# Sierra Club & Mountain Bikes



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

Having seen the recent post on trail closures in California due to a Sierra Club law suit, I decided to look into the SC's web site at thier land use policies. I will give them this much, they do seperate mountain bikes from other vehicle users. We can thank Mr. Blumenthall and IMBA for that. But we know that it is also just window dressing. Here are a few parts of the policy w/my interpretation of their meaning.

"The Sierra Club reaffirms its support for the Wilderness Act's prohibition of "mechanized modes of transport," including non-motorized vehicles, from entry into designated wilderness."

_Yea It's ours and YOU CAN'T HAVE IT_

"a. Trails and areas on public lands should be closed to all vehicles unless 
i. determined to be appropriate for their use through completion of an analysis, review, and implementation process,"

_Trails and areas on public lands should be closed to all vehicles (including bikes) unless we say so._

"The Sierra Club is concerned about the effects of use of bicycles off-road. Concerns have been raised about effects such as soil erosion, impacts on plants and animals, displacement of other trail users, and impacts on other users' safety and enjoyment. These concerns argue for special regulation, with effective enforcement, of off-road bicycling."

_We will sue to get you off of OUR trails_

"Single track trails can present difficult management, safety, and environmental protection situations, but may be acceptable for bicycling as determined on a local, case-by-case basis."

_There's an old railroad bed over there, you can have that_

"Any degradation of the environment, user safety, or enjoyment may be considered significant, depending on the permanence, scale, intensity, and context of the impact. Determination of the meaning of significant will rest, to a great degree, upon local entities and the regulatory agencies to which they appeal for such a determination."

_Significant impact is defined as one Sierra Club member being frightened by one of those nasty mountain bikers._

Maybe I am wrong on this. Maybe the Sierra Club is populated by reasonable and rational individuals who are truly interested in access for all. But their actions sure paint another picture for me.


----------



## grover (Apr 14, 2004)

*Don't Worry..*

They'll let the equestrian folks beat the cr*p out of "their" wilderness areas because they are doing it "naturally"
It's amazing what money can do for a "cause"
Everything will be fine as long as we agree with them, right?


----------



## donkey (Jan 14, 2004)

Check out www.warriorssociety.org for more information about the battle between the sierra club and mountain bikes.

Bottom line is that you are reading their policy correctly.....they don't want us around.

B


----------



## grover (Apr 14, 2004)

*No Lie*

[Bottom line is that you are reading their policy correctly.....they don't want us around.

It p*sses me off because they act like they are the only ones who are entitled to enjoy the land. Last time I checked (and voted and paid taxes) we are all citizens of these good old United States and the land is "OURS", as in all of us. But what do I know, I'm just a muddy,old guy on a mountain bike taking in the sights.


----------



## SprungShoulders (Jan 12, 2004)

I wonder if our bikes left huge steaming piles of crap and 6" deep post holes all over the trails they'd consider us less harmful to "their" wilderness?


----------



## Big Daddio (Feb 20, 2004)

*Sierra Club*

Get it straight, the Sierra Club is against mountain bikes and riders. When it gets down to it the Sierra Club and organizations of that ilk are more interested in perserving their idea of what wilderness should be and screw everyone else. If you like to ride a bicycle off road you should think long and hard about any affiliation with the Sierra Club. I personally like Sierra Club members, if you stack up enough of them they make great water bars.


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

The Sierra Club is really just a Hiking and Equestrian Club. They're all about exclusion. They're for the environment as long as it includes hikers and 2000 pound post-hole diggers........AND excludes all mechanized devices....... especially bikes.

I take great pleasure when the Sierra Club people come around looking for donations. I invite them into my home and waste as much of their time as possible before I let them know that I wouldn't support them EVER.


----------



## Trail Punk (May 12, 2004)

*I'm done supporting Sierra Club*

I've sent the $$$ in, but no more.

Expanding wilderness designations in NorCal, with Sierra Club support, will exclude mountain bikes. That bites.

From now on, I'll support WWF, CORAL, and Nature Conservancy.

Anybody who's against riding bikes $ucks.


----------



## sportsman (Mar 2, 2004)

*join and conquer*

of course, we could push a movement for mountain bikers all around the world (at least the country) to join the Sierra club, and then being infiltrating the officer ranks (or whatever they call themselves) so that we can enact policy changes to be more fair for all users of the land. We might not be able to enjoy the results, but we could make a difference for our children and other future mtbers.

just think, we could close st rails to hikers and equi-riders 

scott


----------



## grover (Apr 14, 2004)

*No Way I could do it*



sportsman said:


> of course, we could push a movement for mountain bikers all around the world (at least the country) to join the Sierra club, and then being infiltrating the officer ranks (or whatever they call themselves) so that we can enact policy changes to be more fair for all users of the land. We might not be able to enjoy the results, but we could make a difference for our children and other future mtbers.
> 
> just think, we could close st rails to hikers and equi-riders
> 
> scott


I'd go postal at the first "hug in" meeting. Last time they were shmoozing around our area looking for cash, the guy was talking all proud about the people spiking trees to hurt the loggers. Nice, huh. Poor guy's just trying to do his job and these people want to "send a message" by maiming him. No doubt the family who has to live on a disability check are big supporters.


----------



## wookalar (Jan 30, 2004)

*You know what's funny*

I've been getting mailers from the Sierra Club for years asking me to join. And it seems like I get at least two per year. I have no idea how I got on their list or how they've managed to track me through 3 addresses unless Rodale keeps selling my name and address or they just mass mail their propaganda out to the masses.

True, all the papers and envelopes are recycled but you'd think that after a few mailings and no response from me that they'd get the picture. I find this ironic since their mission is to "explore, enjoy and PROTECT the planet."

Am I the only one who gets their junk mail?


----------



## STrackMike (Jan 6, 2004)

grover said:


> [Bottom line is that you are reading their policy correctly.....they don't want us around.
> 
> It p*sses me off because they act like they are the only ones who are entitled to enjoy the land. Last time I checked (and voted and paid taxes) we are all citizens of these good old United States and the land is "OURS", as in all of us. But what do I know, I'm just a muddy,old guy on a mountain bike taking in the sights.


....and drinking beer! Don't forget the beer!
BTW, Grover, did ya ever put a little more air in your rear shock?


----------



## Photo-John (Aug 1, 2001)

sportsman said:


> of course, we could push a movement for mountain bikers all around the world (at least the country) to join the Sierra club,


I've been thinking along those lines for a while. Joining the Sierra Club and changing the way it operates seems to me to be the best and most responsible action. And if we all joined, think about the power we would have. Really. Think about it.

Anyone else? If one of you will join, I will. I'm 100% serious.


----------



## donkey (Jan 14, 2004)

Photo-John said:


> I've been thinking along those lines for a while. Joining the Sierra Club and changing the way it operates seems to me to be the best and most responsible action. And if we all joined, think about the power we would have. Really. Think about it.
> 
> Anyone else? If one of you will join, I will. I'm 100% serious.


Not to be a downer, but that has already been tried so many times. There are currently quite a few people on "the inside" trying to do just that, but it's not that easy. The sierra club is alot bigger than you think. The answer is in forming your own group, doing trail work, and taking the proper paths to keep trails open.

Joining the sierra club only offers them more money to push their agenda with. Seriously, please reconsider.

B


----------



## Photo-John (Aug 1, 2001)

*Good Point*

I posted to see what kind of flaws people people would find in my plan. And you have a good point. I went and checked Sierra Club's claimed membