep said:


> More people = less pristine.


Then close them to people. Win-win, right?


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

VBraker said:


> At the heart of it, this is the issue. Where do you draw the line for what constitutes appropriate recreation on Wilderness Areas? Would everyone that is advocating for bicycles passionately support Ebike riders that want access? Then it's a motorized bike, so now the internal combustion crowd has a viable argument. First, motorcycles, then ATVs. All can claim "It's not fair I can't recreate the way I want to, where I want to."
> 
> It's a slippery slope premise, but a very real concern that allowing bikes will be a precedent that will enable a variety of new user groups to seek, and gain, access to Wilderness Areas.


There is nothing slippery about selfpowered. IMBA might be advocating ebikes. But almost every mountain biker doesn't want them on the trails.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

101 said:


> I agree. And given that designated wilderness areas make up about 1/6th of total public land (and less than 2% of the lower 48 public land), I really don't see the need for Mtn bikers as a user group to be cry babies about it because, as you point out, every user group is going to want their piece of the candy store as well. Really, what's so bad about having some public land set aside for wilderness designation? If this were an aggressive takeover of public land with cyclists losing trail access left and right, maybe I'd find some sympathy, but, cry me a river, you have to reroute some portions of the CT or the divide trail all the while having access to hundreds of millions of acreage of public lands open to bicycles? In the grand scheme of things to care about when it comes to public land, this really seems petty, if not entirely childish to me.


Vbraker: It's not a slippery slope. It's all about human powered locomotion.

101: The 2% is a stupid number usually used by disingenuous people who think that very small number somehow bolster their otherwise weak argument.

There is no good rationale for restricting cyclists from Wilderness. If the goal is purely conservation, then kick out everyone, however, Wilderness legislation was passed with both conservation and recreation in mind. At the heart, this is about a couple user groups who simply don't want to share their taxpayer funded playground with others.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

IMBA should have STFU and let the pros deal with the legislative agenda. Their contribution was detrimental to the cause. Dave Wiens inane justification made things worse, and they're back pedaling some more. Their whole justification is that the Federal Agencies won't like them if IMBA supports bikes in Wilderness. Last time I checked, the Federal Agencies were simply in charge of applying the law, not enacting it. I don't really care if the BLM likes HR 1349 or not.

Bottom line: IMBA got itself in a lose lose situation. If HR 1349 passes, they'll be on the wrong side of history. If it doesn't, they'll be traitors for ever. Either way, I ain't giving a dime to IMBA until the Board and Wiens are fired. It's bad enough we have to fight the wildernuts. We apparently have to watch our back now too.


----------



## zon (Nov 4, 2004)

zorg said:


> IMBA should have STFU and let the pros deal with the legislative agenda. Their contribution was detrimental to the cause. Dave Wiens inane justification made things worse, and they're back pedaling some more. Their whole justification is that the Federal Agencies won't like them if IMBA supports bikes in Wilderness. Last time I checked, the Federal Agencies were simply in charge of applying the law, not enacting it. I don't really care if the BLM likes HR 1349 or not.
> 
> Bottom line: IMBA got itself in a lose lose situation. If HR 1349 passes, they'll be on the wrong side of history. If it doesn't, they'll be traitors for ever. Either way, I ain't giving a dime to IMBA until the Board and Wiens are fired. It's bad enough we have to fight the wildernuts. We apparently have to watch our back now too.


Well said.

.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

tim208 said:


> if you have been involvolved in the wilderness debate for awhile, you are wondering why all the uproar on imba. this has been there stance for over 10 years. nothing new here, same **** different day for imba.


The new thing here is that previously IMBA didn't support Wilderness access but didn't advocate against it either. Now they are actively advocating against access.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

What we need is an organization that fights for the ability to let the land owners decide on a case by case basis.


----------



## LaXCarp (Jul 19, 2008)

Well the Bill got voted down. Not sure what the next move is. I guess IMBA is happy about this?


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

Cerberus75 said:


> What we need is an organization that fights for the ability to let the land owners decide on a case by case basis.


You mean the individual area manager of the WA would determine if bikes would be allowed? If memory serves, this legislation was proposed and rejected in 2015.


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

zorg said:


> At the heart, this is about a couple user groups who simply don't want to share their taxpayer funded playground with others.


And ATV advocates might say the same thing if bikes were added to WA user groups.

Current users of WAs that I can think of:

Backpackers 
Day hikers 
Climbers
Paddlers 
Bird watchers
Hunters 
Fishermen
Car Campers 
Equestrians 
Christmas Tree cutters (with permit)
XC skiers 
Backcountry/downhill skiers & snowboarders 
Snowshoers 
Runners 
Dog walkers

Now, if we simply added cyclists to this list, how would it not any longer be "about a couple user groups who simply don't want to share their taxpayer funded playground with others"? Does 17 user groups make it fair to all? Is that the magic number? Should we make it wheelchair accessible, too?

Also, I listed 16 user groups, which is more than a "couple". Since you dismissed my 2% number as a logical fallacy, I'll do the same: people who use the word "couple" to misrepresent a number actually well in the teens likely don't have a good argument to begin with, else they would use hard numbers instead of "a couple."


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

101 said:


> You mean the individual area manager of the WA would determine if bikes would be allowed? If memory serves, this legislation was proposed and rejected in 2015.


Yes, this needs to be revisited. Most know, at least on the East Coat, that the bikes are the ones that will clean the trails. Leave them out and you're paying the Rangers to do it.


----------



## LaXCarp (Jul 19, 2008)

LaXCarp said:


> Well the Bill got voted down. Not sure what the next move is. I guess IMBA is happy about this?


Well apparently they took a 2nd vote and the billed passed...!?


----------



## Millennial29erGuy (Feb 5, 2017)

LaXCarp said:


> Well apparently they took a 2nd vote and the billed passed...!?


Holy ******* ****


----------



## armii (Jan 9, 2016)

From what I see it is just now in sub-commitee, it has not been voted on. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1349


----------



## Millennial29erGuy (Feb 5, 2017)

armii said:


> From what I see it is just now in sub-commitee, it has not been voted on. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1349


Check the STC facebook page


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

Excellent


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

May have been unduly restrictive..."The manual is being revised to reflect these changes"

Just like that, the stroke of a pen!


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Ken in KC said:


> You can't volunteer at a trail if you're not a dues paying member of your club (and an IMBA member by proxy)? That doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Certainly the LM has volunteers outside of the mountain biking organization?


To be a trail liaison, since the LM has an MOU with the local club, not to volunteer at a trail work day... Why do I have to keep repeating myself to be understood?


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

@[email protected] said:


> View attachment 1172180
> 
> 
> Excellent


Ummmmm.....WOW!?!?!?! Does this mean what we think this means?


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

TheDwayyo said:


> To be a trail liaison, since the LM has an MOU with the local club, not to volunteer at a trail work day... Why do I have to keep repeating myself to be understood?


Because it doesn't make sense to me and it seems restrictive. Our local group is structured in a similar way:

Trail Manager: Is the primary contact with the Land Manager. Is a bonafide representative of the local advocacy group. May be responsible for multiple trails, depending on how many of them are managed by the LM. They are usually a Trail Steward for a trail.

Trail Steward: Is responsible for managing a single trail system. They usually are but don't have to be an official member of the advocacy group but recognize their authority through the MOU. Note: This mostly applies to multi-use trails that allow equestrian riding. We don't make the equestrian Trail Steward join a mountain biking group in order to help care for and manage a trail. Same thing with runners. They are also an official volunteer for the LM in a separate agreement signed with them.

They have authority to work unsupervised, make design and reroute decisions and are responsible for leading public trail work days.

There may be more than 1 Trail Steward for any given trail. In that case, there is a lead Steward for the trail.

Volunteers: Not required to be a member of any group. Are not authorized to make any changes to a trail unless authorized by a Trail Steward. Must sign a liability waiver with the LM for any volunteer work. Are covered under the LM's workers comp insurance and the trail advocacy group's GL insurance.


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

watermonkey said:


> Ummmmm.....WOW!?!?!?! Does this mean what we think this means?


I don't know how all that works on that level, but the letter seems clear enough to me...they made a case that the law/act was being mis-used and it looks like the proper authority is adjusting the rule book language to make up for an overly resrictive historical abuse.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

Before everyone gets too excited thinking you'll be riding in your local WA tomorrow, remember this was just a house committee vote.

The bill now has to go to the full house vote, and if passed, on to a senate committee. If it makes it past the senate committee it goes to a full senate vote, and the back to another committee to reconcile differences between the house and senate versions if any. Then, on to the President to be signed or vetoed.

Then, if it is signed into law, the federal agencies tasked with implementing and enforcing those laws will have to write or amend regulations that dictate how the law is to be implemented.

What I'm not clear on, is how that will happen. My understanding of what STC was fighting for was to remove the blanket ban, and allow decisions to be made on a case by case basis.

But, the text of the HR 1349 quoted below is pretty simple in that it only says that provisions of the Wilderness Act shall not prohibit bicycle use in any Wilderness areas.

_"This bill amends the Wilderness Act to declare that provisions of such Act prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles, aircraft, or other forms of mechanical transport shall not prohibit the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized bicycles, strollers, wheelbarrows, survey wheels, or game carts within any wilderness areas."_

There is no shortage of examples of trails on federal lands outside of Wilderness areas where biking is not allowed, so it's not like this is a silver bullet that will permanently open all trails to bikes inside Wilderness much less outside of it.

The question is whether this is to be interpreted as the status quo bikes not allowed until such time that decisions can be made about allowing them in specific areas? Or will it mean that the ban is lifted until land managers make specific decisions that they are closed to bikes?

I would suspect it will be more the former, rather than the latter, and that the decisions to open specific wilderness areas will be fought hard by the anti-bike crowd. I can see a future of Environmental Impact statements and lawsuits.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

@[email protected] said:


> I don't know how all that works on that level, but the letter seems clear enough to me...they made a case that the law/act was being mis-used and it looks like the proper authority is adjusting the rule book language to make up for an overly resrictive historical abuse.


It looks like it's dated to 1982. I wouldn't put too much stock in a letter that old.


----------



## jahkneefive (Sep 8, 2009)

VBraker said:


> I think I've made it pretty clear I am a mountain biker, so why would I advocate for anti mountain bike activity?
> 
> I'm not really sure how my desire to keep wilderness areas in as natural a state as possible is selfish? Selfish implies I want it all to myself, and I don't. I spend a handful of days in wilderness areas each year, and simply have no desire to ride my bike there, as I have seen the impact of bikes on trails I've been riding for 30 years. It's not strip mining, but it's not insignificant.


So lets point out your hypocracy here.

1. First you say you want to keep wilderness areas in as natural state as possible, but then say you visit said areas a few days a year. If you were true to your convictions you wouldn't enter the area period as THAT is the way to keep it in as natural a state as possible.

2. Which leads off point #2 You claim not to be selfish, but you point blank say YOU want to enjoy the areas as a hiker, but don't want to share with other recreational activities. That's the definition of selfish.

The fact you even mention strip mining shows me what kind of mental prejudice you associate with the term mountain biking.

Hikers don't care about the wilderness condition, they care about being able to enjoy it as they see fit. So if mountain biking disrupts or lowers the enjoyment then it clearly must also be bad for the wilderness itself. I mean geez the earthworm really notices the difference between being rushed by a boot and a tire....

While I may not agree with TRUE SC members, at least I can appreciate their conviction. COMPLETE hands off of wilderness areas, no exceptions. I don't agree with it, but hell I get it they REALLY want to preserve nature. Its the luke warm hikers that do it to SELFISHLY restrict access to their own recreational desires that drive me to anger.

So lets just be clear here. This fight isn't about preserving nature, its about preserving a particular recreational activity that deems bikes as a nusance to them enjoying nature. Whats next gonna ban runners? Slow paced walking only? I mean runners could be a danger they might run into a bear and bruise it or hit a branch with such astounding velocity that it breaks and forever damages the tree.


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

Curveball said:


> It looks like it's dated to 1982. I wouldn't put too much stock in a letter that old.


I missed that date why the f*** would it be on their webpage it was that old.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

jestep said:


> More people = less pristine.


I take it you have not floated the middle fork of the salmon river. 100 miles of whitewater in the heart of the frank church river of no return wilderness, which is over 2,000,000 acres.

10,000 people a year float on this river. I have a picture of the put in with close to 60 boats sitting there. wilderness is not always empty. The summer time and the fall hunting season sees a lot of activity in wilderness areas. There is so much use on the 4 main Idaho wilderness multi day trips you have to apply in a lottery. wilderness just means no roads, not no people.


----------



## unicrown junkie (Nov 12, 2009)

Dave, how could you?! 

Oh well, this reaffirms my decision to keep donating cash to Evergreen up here in Washington, and so glad I didn't join IMba back in '89 or 90 when they first popped onto the scene.

IMBA is going to do what it wants regardless of how the general membership feels, this is classic old-school politics like so many others have said. Take the money and run to DC, spend it wining and dining your congressman or even better your own lobbyist gets to keep the cash in their own pocket. Nothing gets changed and people keep donating moolah to IMBA, they like that, a lot in fact.


----------



## Millennial29erGuy (Feb 5, 2017)

@[email protected] said:


> I missed that date why the f*** would it be on their webpage it was that old.


FAQ/Resources - Sustainable Trails Coalition


----------



## 786737 (Mar 13, 2015)

tim208 said:


> river of no return wilderness


I guess they didn't name it strongly enough to keep out the masses


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

unicrown junkie said:


> Dave, how could you?!
> 
> Oh well, this reaffirms my decision to keep donating cash to Evergreen up here in Washington, and so glad I didn't join IMba back in '89 or 90 when they first popped onto the scene.
> 
> IMBA is going to do what it wants regardless of how the general membership feels, this is classic old-school politics like so many others have said. Take the money and run to DC, spend it wining and dining your congressman or even better your own lobbyist gets to keep the cash in their own pocket. Nothing gets changed and people keep donating moolah to IMBA, they like that, a lot in fact.


My money goes to EMBA too. They are pretty awesome.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

twd953 said:


> I would suspect it will be more the former, rather than the latter, and that the decisions to open specific wilderness areas will be fought hard by the anti-bike crowd. I can see a future of Environmental Impact statements and lawsuits.


Ugh, yeah I think you're right here. I can definitely see that happening.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

I just finished watching the hearing with Mr. Stolls testimony on HR 1349.

I am not going to mention names directly because the senators cronies my google the politians name and find this forum.

In the hearing the Senator known as the "Senior Member" of the committee is from Hawaii. Another clue is this individual is the only female present on the committee.

I use to help out several mountain bike advocacy groups when I lived in the Aloha state. I have ran into this senator several times, and I have even shook her hand when she was apart of the Hawaii State senate. I'm telling you right now. I will not be surprised if she tries to block HR 1349. I am saying this because of my past experiences dealing with the same cronies from which she is affiliated with, in Hawaii.

She worries me.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

This is like a dive bar filled with drunkards trying to figure out who farted.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

Zowie said:


> This is like a dive bar filled with drunkards trying to figure out who farted.


LMAO!!! Hilarious


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

So glad to see HR1349 moving along. 

I feel like I'm watching IMBA implode.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## dseybert (Apr 5, 2008)

edit


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

MTBforlife said:


> I just finished watching the hearing with Mr. Stolls testimony on HR 1349.
> 
> I am not going to mention names directly because the senators cronies my google the politians name and find this forum.
> 
> ...


Good call. If a staffer googles "HR 1349" they'll never figure out which senator you're discussing.


----------



## dseybert (Apr 5, 2008)

101 said:


> My experience with wilderness areas is that I like them and the idea of them as they exist. I'm surrounded by huge tracts of public land with varying limitations on user access. The WA portion of this public land stands in contrast to most of the other areas because there is a general lack of trails. I like this. There are amazing basins, isolated alpine lakes and remote peaks that have no trails to them. You are required to navigate the natural terrain to get to these places and there is something special about that. I think these areas also allow game animals, especially animals who are more sensitive to human intrusion such as sheep and wintering elk and deer herds, to be less impacted and stressed due to relative inaccessibility. These WA areas also provide excellent opportunity for remote Backcountry skiing with no snowcats or snowmobiles permitted and can make for Super committing paddling experiences since there are few to no options for take out. Personally, I'd prefer to see the use of livestock restricted in WAs as well, but I have also read compelling arguments for them being allowed.
> 
> Anyway, I am an avid Mtn biker, but am also a general proponent of public lands, game habitat preservation, Backcountry hunter and Backcountry snowboarder. I think having a certain percent of public land being WAs brings a valuable set of diversity to the public lands offerings and I don't think it places unreasonable burden on mountain bikers as a user group. Keep in mind that there are ORV forums levying the some complaints and hiking forums complaining about having to share existing trail networks with Mtn bikes. IMHO, there are other and more worthwhile battles to be fought other than access to WAs and I personally will likely never support or get behind lobbying efforts to change that.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Your argument misses the point. No one is saying we should be building trails across the desolate basins, alpine lakes, or remote peaks. We are not advocating for breaking up the natural terrain any further or attempting to make anything more easily accessible (eg by car/lift/snowcat/snowmobile/shuttle.) What we are saying is that where there already exists a trail that is accessible by hiker or horses, the local land manager should be able to evaluate that trail for the potential to let MTBs on it, and if they decide it is acceptable, then it shall be so. I don't see how this conflicts with your view of how wilderness areas should be managed.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

evasive said:


> Good call. If a staffer googles "HR 1349" they'll never figure out which senator you're discussing.


Maybe I could have been a little less specific with the description.

But the bottom line is this. The individual came from the same group that is anti-everything on public lands unless they can gain revenue from it. My experience sitting across the table from these people in negotiation trying to get trail access on public lands and we would get shut down every time. Reason why, they would always ask the same question. How would the island benefit financially from mountain biking? How can we regulate and profit from the sport on public lands? There is no good response. They are anti-mountain bike

There was some really nice trails on Oahu public land before the current regime took over there. The same regime this politician came from. But now, if a tree fell and we would request to do trail maintenance to remove it. They would not authorize us to use a chainsaw without a permit. When we would request a permit to use a chainsaw we would get rejected,"Stating the removal of the tree would take away from the hiking experience." They know we need that tree cleared to ride that trail.

Well when you have 40 trees laying across the trail things get very clear they do not want us there.

Gratefully, negotiations with some private land owners went well, allowing mountain biking on there land so as long as no one gets stupid or tears up there property.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Ken in KC said:


> Because it doesn't make sense to me and it seems restrictive. Our local group is structured in a similar way:
> 
> Trail Manager: Is the primary contact with the Land Manager. Is a bonafide representative of the local advocacy group. May be responsible for multiple trails, depending on how many of them are managed by the LM. They are usually a Trail Steward for a trail.
> 
> ...


OK, so in that structure I'm a trail manager except only for one system (the only one that land manager has control over). The difference is our local club has the MOU and part of the reason they got it was because they have their own liability insurance and procedures to offer to the land manager... Therefore I must be a member of that club in order to be an 'agent of the MOU' for lack of a better term.

I don't see it as unusual and it really doesn't bother me, but it does force me to support a group I would not otherwise support (IMBA.) My local club I have no problem supporting, if I could I'd only donate to them... But as far as I'm aware that's not an option.


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

jahkneefive said:


> So lets point out your hypocracy here.
> 
> 1. First you say you want to keep wilderness areas in as natural state as possible, but then say you visit said areas a few days a year. If you were true to your convictions you wouldn't enter the area period as THAT is the way to keep it in as natural a state as possible.
> 
> ...


Let's make this clear, so you and every other mountain biker that thinks they are being singled out and discriminated against because of their chosen form of recreation.

You are allowed to go in to Wilderness Areas.

You are allowed to go in to Wilderness Areas.

YOU ARE ALLOWED TO GO IN WILDERNESS AREAS.

Just not with your bike.

I encourage all those that so actively advocating for bikes in Wilderness to explore these areas without their bikes.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

VBraker said:


> Let's make this clear, so you and every other mountain biker that thinks they are being singled out and discriminated against because of their chosen form of recreation.
> 
> You are allowed to go in to Wilderness Areas.
> 
> ...


You really think people haven't? I don't know many mountain bikers that aren't also hikers and backpackers, if any.

This bill seeks to allow local managers of each individual wilderness area to permit bikes, not permit bikes in a blanket sense. So let's say the bill passes and only 1% of wilderness areas actually move forward with allowing bikes. Would that be such an issue for you?

No one is arguing (to my knowledge) that bikes should have access to all wilderness areas, but under current law bikes have access to zero wilderness areas. Would you not agree that there may be a few which could allow bikes in a properly regulated and managed way without negative impacts?


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

VBraker said:


> I encourage all those that so actively advocating for bikes in Wilderness to explore these areas without their bikes.


Nobody here is asking for permission to ride their bikes in every wilderness area.

Nobody here is asking for permission to build trails all throughout every wilderness area.

Nobody here is asking for permission to ruin the land you love so much.

All we are asking for is that the individual wilderness areas have the ability to grant access on a case by case basis.

Having bikes is certain areas of certain parks will not change your hiking experience.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Nobody here is asking for permission to ride their bikes in every wilderness area.
> 
> Nobody here is asking for permission to build trails throughout any wilderness area.
> 
> ...


Wow, very similar to my post. Seems like either that's a logical approach or we are both just similarly bat**** insane.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

VBraker said:


> Let's make this clear, so you and every other mountain biker that thinks they are being singled out and discriminated against because of their chosen form of recreation.
> 
> You are allowed to go in to Wilderness Areas.
> 
> ...


Thanks for making clear that this is all about you and how you want to enjoy a public trail. Selfish, selfish I say.

I can't wait to ride Mt rose wilderness. I heard it is pretty good too.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

zorg said:


> Thanks for making clear that this is all about you and how you want to enjoy a public trail. Selfish, selfish I say.
> 
> I can't wait to ride Mt rose wilderness. I heard it is pretty good too.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


Selfish? I do not think that word means what you think it means.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

VBraker said:


> Selfish, I do not think that word means what you think it means.


Look it up buddy, you actually may learn something. You are one of those wildernuts who has drank the koolaid for too long. You are incapable of looking at the issue rationally. Does not matter, Congress is going to fix this decades old injustice and there is nothing you can do about it.

Happy trails!

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

zorg said:


> Look it up buddy, you actually may learn something. You are one of those wildernuts who has drank the koolaid for too long. You are incapable of looking at the issue rationally. Does not matter, Congress is going to fix this decades old injustice and there is nothing you can do about it.
> 
> Happy trails!
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


The basic argument for mountain bikers in Wilderness boils down to "because I want to ride my bike there". Nothing about how it can benefit anyone besides themselves as a user group.

Despite some sort of manufactured self loathing perception, the argument against mountain bikes is not because of a negative experience it has on other user groups. There is a greater concern that it will add that many more users to the mix in areas that were created with the objective that man would have as little of an impact as possible, and yes, I like that. It sure would be great if these places would remain that way for future generations.

But, hey, so long as you get to ride there.

I'll make sure my representative in Congress knows how I feel if it comes to a vote.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

VBraker said:


> The basic argument for mountain bikers in Wilderness boils down to "because I want to ride my bike there". Nothing about how it can benefit anyone besides themselves as a user group.


Not true at all. You know what benefits wilderness areas? More people who care about them and want to see them stay protected. Allowing a new user group, in a carefully thought out and managed way, access widens the public support for those areas. In a time when the concept of federal protection of wild lands is under siege that's a good thing.

I like your little threat about contacting congress... Guess what? Everyone else in this thread will too, how do those numbers play out again?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

VBraker said:


> The basic argument for hikers in Wilderness boils down to "because I want to hike there". Nothing about how it can benefit anyone besides themselves as a user group.


See how this works?

If you are going to apply this to one user group, then you could easily apply it to all user groups.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

VBraker said:


> The basic argument for mountain bikers in Wilderness boils down to "because I want to ride my bike there". Nothing about how it can benefit anyone besides themselves as a user group.
> 
> Despite some sort of manufactured self loathing perception, the argument against mountain bikes is not because of a negative experience it has on other user groups. There is a greater concern that it will add that many more users to the mix in areas that were created with the objective that man would have as little of an impact as possible, and yes, I like that. It sure would be great if these places would remain that way for future generations.
> 
> ...


Funny how your reasoning keeps shifting. First, it was "I don't want to share". Now, it's the slippery slope argument. Clearly, you're grasping at straws on this one.

Easy for everyone to see how the wildernuts have zero reasonable argument. Good news is that the wildernuts don't vote Republican and Congress knows it.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

I am done with IMBA, who has pretty much zero presence in New England and hasn't for about 5 years. It's too bad, as in the past we had at least 3 visits from their Trail Care Crews, who were all great people and did great work. Philip Keyes is NEMBA's executive director and is a strong supporter of STC (web site: Sustainable Trails Coalition ). The divide got bigger when IMBA started their own chapter program (none in N.E.) and we are not affiliated anymore.

Hundreds of miles of singletrack has been lost in Idaho & Montana due to Wilderness or proposed W designations. In our neck of the woods, miles of old logging railroad beds are off limits to bikes because of this. All STC is advocating is that local land managers (not Congress in DC) decide whether bikes are allowed in Wilderness or not on a case-specific basis. Seems reasonable to me. From STC's site:
_"As a reminder to those who may not know the legislative history of the Wilderness Act, here is the original regulation that was enacted in 1966 to support the Wilderness Act, and how it addressed bicycles:

"Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water, on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation *and is propelled by a nonliving power source* contained or carried on or within the device."

36 CFR § 293.6(a) (1973), formerly 36 CFR § 251.75 (1966)

Clearly bikes were originally allowed, and should never have been banned." _

Many years ago I rode various sections of the Tahoe Rim Trail. On one section I hit the Mt. Rose Wilderness boundary. The beautiful singletrack I was on did not change in the least, except there was a big steel sign planted that said I was not allowed to go any further. I went a little farther anyway, and there was no difference - no impact, no change in the fine trail or wildflowers. It pissed me off that someone could ride a horse past this sign but I couldn't ride my bike.

Support the STC!


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

VBraker said:


> There is a greater concern that it will add that many more users to the mix in areas that were created with the objective that man would have as little of an impact as possible


Ya know, he has a point there. Bikes aren't the problem, it's too many people. And since hikers and horse riders have had their turn for the past 30 or so years, I say it's our turn. Bikes only in wilderness for the next 30 years, then we can talk about it some more.

(not really, just demonstrating how stupid his argument is)

.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

It's a little funny and ironic that people are pointing out that this move is indicative of specific political alignments. IMBA has had a particular political bent for years. They are no different that the rest of the arse-holes in the capital. "Give us your money, feelings and party comes first, country and resources second, and....wait, what comes third again? OH! Right, the constituents we are paid by to represent their interests". They have basically said, in these divisive times....we wanna be divisive and alienating too!

Screw 'em.


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

Curveball said:


> Wilderness areas should also be closed to foot, canoe, horse traffic and bikes.


I MTB, and I have many more places that I can MTB that are great without having to set foot/tire in Wilderness areas.

On the flip: I believe that all trails in the wilderness should remain and allow multi-use. However, I'm firmly against any new trails in old growth being built.


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

zorg said:


> Funny how your reasoning keeps shifting. First, it was "I don't want to share". Now, it's the slippery slope argument. Clearly, you're grasping at straws on this one.
> 
> Easy for everyone to see how the wildernuts have zero reasonable argument. Good news is that the wildernuts don't vote Republican and Congress knows it.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


Please feel free to point out that I don't want to share access to Wilderness areas. I do have multiple reasons behind why I don't believe Wilderness should be open to mountain bikes, and that isn't one of them. You are more than welcome, in fact, I encourage, visiting any Wilderness area on foot, on horseback, on skis, etc. Just not on a bike, the same way you're not allowed to drive a car on a bike path.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

VBraker said:


> Please feel free to point out that I don't want to share access to Wilderness areas. I do have multiple reasons behind why I don't believe Wilderness should be open to mountain bikes, and that isn't one of them. You are more than welcome, in fact, I encourage, visiting any Wilderness area on foot, on horseback, on skis, etc. Just not on a bike, the same way you're not allowed to drive a car on a bike path.


There are trails, that are for foot traffic only. The land managers can keep it that way. But if a horse is allowed on a trail, no non emotional reason a bike cannot. In my experience bikers are the ones that end up fixing erosion issues from horse traffic.


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

_CJ said:


> Ya know, he has a point there. Bikes aren't the problem, it's too many people. And since hikers and horse riders have had their turn for the past 30 or so years, I say it's our turn. Bikes only in wilderness for the next 30 years, then we can talk about it some more.
> 
> (not really, just demonstrating how stupid his argument is)
> 
> .


Just because you don't understand an argument, doesn't make it stupid.

But let's take your example...If we apply the exaggerated notion of "turn" to wilderness access, and switch off access to horses and hikers and switch it on for bikes, I'll still be able to visit Wilderness because I'm mountain biker.

Now, think about it, since that isn't the case, are you not able to visit wilderness areas? It's a yes or no question, and there is only one right answer. I'll give you a hint. You have feet, making you a hik_r if you want to walk somewhere in the woods, thus allowing you to go to a wilderness area if you desire.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

How is it OK for horses and skis, but not a bicycle again?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

VBraker said:


> The basic argument for mountain bikers in Wilderness boils down to "because I want to ride my bike there". Nothing about how it can benefit anyone besides themselves as a user group.
> 
> Despite some sort of manufactured self loathing perception, the argument against mountain bikes is not because of a negative experience it has on other user groups. There is a greater concern that it will add that many more users to the mix in areas that were created with the objective that man would have as little of an impact as possible, and yes, I like that. It sure would be great if these places would remain that way for future generations.
> 
> ...


All most people want is to be able to connect already existing routes that are interrupted by wilderness areas. Thanks for the histrionics and hand ringing with the inference that mountain bikers are going to descend on the wilderness like a plague of locusts, nothing could be further from the truth but don't let levity and facts get in the way of of your hyperbole.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

d365 said:


> How is it OK for horses and skis, but not a bicycle again?


Emotions.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

_CJ said:


> Ya know, he has a point there. Bikes aren't the problem, it's too many people. And since hikers and horse riders have had their turn for the past 30 or so years, I say it's our turn. Bikes only in wilderness for the next 30 years, then we can talk about it some more.
> 
> (not really, just demonstrating how stupid his argument is)
> 
> .


This actually sounds pretty smart, compared to the rest of the thread.


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

d365 said:


> How is it OK for horses and skis, but not a bicycle again?


In short, the difference is that the first two aren't (or, rather do not meet the definition of) Mechanized means of travel.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

VBraker said:


> Please feel free to point out that I don't want to share access to Wilderness areas. I do have multiple reasons behind why I don't believe Wilderness should be open to mountain bikes, and that isn't one of them. You are more than welcome, in fact, I encourage, visiting any Wilderness area on foot, on horseback, on skis, etc. Just not on a bike, the same way you're not allowed to drive a car on a bike path.


Contradiction and stupid analogy don't bother you I see. I have noticed that wildernuts don't seem to have a good grasp of logic.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

So will the purists stop going to wilderness areas that allow bikes since our presence will ruin their enjoyment?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

101 said:


> In short, the difference is that the first two aren't (or, rather do not meet the definition of) Mechanized means of travel.


The Wilderness bill itself clarifies what it means by mechanized. "Non-living" power source.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## VBraker (Apr 16, 2014)

zorg said:


> Contradiction and stupid analogy don't bother you I see. I have noticed that wildernuts don't seem to have a good grasp of logic.


Please feel free to point out that I don't want to share access to Wilderness areas. 
Mountain bikers are people, and people have access to Wilderness areas.

Are you a people?


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

Until a few years ago, I, like many mountain bikers, was ok with bikes not being allowed in existing Wilderness. There where a few cases where Wilderness, unnecessarily blocked of connectivity, but there where lots of places out side of Wilderness to build trails. 

Then Boulder White Clouds happened. IMBA was at the table with the conservation groups and a deal was cut to preserve the area as a monument, which would have allowed mountain biking to continue on hundreds of miles of trail historically open to bikes. But the Conservation community was also at work behind the scenes and was able to convince Republican Legislators that dedicating the land as a Wilderness would allow them to claim a win, by not allowing Obama to sign the area as a Momentum. Currently there is proposed Wilderness in North Carolina where another coalition agreed on a Wilderness plan that avoided mountain bike trails. Then the Wilderness Society backed out of the deal when an Wealthy donor put pressure on them to no work with recreational groups. 

This Bill isn't aimed at getting access to all the existing Wilderness. Its about not having to fight the environmental groups tooth and nail over every new Wilderness proposal. It is going to get harder and harder to dedicate more Wilderness with out impacting existing mountain bike trails. 

So this is less about getting access to all existing Wilderness and more about not having to fight against the well funded environment groups every over every future Wilderness proposal.

I find it funny that the Environmental groups who where happy to use Republican legislators to stick it to mountain bikers on Boulder White Clouds, are now objecting to HR1349 because of the poor environmental record of its Republican sponsors. 

If you value Wilderness, you should support this bill because it would allow mountain biker to become proponents of Wilderness.


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

Silentfoe said:


> The Wilderness bill itself clarifies what it means by mechanized. "Non-living" power source.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, ****no other form of mechanical transport****, and no structure or installation within any such area.

-the definition you are referring to:

Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by flotation and is propelled by a ***nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device****."

Some argue that the words of this 1966 regulation allow bicycles and that prohibition of bicycles in wilderness came only much later, after the Forest Service revised its definition. But it is the unambiguous words of the ***statute***, --not the regulations---, that declare that there shall be no other form of mechanical transport. Agency error in interpreting the plain meaning of the words in the statute does not change that. Supreme Court precedents set down the canons of statutory construction in such matters:

"If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 -43 (1984), rehearing denied, 468 U.S. 1227 (1984).


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

101 said:


> (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
> 
> (c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, ****no other form of mechanical transport****, and no structure or installation within any such area.
> 
> ...


Yep. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Bla bla . All semantic and no substantive argument.


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

zorg said:


> Bla bla . All semantic and no substantive argument.


I suppose we'll see how it shakes out. If there is a vote and bikes are approved for WAs, it's safe to assume that influential entities will sue, however If legislation to amend and allow bikes is shot down, I don't foresee any major players filing suit.

If there are lawsuits filed over "living power" wording of the wilderness act, which appears to be the meat & potatoes of the pro bike argument, and Since "living power" is not defined but the Wildness Act of 1966, the determining factor will be precedent. I cited some potentially relative precedent above. I suppose I would be interested to see cited precedent that would argue the other way. People can make assumptions about that definition all they want, but in a lawsuit based around this, precedent is really what matters and that most likely is even a moot point if this legislation is shot down (yet) again.

On a side note, I live and recreate in an area that would likely be greatly impacted by a change that allowed bikes in WAs, and if it were indeed approved for the Weminuche Wilderness Area, since the CO Trail runs through that area as well as the Continental Divide trail and the already heavily impacted Chicago Basin, i expect there would be a significant increase in summer month usage. The Forrest service proposed moving to a permit system for Chicago Basin but the remoteness of the basin would require an annual estimated budget of $50,000, which the Forrest service lacks. During July, Chicago Basin resembles a music festival. I worked for the railroad that runs through that WA and it's not uncommon to drop off 100 backpackers and pick up another 100 backpackers daily during peak summer, with 200-400 people camped out in the Basin The amount of urine attracts goats who then displace the soil to get to the ammonia.

The Cascade Trail to Animas River Trail to Needleton drainage to the Continental divide Trail to the Co Trail would, at 40 miles, no doubt make for a much coveted day trip on bikes, especially since one could bike Cascade Trail to Needleton flagstop in roughly the same time that a person can get to Needleton on the train. The same loop would also make for a popular overnight bikepacking trip. Granted, the season is short, but it's also very, very intense with human traffic. Winter and spring skiing as well as Fall hunting, fishermen and boating numbers are micro-fractional when compared to hiker numbers, but, add in bikes, especially given their popularity in the region and the fact that it is a bike destination, where a person hiking back down from, say, engineer Mtn, may very well encounter 100+ Mtn bikes coming up the Pass Trail (I've seen this myself, once even an entire wedding party of 40-50 people on bikes in a single file group) and all 3 points of access will be instantly as popular for biking as every other world class alpine trail in the San Juan range. That combined with the pre existing backpacker popularity of Chicago Basin (you are required to pack your poop out -are Mtn bikers going tompack their poop out?) will make for a zoo. IMHO, having taken thousands of people in and out of that area, as well as transported 100s of bikes and cyclists through the WA, at peak season, the WA gives hikers a place to go and hike world class alpine trails in a mountain range where otherwise, Mtn bikes unofficially rule the trails June-Sept. certainly, I contribute to that, but I feel like the WA offers a concession that creates more of an alliance than it divides. That's just perception, however and it's just my perception at that, but it is based on interacting and conversing with thousands, yes, thousands of users on the train from all over the world coming here to bike, hike, hunt, fish and raft in the San Juan range. If there is an amendment to open that WA up to bikes, I'll probably be on of the first to knock that trail off the bucket list, but, I do think the change will have consequences long term, I am decidedly against the proposed change and I am unsure/unconvinced that there is existing precedent to allow for bikes in WAs.

Other opinions exist. That one is mine.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

swiftfixbike said:


> I just came here to say.. 1 Whoever is running imba pr needs to be fired.
> 2 Imba trails by large suck and are just glorified fire roads.
> 3 Support your local trail builders.
> 4 Support STC or don't.
> ...


Northwest Arkansas is a prime example of points 1 and especially 2. We built miles of trail for the Summit. Now that it is over there is a massive effort to go back and make that trail rowdier and much more fun to ride. Can't wait for Outerbike.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

101 said:


> I suppose we'll see how it shakes out. If there is a vote and bikes are approved for WAs, it's safe to assume that influential entities will sue, however If legislation to amend and allow bikes is shot down, I don't foresee any major players filing suit.
> 
> Other opinions exist. That one is mine.


There is nothing to sue over. Congress can pass, amend an act all they want. And hikers have no constitutional monopoly over wilderness trails.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

zorg said:


> There is nothing to sue over. Congress can pass, amend an act all they want. And hikers have no constitutional monopoly over wilderness trails.


Unfortunately they can and the government has to pay for both sides of the case.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

101 said:


> I suppose we'll see how it shakes out....
> 
> [long discussion about a particular crowded wilderness area]
> .


Indeed, but that's not what is likely to happen--if that area is crowded, it wouldn't make sense to open it to bikes.

The reason a lot of people care about this is the remote ones in ID and MT which had little traffic before, and even less now that bikes are prohibited with the creation of recent Wilderness Areas, or even worse Wilderness Study Areas.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

There will be no lawsuit.


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

zorg said:


> There is nothing to sue over. Congress can pass, amend an act all they want. And hikers have no constitutional monopoly over wilderness trails.


You can keep trying to diminish this all you want, but there's now over 150 various conservation groups opposing this bill. You can keep saying "hikers", but this may very well be the roots of a significant rift between the Mtn bike organizations and most everyone else short of motorized groups. If this is the sword you wish to fall on as a individual, community or organization, so be it, but this seems to quickly becoming Mtn bikers vs. everyone else and the internal Mtn bike community and organizational support is fractured at best.


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

101 said:


> You can keep trying to diminish this all you want, but there's now over 150 various conservation groups opposing this bill. You can keep saying "hikers", but this may very well be the roots of a significant rift between the Mtn bike organizations and most everyone else short of motorized groups. If this is the sword you wish to fall on as a individual, community or organization, so be it, but this seems to quickly becoming Mtn bikers vs. everyone else and the internal Mtn bike community and organizational support is fractured at best.


Is this like the 17 intelligence agencies that supported the democratic "russian interference" narrative until it was found to be a couple lackeys from 3 organizations?

Oh, I wouldn't care if it was anyway. 150 environmental organizations holds about as much common sense as a thimble.

Get outta here with that "everyone opposes it" BS.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

101 said:


> there's now over 150 various conservation groups opposing this bill.


I'm seeing this thrown around a lot lately, like some sort of threat. Do you really think there aren't a similar or greater number of pro-wheeled access groups? I founded one twenty years ago, and run it to this day. Hell, there's probably a couple dozen more in my city alone. All the regional MTB groups, hunters, groups representing the disabled, etc....yeah, this is probably going to get interesting.

"non-living power source" is pretty self explanatory, and when you look at the statements of the authors of the bill, it's clear bicycles were never meant to be banned. It was the work of special interest. At the time bikes were banned, people weren't politically active like they are now, and I've seen evidence that it really came down to one letter from one woman.

.


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

"Non living power source" is not self explanatory because it is not defined. That is your assumption. Precedent is the only thing that matters. Often times, legal wording such as this is not defined for the specific purpose of allowing precedent to be set over time. For example, with regards to copyright law, the constitution does not define "fair use." Often times, copyright infringers will make assumptions about what is and what is not fair use, but precedent is all the actually matters. Fair use is a legal defense, not an affirmation. 

As for the 150 conservation groups, no doubt some are insignificant, but some of them Are also the most powerful lobbyist organizations in the conservation realm. And they are all aligned against this: wilderness groups, sierra club, hiker groups, hunting and fishing groups, equestrian groups etc. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

_CJ said:


> I'm seeing this thrown around a lot lately, like some sort of threat. Do you really think there aren't a similar or greater number of pro-wheeled access groups? I founded one twenty years ago, and run it to this day. Hell, there's probably a couple dozen more in my city alone. All the regional MTB groups, hunters, groups representing the disabled, etc....yeah, this is probably going to get interesting.
> 
> "non-living power source" is pretty self explanatory, and when you look at the statements of the authors of the bill, it's clear bicycles were never meant to be banned. It was the work of special interest. At the time bikes were banned, people weren't politically active like they are now, and I've seen evidence that it really came down to one letter from one woman.
> 
> .


It doesn't matter how many pro groups there are. Or even that in this case they are correct. The environmental groups have the upper hand in this scenario because the government has to fund those groups' lawsuits against itself. It's wrong and backwards but that's how it works.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It doesn't matter how many pro groups there are. Or even that in this case they are correct. The environmental groups have the upper hand in this scenario because the government has to fund those groups' lawsuits against itself. It's wrong and backwards but that's how it works.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


My understanding is that the groups have to fund their own lawsuit. Not that I am worried about it one bit.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

zorg said:


> My understanding is that the groups have to fund their own lawsuit. Not that I am worried about it one bit.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


They do and they don't. They are remakarkably successful at recovering attorney's fees in most instances. Quite often the attorney works for free until the fee is recovered. Then you have to look into the collusion aspect of sue and settle.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> They do and they don't. They are remakarkably successful at recovering attorney's fees in most instances. Quite often the attorney works for free until the fee is recovered. Then you have to look into the collusion aspect of sue and settle.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Fair enough but they have to win. Good luck on this one.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

zorg said:


> Fair enough but they have to win. Good luck on this one.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


They do not have to win is the problem. If the agency they are suing had the ruling foisted on them and it is contrary to how they feel it should be enforced they can just reach a settlement. In essence it allows both the defendant and the plaintiff to collude and legislate from the bench.

It is then up to the other groups to counter-sue without the deck being stacked for them.

It's a crappy reality and is one of the reasons any ally that can be found should be welcomed.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

101 said:


> I suppose we'll see how it shakes out. If there is a vote and bikes are approved for WAs, it's safe to assume that influential entities will sue, however If legislation to amend and allow bikes is shot down, I don't foresee any major players filing suit.
> 
> If there are lawsuits filed over "living power" wording of the wilderness act, which appears to be the meat & potatoes of the pro bike argument, and Since "living power" is not defined but the Wildness Act of 1966, the determining factor will be precedent. I cited some potentially relative precedent above. I suppose I would be interested to see cited precedent that would argue the other way. People can make assumptions about that definition all they want, but in a lawsuit based around this, precedent is really what matters and that most likely is even a moot point if this legislation is shot down (yet) again.
> 
> ...


I said this in an earlier post. I am an avid hiker as well. One of my favorite places to go is Mt. Whitney. Even with the lottery system, and they only allow 100 people to enter the portal per day. The trail up to Whitney is covered in Wag bags, trash everywhere, and stinks of urine. People are even throwing their wag bags in the streams and lakes up there. No bikes allowed anywhere near the portal.

With my experience, Unless human behavior changes, it doesn't matter how many folks travel into an area.

If HR1349 passes. This initiative would give the power to the local land managers to select bike friendly trails with-in the wilderness areas. If they do not want us in a certain area they have that power to stop us too. Most land managers I have met know what they are doing. You just need to trust them to make the right decision.

I feel reopening the Colorado and Continental Divide trails is not going to make a huge difference. There are already countless 1000 lbs horses and 2000 lbs cows trampling those trails and they crap everywhere and displace soil. What are 200 lbs mountain bikers going to do in comparison on those two trails?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

MTBforlife said:


> I said this in an earlier post. I am an avid hiker as well. One of my favorite places to go is Mt. Whitney. Even with the lottery system, and they only allow 100 people to enter the portal per day. The trail up to Whitney is covered in Wag bags, trash everywhere, and stinks of urine. People are even throwing their wag bags in the streams and lakes up there. No bikes allowed anywhere near the portal.
> 
> With my experience, Unless human behavior changes, it doesn't matter how many folks travel into an area.


I get the feeling most people arguing for access as what any 'real' mountain biker would want have been entirely oblivious to what you're talking about. Perhaps they've never even been to such a place to see it for themselves.

Now then, any reason to walk now that it's past time to run?


----------



## powpig (May 27, 2008)

zorg said:


> I can't wait to ride Mt rose wilderness. I heard it is pretty good too.


Oh, you wouldn't like it up there, biggest joke of a Wilderness Area I've ever been too. From the Wilderness, you can look down on:

2 Railroad Tracks with constant traffic
1 Interstate Freeway with 100s of cars at any given moment
1 US Highway
4 State Highways
Thousands of Homes
Dozens of Boats

The above is exactly what I think of when someone mentions "pristine wilderness".


----------



## powpig (May 27, 2008)

VBraker said:


> You are more than welcome, in fact, I encourage, visiting any Wilderness area on foot, on horseback, on skis, etc. Just not on a bike, the same way you're not allowed to drive a car on a bike path.


Unless you're on old wooden skis with leather straps, then your modern ski equipment most certainly is providing a "mechanical advantage".
Guess that just makes you a big 'ol hypocrite. Who'd have thought?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

101 said:


> "Non living power source" is not self explanatory because it is not defined. That is your assumption. Precedent is the only thing that matters. Often times, legal wording such as this is not defined for the specific purpose of allowing precedent to be set over time. For example, with regards to copyright law, the constitution does not define "fair use." Often times, copyright infringers will make assumptions about what is and what is not fair use, but precedent is all the actually matters. Fair use is a legal defense, not an affirmation.
> 
> As for the 150 conservation groups, no doubt some are insignificant, but some of them Are also the most powerful lobbyist organizations in the conservation realm. And they are all aligned against this: wilderness groups, sierra club, hiker groups, hunting and fishing groups, equestrian groups etc.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Big shocker. The wildernuts that have managed to appropriate the public lands for themselves don't like the change. Good news, they only hold sway over Democrats.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

Zowie said:


> I get the feeling most people arguing for access as what any 'real' mountain biker would want have been entirely oblivious to what you're talking about. Perhaps they've never even been to such a place to see it for themselves.
> 
> Now then, any reason to walk now that it's past time to run?


I hope I do not flogged for saying this, but it's the truth:

I have been running for our sport for as long as I can remember. I can say "Been there done that". In my quest to help my fellow riders I have dealt with MTB hating politicians such as the individual on the sub-committee, reviewing HR1349, from Hawaii. Too going through the long process to get approval to build a trail, build the trail, only to have it taken away from us later.

I have scene several trails shut down to mountain biking and it was our own undoing, because mountain bikers refuse to tread lightly.

Bottom line here is this: A lot of you guys already know this, but if you don't, pay attention. If HR 1349 passes, we will all need to be good stewards, we will need to prove to the land managers that we as a mountain biking community can be responsible, tread lightly, clean up after ourselves, and use proper trail etiquette with other users especially with-in the wilderness areas.

If we as a community can not do this then all our efforts are moot.

I am not kidding. It is one thing to ***** about access, but it is another to prove we can be trusted with it. A big part of gaining access is building a trusting relationship with the land managers. Once we lose access because we broke the sacred trust with the land managers it is almost impossible to get it back.

The land managers know what they are doing, and they know whats best for their area of responsibility. If we can do what I said earlier then the odds of winning back lost access improves significantly. If we don't, then don't start crying a river. We all lose.

Cheers


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ Well of course mt bikers need to be good stewards... but why are mt bikers always held to the highest standard of LNT, courtesy, etc? Why do we fear we may lose our access because a couple dumbsh#ts were rude to hikers or skidded through a switchback... when we can all go backpacking and forget to put out our illegal campfire and accidentally burn the entire forest down... and not get prohibited as a user group?


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

Cerberus75 said:


> Emotions.


Ding! We have a winner.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

Do people hate IMBA now?


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

Picard said:


> Do people hate IMBA now?


Just mountain bikers, looking through this thread the hikers love them.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ Well of course mt bikers need to be good stewards... but why are mt bikers always held to the highest standard of LNT, courtesy, etc? Why do we fear we may lose our access because a couple dumbsh#ts were rude to hikers or skidded through a switchback... when we can all go backpacking and forget to put out our illegal campfire and accidentally burn the entire forest down... and not get prohibited as a user group?


Unfortunately, no matter what, we will always have folks who go in to our beloved mountains who have failed to evolve like the rest of us.

The land managers understand this. Some land managers will look the other way on certain issues especially when they know the mountain biking community is cleaning and repairing the trails. Saves them money, but it is apart of trust building. One of there biggest concerns is safety. Land managers are extremely familiar with the speed and the distance we can cover in a short period of time. One of there biggest concerns with mountain biking is a horse getting spooked and the rider gets knocked down/injured or a mountain biker hitting a hiker. This is why we must always yield the right of way to everybody else.

I have scene hikers get hit by irresponsible bikers. If you hit a hiker you will get [email protected] in court.

I was blown away by this story my buddy told me not long ago. He went on vacation in San Francisco. He decided to go for a ride in the Golden Gate Recreation area. He was traveling down this trail when he was stopped and ticked for speeding on the trails. The ranger was using LIDAR of all things. He was busted for going 22 mph in a 15 mph. My buddy was blown away. He had to show his drivers licence. The ticket required a mandatory court appearance

My understanding from what my buddy told me. The area has scene a dramatic increase with hikers getting hit by bikers. So the powers that be, initiated the speed limits instead of closing the trails.

To some this may sound crazy, but it is the world we live in.

If HR1349 passes, we will all need to be on our best behavior. No matter what.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

MTBforlife said:


> He was traveling down this trail when he was stopped and ticked for speeding on the trails. The ranger was using LIDAR of all things. He was busted for going 22 mph in a 15 mph.


I wouldn't be opposed to a 5mph speed limit....in the presence of other trail users. Hell, I abide by that on all the trails I ride already, but that's not how those things ever work out. They just become revue generation systems, which of course wouldn't allow for such a sensible requirement as "in the presence of other trail users". It would just be barney fife hiding in the bushes with his radar gun, waiting to write a ticket to justify his salary.

The whole MTB's are too fast argument is ridiculous anyhow. For sure, horses can outrun me on the trail, and there's no shortage of trail runners who are faster than me, especially within the confines of an unrefined wilderness area type trail, but I don't hear anyone complaining about them, or suggesting they should be banned. If this doesn't pass, I'm almost certainly going to be getting into trail running, and specializing in wilderness area running. Maybe even start a new club....Mountain bikers running in wilderness club.

None of these arguments make any sense from a 30 thousand foot perspective though. Looking at the big picture, it's clearly nothing more than selfishness and prejudice on the part of those who object.

.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

_CJ said:


> I wouldn't be opposed to a 5mph speed limit....in the presence of other trail users. Hell, I abide by that on all the trails I ride already, but that's not how those things ever work out. They just become revue generation systems, which of course wouldn't allow for such a sensible requirement as "in the presence of other trail users". It would just be barney fife hiding in the bushes with his radar gun, waiting to write a ticket to justify his salary.
> 
> The whole MTB's are too fast argument is ridiculous anyhow. For sure, horses can outrun me on the trail, and there's no shortage of trail runners who are faster than me, especially within the confines of an unrefined wilderness area type trail, but I don't hear anyone complaining about them, or suggesting they should be banned. If this doesn't pass, I'm almost certainly going to be getting into trail running, and specializing in wilderness area running. Maybe even start a new club....Mountain bikers running in wilderness club.
> 
> ...


In some of my earlier post I did talk about my experiences dealing with uneducated hikers who trash the place. If they ban hikers, then everyone gets the boot.

I do agree with you about Barney justifying his job. Unfortunately, a rider, or several riders did something stupid in that area to cause the land manager to take this drastic step.

I posted this comment before: If we lose access because we broke the sacred trust with the land manager, it is almost impossible to get it back.

To most other trail users, one bad apple in the apple barrel spoils the whole barrel. Gratefully the land managers are smarter than that and they know only a small percentage of mtbers are a-holes. But it only takes one a-hole to start a war which we would ultimately lose in most cases.

Cheers,


----------



## jeffreyjhsu (Jun 22, 2004)

Make your opinion known. https://www.change.org/p/board-imba...t-lobby-against-mountain-biking-in-wilderness


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

MTBforlife said:


> In some of my earlier post I did talk about my experiences dealing with uneducated hikers who trash the place. If they ban hikers, then everyone gets the boot.
> 
> I do agree with you about Barney justifying his job. Unfortunately, a rider, or several riders did something stupid in that area to cause the land manager to take this drastic step.
> 
> ...


You mean like these guys? I have a hard time seeing mtn bikers going out of their way to trash an arch site. Most of us just want to ride our bikes. Generally bikers don't stray far from a trail. I'd argue that keeping users on the trail minimizes damage to the rest of the resource but yeah the one bad apple applies to all user groups.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

rockman said:


> You mean like these guys? I have a hard time seeing mtn bikers going out of their way to trash an arch site.


This is a known issue with life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

VBraker said:


> At the heart of it, this is the issue. Where do you draw the line for what constitutes appropriate recreation on Wilderness Areas? Would everyone that is advocating for bicycles passionately support Ebike riders that want access? Then it's a motorized bike, so now the internal combustion crowd has a viable argument. First, motorcycles, then ATVs. All can claim "It's not fair I can't recreate the way I want to, where I want to."
> 
> It's a slippery slope premise, but a very real concern that allowing bikes will be a precedent that will enable a variety of new user groups to seek, and gain, access to Wilderness Areas.


 Let's go with, human powered. No motorized vehicles.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

VBraker said:


> Let's make this clear, so you and every other mountain biker that thinks they are being singled out and discriminated against because of their chosen form of recreation.
> 
> You are allowed to go in to Wilderness Areas.
> 
> ...


 And the whole mechanized travel thing. Sure bikes. But oar locks, ski bindings and snowshoes bindings are all mechanized travel too. The whole idea behind wilderness WAS for people to enjoy, under their own power. To explore, etc. Seems the bikepacker would be a perfect fit. Get them away from the trail heads where all the hikers/ dog walkers/ day trippers congregate.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

leeboh said:


> And the whole mechanized travel thing. Sure bikes. But oar locks, ski bindings and snowshoes bindings are all mechanized travel too. The whole idea behind wilderness WAS for people to enjoy, under their own power. To explore, etc. Seems the bikepacker would be a perfect fit. Get them away from the trail heads where all the hikers/ dog walkers/ day trippers congregate.


So are canoes and kayaks, hell, you could argue a walking stick is a mechanical assistance.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

leeboh said:


> And the whole mechanized travel thing. Sure bikes. But oar locks, ski bindings and snowshoes bindings are all mechanized travel too. The whole idea behind wilderness WAS for people to enjoy, under their own power. To explore, etc. Seems the bikepacker would be a perfect fit. Get them away from the trail heads where all the hikers/ dog walkers/ day trippers congregate.


You weren't convinced by the use of upper case letters?

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

_CJ said:


> The whole MTB's are too fast argument is ridiculous anyhow. For sure, horses can outrun me on the trail, and there's no shortage of trail runners who are faster than me, especially within the confines of an unrefined wilderness area type trail, but I don't hear anyone complaining about them, or suggesting they should be banned.


Really? Are you sure you are mountain biking?


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

jeffreyjhsu said:


> Make your opinion known. https://www.change.org/p/board-imba...t-lobby-against-mountain-biking-in-wilderness


Up to 4500 signatures already. Going to be hard for IMBA to ignore.

.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

Do they ban horses and joggers? 

Sent from my F3213 using Tapatalk


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

_CJ said:


> Up to 4500 signatures already. Going to be hard for IMBA to ignore.
> 
> .


Well, since they basically wrote a response saying they didn't give a crap what mountain bikers thought and that they know best....I don't think they will care. They will care when membership takes a hit and chapters pull out.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

Haymarket said:


> Well, since they basically wrote a response saying they didn't give a crap what mountain bikers thought and that they know best....I don't think they will care. They will care when membership takes a hit and chapters pull out.


Yeah, unless they're getting funds from other than membership. If everyone that doesn't approve of how the are represented pulls out.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Haymarket said:


> Well, since they basically wrote a response saying they didn't give a crap what mountain bikers thought and that they know best....I don't think they will care. They will care when membership takes a hit and chapters pull out.


Yup, and the clock hasn't stopped ticking....

https://www.timeanddate.com/countdo...43&year=2018&month=3&day=1&hour=0&min=0&sec=0

(fyi: March 1st is National Self Injury Awareness Day)

.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

This article helps to see the issue from a non-mountain biker perspective... Though I still disagree with much of their viewpoint:

GOP lures some mountain bike groups in its push to roll back protections for public land - LA Times


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

TheDwayyo said:


> This article helps to see the issue from a non-mountain biker perspective... Though I still disagree with much of their viewpoint:
> 
> GOP lures some mountain bike groups in its push to roll back protections for public land - LA Times


So misleading.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Cerberus75 said:


> So are canoes and kayaks, hell, you could argue a *walking stick* is a mechanical assistance.


I agree, ban the walking sticks.

Burn all the forests too, or it'll be easy to find more contraband. :lol:


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Zowie said:


> I agree, ban the walking sticks.
> 
> Burn all the forests too, or it'll be easy to find more contraband. :lol:


I agree. One surprising finding after adoption of illegally built technical trails like Hangover and HiLine in Sedona is that hikers are now hitting them pretty hard. They pound the outside edges into submission with their trekking poles leading to sloughing and failure of the edge of the tread. There's not much holding those trails to the cliff side. Far more damage is incurred than the passage of bike tires. Who knew?

Also of note with regards to IMBA is first they canceled the charter of the Sedona Mountain Bike Club when the members didn't toe the line and play nice with FS closures. More recently the Verde Valley Cyclists Coalition (now the only biking advocate in Sedona) canceled their IMBA affiliation status.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

TheDwayyo said:


> This article helps to see the issue from a non-mountain biker perspective... Though I still disagree with much of their viewpoint:
> 
> GOP lures some mountain bike groups in its push to roll back protections for public land - LA Times


pffft, more like Democrats refuse to hear mountain biker pleas for help.

.


----------



## jindustry (Dec 21, 2010)

This article makes a pretty good argument that the spirit of the original Wilderness Act included bikes.

Blast From the Past: By Law, Mountain Bikes in Wilderness - Dirt Rag

The article summarizes a paper published in a scholarly law review on this very subject with interesting historical evidence.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

rockman said:


> I agree. One surprising finding after adoption of illegally built technical trails like Hangover and HiLine in Sedona is that hikers are now hitting them pretty hard. They pound the outside edges into submission with their trekking poles leading to sloughing and failure of the edge of the tread. There's not much holding those trails to the cliff side. Far more damage is incurred than the passage of bike tires. Who knew?
> 
> Also of note with regards to IMBA is first they canceled the charter of the Sedona Mountain Bike Club when the members didn't toe the line and play nice with FS closures. More recently the Verde Valley Cyclists Coalition (now the only biking advocate in Sedona) canceled their IMBA affiliation status.


I said it in jest, but I go hiking about 3 times a year were the trail has a lot of scrambling. No way a bike could go (this is why we hike it) metal poles do a lot of damage.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

My hiking sticks have rubber tips.


----------



## iliketexmex (Oct 29, 2016)




----------



## Dpca10 (Sep 13, 2012)

At the last board meeting of Silicon Valley Mtb (an imba chapter in the Bay Area). It was discussed whether we should drop out of imba. For now we are remaining part, but none of the board was in favor of imba’s position and apparently no chapter in California as far as we know. We made it very clear we supported STC’s agenda and have given money to support them. It’s sad that IMBA’s actions might sour enthusiasm for local groups.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Dpca10 said:


> It's sad that IMBA's actions might sour enthusiasm for local groups.


Very. At least in our area, it feels like we just got over some of the hurdles associated with getting the local club behind becoming a charter organization for IMBA... And now we are back to square one, people want out.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

rockman said:


> I agree. One surprising finding after adoption of illegally built technical trails like Hangover and HiLine in Sedona is that hikers are now hitting them pretty hard. They pound the outside edges into submission with their trekking poles leading to sloughing and failure of the edge of the tread. There's not much holding those trails to the cliff side. Far more damage is incurred than the passage of bike tires. Who knew?


Seems like your efforts would be better placed on hiking forums if this is what you're pushing.

Or is this just some of the whataboutism that's so hot right now?


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Zowie said:


> Seems like your efforts would be better placed on hiking forums if this is what you're pushing.
> 
> Or is this just some of the whataboutism that's so hot right now?


I was merely pointing out that trekking poles can be considered a mechanical advantage and can cause resource damage. Guess I'll have to look up 'whataboutism'. What's your beef?


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

rockman said:


> I was merely pointing out that trekking poles can be considered a mechanical advantage and can cause resource damage. Guess I'll have to look up 'whataboutism'. What's your beef?


Zowie generally disapproves of discussion, so he spends his time browsing discussion forums discussing how others are wasting their time discussing.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

rockman said:


> I was merely pointing out that trekking poles can be considered a mechanical advantage and can cause resource damage. Guess I'll have to look up 'whataboutism'. What's your beef?


My point was merely that if you're pointing out resource destruction due to trekking poles, it would be better placed on a hiking forum where it may at least ostensibly result in a reduction of resource destruction, not on a MTB forum in order to change the subject to "What about" hikers, they're worse.

As to "Discussion" as per Dwayyo's insightful and on topic reply, I think it's wonderful, when it happens.
Pretty rare.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Zowie said:


> My point was merely that if you're pointing out resource destruction due to trekking poles, it would be better placed on a hiking forum where it may at least ostensibly result in a reduction of resource destruction, not on a MTB forum in order to change the subject to "What about" hikers, they're worse.
> 
> As to "Discussion" as per Dwayyo's insightful and on topic reply, I think it's wonderful, when it happens.
> Pretty rare.


What I posted is germane to the discussion. IMO, perhaps not yours. The thread is about IMBA and what they are advocating for and whether or not they have the best interest of the mtn bike community in mind.

Personally I don't mind not riding in wilderness. It's the non-wilderness closures that are bothersome to me. Also, only one human powered mechanized use is banned in wilderness - bikes. Plenty others still exist - skis, oar rafts, rock climbing equipment, and dare I say it ...spring operated hiking poles. If the wilderness groups want to "protect" wilderness, why aren't they trying to ban the other mechanical uses? Perhaps the mechanical debate will make the general public realize how stupid it is. If skiing and rock climbing were banned from wilderness would that alter public opinion?

Anyhow, remind me exactly what you have contributed in this thread?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

rockman said:


> What I posted is germane to the discussion. IMO, perhaps not yours. The thread is about IMBA and what they are advocating for and whether or not they have the best interest of the mtn bike community in mind.
> 
> Personally I don't mind not riding in wilderness. It's the non-wilderness closures that are bothersome to me. Also, only one human powered mechanized use is banned in wilderness - bikes. Plenty others still exist - skis, oar rafts, rock climbing equipment, and dare I say it ...spring operated hiking poles. If the wilderness groups want to "protect" wilderness, why aren't they trying to ban the other mechanical uses? Perhaps the mechanical debate will make the general public realize how stupid it is. If skiing and rock climbing were banned from wilderness would that alter public opinion?
> 
> Anyhow, remind me exactly what you have contributed in this thread?


Just trying to help, pointing out poor propaganda that weakens the argument.
You may want to realize that if you argue a point on poor data, you're making the other side's argument for them.

P.S. Your interpretation of current WA law is incorrect.


----------



## dv8zen (Nov 30, 2017)

Does the wilderness act even need to be amened to be reinterpreted by those enforcing it? xD

Should pro-conservation activists be worried about having an outdoorsy community opposing new wilderness? How big is mtn biking in the US, and is it still growing?


----------



## elder_mtber (Jan 13, 2004)

LarryFahn said:


> No more love for imba. Don't take our money to be our voice and then turn around and speak against what 96% of riders want. Ttyl, Fahn
> 
> https://www.singletracks.com/blog/t...s-proposed-us-bill-allowing-bikes-wilderness/


I am done with IMBA. After 15 years or so. Unless they change their policy.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Zowie said:


> Just trying to help, pointing out poor propaganda that weakens the argument.
> You may want to realize that if you argue a point on poor data, you're making the other side's argument for them.


Making an argument to someone with an opposing viewpoint and discussing on a discussion board of mostly like-minded folk are completely different forms of dialogue and require different levels of attention to one's logic... Particularly when noting that he ended his post with 'who knew?' implying a casual supposition rather than a piece of 'data.'

But that's what I've come to expect from you; ignoring the discussion to point out some pedantic flaw in an 'argument' that no one presented as an argument in the first place. Kudos to your Intro to Logic professor.


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

Zowie said:


> Just trying to help, pointing out poor propaganda that weakens the argument.
> You may want to realize that if you argue a point on poor data, you're making the other side's argument for them.
> 
> P.S. Your interpretation of current WA law is incorrect.


He had a great point, not propaganda, and your post was way outta left field.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Cross posting this here from a regional discussion.....

Based on IMBA's 2015 annual report
https://issuu.com/imbapublications/docs/imba_2015_annual_report 
it looks like membership contributions are only a drop in the bucket. Total revenue of $6.1 million with only $1.4 coming from memberships. No wonder they don't care what their membership thinks. Seems a boycott of companies who support IMBA is going to be needed to sink that ship, but from all appearances, that would mean just not buying anything from anyone. IMBA is more an industry trade association than member supported advocacy group. They don't need to care about the wishes of individual members.

What's really needed now is a new advocacy group for mountain bikers, by mountain bikers, and funded by mountain bikers.....no for-profit industry money accepted.

.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

TheDwayyo said:


> Making an argument to someone with an opposing viewpoint and discussing on a discussion board of mostly like-minded folk are completely different forms of dialogue and require different levels of attention to one's logic... Particularly when noting that he ended his post with 'who knew?' implying a casual supposition rather than a piece of 'data.'
> 
> But that's what I've come to expect from you; ignoring the discussion to point out some pedantic flaw in an 'argument' that no one presented as an argument in the first place. Kudos to your Intro to Logic professor.


You may repeat or compliment false or anecdotal statements just like everyone else who's got an axe to grind as far as any topic goes.

It's rather telling when you attack me for pointing it out.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Zowie said:


> You may repeat or compliment false or anecdotal statements just like everyone else who's got an axe to grind as far as any topic goes.
> 
> It's rather telling when you attack me for pointing it out.


Again, kudos to your Intro to Logic professor but perhaps you should have spent more time socializing with other humans and you'd be able to be a part of the discussion with the rest of us.

Now I'm off to find out if this site has an ignore or block feature that will allow me to enjoy my time on this site without getting a logic lecture every time your ego needs a boost... With a little luck, I won't see your asinine, pseudo-intellectual response.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

TheDwayyo said:


> Again, kudos to your Intro to Logic professor but perhaps you should have spent more time socializing with other humans and you'd be able to be a part of the discussion with the rest of us.


So if I agree with you guys that's how we have a good discussion?

If that is what you enjoy here, you have fun with it.

As an apologetic bit of rich content:

Hey guys, can you imagine a mountain biker ever damaging the trail?
I can't LOL!


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

It worked! 



dv8zen said:


> Should pro-conservation activists be worried about having an outdoorsy community opposing new wilderness? How big is mtn biking in the US, and is it still growing?


I have to admit I do worry that dividing outdoor enthusiasts into more specific groups and pitting them against each other may hurt overall conservation efforts, but as has been said I don't think that's a reason to roll over and play dead when we feel we are being unjustly discriminated against.

Mountain biking is definitely growing, but I don't think we have nearly the financial support that wildernuts, equestrians and other more generic outdoor hobbyists have. It's not about raw numbers, it's about the money those numbers can pull together to lobby for their cause.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

TheDwayyo said:


> ...and other more generic outdoor hobbyists...


Who do you mean by that?


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Nat said:


> Who do you mean by that?


I meant that mountain biking is super specific. Despite what bike manufacturers might want us to believe, we are all just mountain bikers and we are a fairly esoteric group... Compare that to 'hikers' which is pretty much just anybody who walks in the woods (bird-watchers, photographers, hobby geologists, bushcrafters, etc.); those are really just 'generic outdoor hobbyists' however from a lobbying standpoint they are one voice; hikers.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

TheDwayyo said:


> I meant that mountain biking is super specific. Despite what bike manufacturers might want us to believe, we are all just mountain bikers and we are a fairly esoteric group... Compare that to 'hikers' which is pretty much just anybody who walks in the woods (bird-watchers, photographers, hobby geologists, bushcrafters, etc.); those are really just 'generic outdoor hobbyists' however from a lobbying standpoint they are one voice; hikers.


This is why I believe that the decision shouldn't be federal law. We may be a smaller group. But if we're the ones doing most of the train work. Then the land managers won't have to.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

_CJ said:


> Cross posting this here from a regional discussion.....
> 
> Based on IMBA's 2015 annual report
> https://issuu.com/imbapublications/docs/imba_2015_annual_report
> ...


I use to work in the industry. I have reached out to many of my factory buddies to spread the word with-in the factory realm. Many of my friends had no idea what IMBA did. Most of them were blown away when I told them. Hopefully, my buddies can spread the word to their friends in other companies to cut their sponsorship funding.

Other than that. Calling up IMBAs sponsors and pleading with them to cut off funding is about all we can do.

I recently spoke with a good friend of mine from CORBA and he told me that at this time they do not want to completely cripple IMBA. At this time, they want to remove to head of the snake and replace it with a new head with elected members which can be voted out if they don't do what they promise too.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Cerberus75 said:


> This is why I believe that the decision shouldn't be federal law. We may be a smaller group. But if we're the ones doing most of the train work. Then the land managers won't have to.


Not following the logic

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

MTBforlife said:


> I use to work in the industry. I have reached out to many of my factory buddies to spread the word with-in the factory realm. Many of my friends had no idea what IMBA did. Most of them were blown away when I told them. Hopefully, my buddies can spread the word to their friends in other companies to cut their sponsorship funding.
> 
> Other than that. Calling up IMBAs sponsors and pleading with them to cut off funding is about all we can do.
> 
> I recently spoke with a good friend of mine from CORBA and he told me that at this time they do not want to completely cripple IMBA. At this time, they want to remove to head of the snake and replace it with a new head with elected members which can be voted out if they don't do what they promise too.


yeah, I think I saw a petition to that effect....San Diego, and LA IMBA chapters apparently want a president and board of mountain bikers, elected by mountain bikers, serving mountain biker's interests instead of the current board comprised of corporate donors.

Somebody else pointed out that there must have been a vote that took place within the board at IMBA, and that the members should be privy to who voted which way. Which companies, specifically, voted to undermine the STC's efforts. That would make for a pretty tidy boycott list.

But, I have to agree, a house cleaning and restructuring as is being proposed by the SoCal groups would be a fantastic alternative to destroying IMBA completely.

.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

_CJ said:


> yeah, I think I saw a petition to that effect....San Diego, and LA IMBA chapters apparently want a president and board of mountain bikers, elected by mountain bikers, serving mountain biker's interests instead of the current board comprised of corporate donors.
> 
> Somebody else pointed out that there must have been a vote that took place within the board at IMBA, and that the members should be privy to who voted which way. Which companies, specifically, voted to undermine the STC's efforts. That would make for a pretty tidy boycott list.
> 
> ...


Absolutely, restructuring IMBA will be easier than starting a new organization from scratch.

I have been hearing something about a plan B. I do not know all the specs to comment about it.


----------



## bamwa (Mar 15, 2010)

Anyone have a change of heart on this yet? I may have slightly. IMBA should have stayed out of this but.....maybe we shouldn't be riding everywhere. Even if minimal, there are impacts that wildlife may feel with trails running through their woods. Tread get compressed by rider weight. Maybe ants can't tunnel across. Maybe riders will get further that most and leave gu wrappers or a stray deuce here and there. Maybe human scent alone keeps animals from doing their thing. I'm not being anti biker or anything but usually after I'm firm on something my mind still likes to understand both sides.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

bamwa said:


> Anyone have a change of heart on this yet? I may have slightly. IMBA should have stayed out of this but.....maybe we shouldn't be riding everywhere. Even if minimal, there are impacts that wildlife may feel with trails running through their woods. Tread get compressed by rider weight. Maybe ants can't tunnel across. Maybe riders will get further that most and leave gu wrappers or a stray deuce here and there. Maybe human scent alone keeps animals from doing their thing. I'm not being anti biker or anything but usually after I'm firm on something my mind still likes to understand both sides.


No, If somever place is protected from everyone for some reason sure. But if you can ride a horse on a trail. I feel a bike or a wheel chair should be able to be used on the trail.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Cerberus75 said:


> No, If somever place is protected from everyone for some reason sure. But if you can ride a horse on a trail. *I feel a bike or a wheel chair should be able to be used on the trail*.


You want the trails widened and smoothed?


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

Nat said:


> You want the trails widened and smoothed?


Never said that. Most trails commonly used by horses are wide enough for a wheel chair If we start splitting hairs. Allowing self powered wheeled transportation doesn't just benifit bikers.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

Nat said:


> You want the trails widened and smoothed?


Never said that. Most trails commonly used by horses are wide enough for a wheel chair If we start splitting hairs. Allowing self powered wheeled transportation doesn't just benifit bikers. There are people who will ride a wheel chair onot some rough stuff.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Cerberus75 said:


> Most trails commonly used by horses are wide enough for a wheel chair.


Where do you live?


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

Nat said:


> Where do you live?


Mid Atlantic


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

Really, Imba should be taking a position like the NRA does. Advocate for access everywhere. It is a simple policy and it would work. There are going to be groups against us that prohibit access anyway. When we start restricting ourselves then it will only make it worse. If a area is sensitive enough then a environmental group will take the call and stop access. 
I don't encourage or support the NRA but look at what they do for their members. Imba is trying to decide what is right for us. Not supporting access, making groomers. I will not renew my membership.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

rlee said:


> Advocate for access everywhere.


Like _everywhere_ everywhere? Yellowstone, Arches, Yosemite, The Grand Canyon, Zion, Mesa Verde, etc?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Nat said:


> Like _everywhere_ everywhere? Yellowstone, Arches, Yosemite, The Grand Canyon, Zion, Mesa Verde, etc?


There is plenty of room in Yosemite

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

Cerberus75 said:


> Never said that. Most trails commonly used by horses are wide enough for a wheel chair If we start splitting hairs. Allowing self powered wheeled transportation doesn't just benifit bikers.


(1) IN GENERAL - Congress reaffirms that nothing in the Wilderness Act prohibits wheelchair use in a wilderness area by an individual whose disability requires its use. The Wilderness Act requires no agency to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation or to construct any facilities or modify any conditions of lands within a wilderness area to facilitate such use.

https://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/accessibility/FS_Law_Reg_policy_wheelchairs.pdf


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

zorg said:


> There is plenty of room in Yosemite


Do you think the mountain bike community should push for a blanket permit?


----------



## jasonmason (Mar 21, 2007)

Haymarket said:


> Well, since they basically wrote a response saying they didn't give a crap what mountain bikers thought and that they know best....I don't think they will care. They will care when membership takes a hit and chapters pull out.


Color me skeptical on that front.

While there was a lot of talk a couple weeks ago, I have yet to see a chapter actually have the balls to rescind their chapter status from IMBA. I doubt you'll actually see many, if any, actually do so.

Which, in a nutshell, is why so many people here (myself included) are reticent to support local groups.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

jasonmason said:


> Color me skeptical on that front.
> 
> While there was a lot of talk a couple weeks ago, I have yet to see a chapter actually have the balls to rescind their chapter status from IMBA. I doubt you'll actually see many, if any, actually do so.
> 
> Which, in a nutshell, is why so many people here (myself included) are reticent to support local groups.


hmm, I know of at least one that chapter here in Arizona that severed it's affiliation with IMBA in 2017 and with IMBA's current leadership vacuum there may be more to come.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Nat said:


> Do you think the mountain bike community should push for a blanket permit?


What are you trying to get to with your question? I think that the bill is perfect and I hope it passes. There should be no blanket exclusion from Wilderness. That's what I think.

My turn to ask question. Do you support the blanket ban on biking?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

zorg said:


> What are you trying to get to with your question? I think that the bill is perfect and I hope it passes. There should be no blanket exclusion from Wilderness. That's what I think.
> 
> My turn to ask question. Do you support the blanket ban on biking?


I was trying to understand what you were getting at when you said that there's plenty of room in Yosemite for bikes.

Do I support or oppose the ban? Whether or not I get to bike in Wilderness areas falls really, really far down on my list of **** to be concerned about these days so honestly I don't really care if it passes or not. It's low priority.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Nat said:


> I was trying to understand what you were getting at when you said that there's plenty of room in Yosemite for bikes.
> 
> Do I support or oppose the ban? Whether or not I get to bike in Wilderness areas falls really, really far down on my list of **** to be concerned about these days so honestly I don't really care if it passes or not. It's low priority.


Interesting way of avoiding answering what was a very simple question. So, if you don't care about the Wilderness issue, why are you posting in this thread?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

zorg said:


> Interesting way of avoiding answering what was a very simple question. So, if you don't care about the Wilderness issue, why are you posting in this thread?


It's a distraction (as is using mtbr at all) for me from all the other crap going on right now.

Status quo would be fine with me. Change would be fine with me too.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Nat said:


> It's a distraction (as is using mtbr at all) for me from all the other crap I have to deal with right now.
> 
> Status quo would be fine with me. Change would be fine with me too.


Maybe you'd be more engaged if your favorite trail was confiscated for Wilderness Study Area.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

zorg said:


> Maybe you'd be more engaged if your favorite trail was confiscated for Wilderness Study Area.


Maybe, but there are still more important things (health, finances, illness, death) going on right now in my life than riding bikes. Riding bikes is playtime.


----------



## bamwa (Mar 15, 2010)

I didn't bump this to get y'all splitting hairs and making up words to put in other's mouths. 

Yes if a trail is there and horses and hikers are allowed and it doesn't harm wildlife in any way go for it. I'd even like to see some trails here "Yellowstone, Arches, Yosemite, The Grand Canyon, Zion, Mesa Verde" that allow bikes. Seeing how you can only ride the North Rim of the Grand Canyon seems like a jip to me. I was just noticing while rolling some corridors locally that yes trails do have an impact on the terrain. Whether or not birds, deer and snakes care is another story. 

My point is we as mountain bikers are not lilly white and there may be some bad apples out there that may leave litter, or punctured tubes, or zoom hikers without saying good day, or bring out IMBA approved ebikes on nonmotorized trails. On the other hand any user group can have it's idiots as well.

But yeah, it should be up to land managers. The smart ones will realize that we as a group are an asset to parks willing to pay in gate fees and volunteer work. Feds need to realize this asap. No reason we can have trails in Big Bend State Park but not Big Bend National Park next door. It just isn't fair. If only there was a mtb group to voice our opinions!


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Nat said:


> Maybe, but there are still more important things (health, finances, illness, death) going on right now in my life than riding bikes. Riding bikes is playtime.


Then, I suggest you go back to your super important activities and let involved people discuss the amendment to the Wilderness Act.


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

I don't think bikes belong everywhere. And there are a lot of organizations that won't let us go where we want. 
IMBA needs to advocate for access everywhere, and knowing that they won't get it. But still advocate for it. The percentage they get will be lets say 20%. But if they only ask for 20% then they will end up with 5%.
Other organizations operate this way. The sierra club wants us to have 0%. We need 100% and we'll end up in the middle somewhere.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Not intentionally trying to put words in anyone’s mouth but you guys do give a person things to think about, hence my questions seeking clarification on your viewpoints. It appears the questioning irritates you though so I’ll stop. Carry on.


----------



## bamwa (Mar 15, 2010)

Not all your questions are bad but dude, this:
"You want the trails widened and smoothed?"

In response to this:
"I feel a bike or a wheel chair should be able to be used on the trail."

Is *exactly* what's called putting words in one's mouth.

He is talking about people's freedom of access and you are talking about trail work. Come on now.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Not all wheelchairs have four wheels. Some, specifically made for more primitive trails only have one....but are currently illegal in WA.

View attachment 1176930


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

_CJ said:


> Not all wheelchairs have four wheels. Some, specifically made for more primitive trails only have one....but are currently illegal in WA.
> 
> View attachment 1176930


these are cooll. There are 3 wheeled ones with levers and chain drive. So the person can selfpropel it. These are illegal as well. I don't feel the need to respond to smoothing trails or regular wheel chairs are legal comments. When we are talking about actual wheel chais made for rough trails.


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

Cerberus75 said:


> these are cooll. There are 3 wheeled ones with levers and chain drive. So the person can selfpropel it. These are illegal as well. I don't feel the need to respond to smoothing trails or regular wheel chairs are legal comments. When we are talking about actual wheel chais made for rough trails.


I don't know how many times I have to say this.

WHEELCHAIRS ARE NOT ILLEGAL IN WAs.

I posted a link 2 pages back to the USFS website. The ADA brought this into compliance. Making the case for bikes via wheelchairs is a fallacy.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

101 said:


> I don't know how many times I have to say this.
> 
> WHEELCHAIRS ARE NOT ILLEGAL IN WAs.
> 
> I posted a link 2 pages back to the USFS website. The ADA brought this into compliance. Making the case for bikes via wheelchairs is a fallacy.


Does not change the overall narrative.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

bamwa said:


> Anyone have a change of heart on this yet? I may have slightly. IMBA should have stayed out of this but.....maybe we shouldn't be riding everywhere. Even if minimal, there are impacts that wildlife may feel with trails running through their woods. Tread get compressed by rider weight. Maybe ants can't tunnel across. Maybe riders will get further that most and leave gu wrappers or a stray deuce here and there. Maybe human scent alone keeps animals from doing their thing. I'm not being anti biker or anything but usually after I'm firm on something my mind still likes to understand both sides.


My take is that there are areas and trails that have been used by mountain bikers for decades with very little resource degradation or user conflicts. Then these areas that have been used by us for decades suddenly become off-limits due to Wilderness designation or Wilderness Study Area designation. This continued loss of access for no compelling reason pushed me towards the Wilderness access issue.

Also worth consideration is the potential for full support for new Wilderness areas from mountain bikers if our access is not going to be eliminated. I know I'd be pushing hard for more land protection if I weren't going to lose trail access.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Nat said:


> Not intentionally trying to put words in anyone's mouth but you guys do give a person things to think about, hence my questions seeking clarification on your viewpoints. It appears the questioning irritates you though so I'll stop. Carry on.


Nat, I've had a few enjoyable exchanges with you on this subject and value your input. I like to give these matters a lot of thoughtful consideration and you've helped me do that.


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

zorg said:


> Does not change the overall narrative.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


You are correct that it does not change the overall narrative. However, making the round about implication that the USFS is discriminating against wheelchairs therefore bikes should also be allowed doesn't do much to show that the Bikes in WAs narrative is overall informed.

The Bikes in WAs narrative managed to muster up a measly few thousand signatures and apparently, at least some of the group still thinks that wheelchairs are disallowed despite the amount of available information that has been made available to the public. If you are looking to impress the public with numbers and knowledge, then the campaign may have already failed.

I'm kinda over this whole WA debate. I'll just go with however it shakes out, but, I am entirely unimpressed with the Mtn Bike community's approach to this argument.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

101 said:


> You are correct that it does not change the overall narrative. However, making the round about implication that the USFS is discriminating against wheelchairs therefore bikes should also be allowed doesn't do much to show that the Bikes in WAs narrative is overall informed.
> 
> The Bikes in WAs narrative managed to muster up a measly few thousand signatures and apparently, at least some of the group still thinks that wheelchairs are disallowed despite the amount of available information that has been made available to the public. If you are looking to impress the public with numbers and knowledge, then the campaign may have already failed.
> 
> I'm kinda over this whole WA debate. I'll just go with however it shakes out, but, I am entirely unimpressed with the Mtn Bike community's approach to this argument.


Let's hear your argument since you seem to be that much smarter.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

jasonmason said:


> Color me skeptical on that front.
> 
> While there was a lot of talk a couple weeks ago, I have yet to see a chapter actually have the balls to rescind their chapter status from IMBA. I doubt you'll actually see many, if any, actually do so.
> 
> Which, in a nutshell, is why so many people here (myself included) are reticent to support local groups.


I am affiliated with several local groups. The groups I am affiliated with want IMBA restructured at this point. If IMBA refuses then there is a plan "B" in the works. As for what plan "B" is? The details are still being worked out. Either way, with what I have been told is the head of the snake will be removed and replaced one way or another.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rockman said:


> hmm, I know of at least one that chapter here in Arizona that severed it's affiliation with IMBA in 2017 and with IMBA's current leadership vacuum there may be more to come.


Yep...


----------



## 101 (Nov 14, 2017)

zorg said:


> Let's hear your argument since you seem to be that much smarter.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


I'm just fine with WAs as they presently exist. 
I use public lands extensively for a variety of purposes and pursuits. The accessibility of public land was the primary reason I moved to Durango and the Weminuche (one of the CO Trail re routes) in particular is very special to me. If it's opened up to bikes, so be it and I'll be one of the firsts in their on a bike, but I'm not interested in pursuing it nor am I interested in aligning myself with the Mtn Bike community on this subject matter.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

101 said:


> I'm just fine with WAs as they presently exist.
> I use public lands extensively for a variety of purposes and pursuits. The accessibility of public land was the primary reason I moved to Durango and the Weminuche (one of the CO Trail re routes) in particular is very special to me. If it's opened up to bikes, so be it and I'll be one of the firsts in their on a bike, but I'm not interested in pursuing it nor am I interested in aligning myself with the Mtn Bike community on this subject matter.


Got it. You have drank the wildernut koolaid. That explains your irrational criticism.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

101 said:


> I'm just fine with WAs as they presently exist.
> I use public lands extensively for a variety of purposes and pursuits. The accessibility of public land was the primary reason I moved to Durango and the Weminuche (one of the CO Trail re routes) in particular is very special to me. If it's opened up to bikes, so be it and I'll be one of the firsts in their on a bike, but I'm not interested in pursuing it nor am I interested in aligning myself with the Mtn Bike community on this subject matter.


If I had a logic professor, I bet he or she would approve of this.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Interesting article from the Colo Sprgs Gazette.

Should mountain bikers be allowed on Wilderness land? | Colorado Springs Gazette, News

Remember when I said this was all about politics? This statement by Athan Manuel, director of Lands Protection Program for the Sierra Club is all we need to know...*"You don't ask what the bill does, you ask about who the sponsors are"*.

.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

_CJ said:


> Interesting article from the Colo Sprgs Gazette.
> 
> Should mountain bikers be allowed on Wilderness land? | Colorado Springs Gazette, News
> 
> ...


Sierra Club is afraid of discussing the bill merit and would rather do some fear mongering.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

Interesting quote from the article.



> Opposing Sustainable Trail Coalition's initiative is a major player in the mountain biking community: the International Mountain Bicycling Association. Founded in 1988, IMBA has more than 40,000 members worldwide, advocates for mountain bicyclist rights and access across the country, and testified against the amendment before the House committee.


,

Isn't IMBA trying to spin this that they did not oppose the Bill, only that they did not support it. If so, why does everyone but IMBA take their actions as opposition to the bill?


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

indytrekracer said:


> Interesting quote from the article.
> 
> ,
> 
> Isn't IMBA trying to spin this that they did not oppose the Bill, only that they did not support it. If so, why does everyone but IMBA take their actions as opposition to the bill?


As a last minute surprise, IMBA submitted written testimony to the sub-committee hearings opposing the bill. This was a complete 180 to their previous statements saying they would "neither support nor oppose". THAT is why everyone is so pissed off at IMBA, and why their claimed membership of 40,000 is a fantasy. Most people paying attention have cancelled their memberships, and if IMBA doesn't make some serious changes in the structure and stance of the organization, it's likely they will become nothing more than an industry trade group, which it could be fairly argued they already are.

.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

_CJ said:


> As a last minute surprise, IMBA submitted written testimony to the sub-committee hearings opposing the bill. This was a complete 180 to their previous statements saying they would "neither support nor oppose". THAT is why everyone is so pissed off at IMBA, and why their claimed membership of 40,000 is a fantasy. Most people paying attention have cancelled their memberships, and if IMBA doesn't make some serious changes in the structure and stance of the organization, it's likely they will become nothing more than an industry trade group, which it could be fairly argued they already are.
> 
> .


If they don't change their tune they will lose all relevance.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

_CJ said:


> As a last minute surprise, IMBA submitted written testimony to the sub-committee hearings opposing the bill. This was a complete 180 to their previous statements saying they would "neither support nor oppose". THAT is why everyone is so pissed off at IMBA, and why their claimed membership of 40,000 is a fantasy. Most people paying attention have cancelled their memberships, and if IMBA doesn't make some serious changes in the structure and stance of the organization, it's likely they will become nothing more than an industry trade group, which it could be fairly argued they already are.
> 
> .


At this point, they're the industry mouthpiece, with a hint of wildernuttiness being that they've befriended the Wilderness Society and all.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

zorg said:


> At this point, they're the industry mouthpiece, with a hint of wildernuttiness being that they've befriended the Wilderness Society and all.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


 A hint of wildernuttiness? Seems like that should be at starbucks? Pine tree and almond latte that leaves a really bitter aftertaste


----------



## 786737 (Mar 13, 2015)

"I'd like a fra-GEE-lay almond-milk vegan non-binary latte with pine tree bark shavings and a shot of wildernutiness."


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Zowie said:


> If I had a logic professor, I bet he or she would approve of this.


I believe that you are conflating someone's opinion for logic.


----------



## MTBforlife (Apr 27, 2009)

the one ring said:


> "I'd like a fra-GEE-lay almond-milk vegan non-binary latte with pine tree bark shavings and a shot of wildernutiness."


You may want to patent that before Starbucks does.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Curveball said:


> I believe that you are conflating someone's opinion for logic.


Too bad more people can't figure out when that's happening.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Zowie said:


> Too bad more people can't figure out when that's happening.


I see this subject as something more based upon personal values than an analysis of hard data and facts. Which is fine, but it needs to be recognized as such.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Have you ordered your new STC shirt yet? Not much time left on this design. Guaranteed to spark up conversation with your local "haters" at the brew pub.

https://www.customink.com/fundraising/stc_lyndon_johnson

.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

_CJ said:


> Have you ordered your new STC shirt yet? Not much time left on this design. Guaranteed to spark up conversation with your local "haters" at the brew pub.
> 
> https://www.customink.com/fundraising/stc_lyndon_johnson
> 
> .


I'd love to wear one of those to a Sierra Club chapter meeting.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

_CJ said:


> Have you ordered your new STC shirt yet? Not much time left on this design. Guaranteed to spark up conversation with your local "haters" at the brew pub.
> 
> https://www.customink.com/fundraising/stc_lyndon_johnson
> 
> .


Thanks for the heads-up, I ordered a long-sleeve.


----------



## elder_mtber (Jan 13, 2004)

I just bought the T shirt but did not make an additional donation.

I plan to donate when my IMBA renewal is due. How much have I been giving IMBA? Don't remember - $35 for renewal with socks (gonna have an IMBA socks bonfire soon) + whatever I paid for the annual calendar.

I promise to redirect my donations to STC.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I just got my STC long sleeve T today. Very nice!









Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Silentfoe said:


> I just got my STC long sleeve T today. Very nice!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Got mine yesterday, quality goods for a great cause.


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

Liz Bergeron, CEO of the PCTA, is using IMBA's stance on H.R 1349 to argue against mountain bike access to wilderness sections of the PCT.
McClintocks Trojan horse mountain bike bill redefines wilderness


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

Mookie said:


> Liz Bergeron, CEO of the PCTA, is using IMBA's stance on H.R 1349 to argue against mountain bike access to wilderness sections of the PCT.
> McClintocks Trojan horse mountain bike bill redefines wilderness


No mountain biker should be rejoining the IMBA at this point. Disgusting.


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

Haymarket said:


> No mountain biker should be rejoining the IMBA at this point. Disgusting.


Yes indeed. STC got my dollars this year.


----------



## BigTex91 (Oct 28, 2010)

Haymarket said:


> No mountain biker should be rejoining the IMBA at this point. Disgusting.


I just renewed, reluctantly, and told IMBA why I was reluctant. I let them know that the only reason I renewed was to support my local chapter. I also told them that the extra money I have given in the past would got to STC instead, and if they didn't start listening to their members, I would not be renewing a year from now.

I got no response, of course. I have a feeling I won't re-up next year.


----------

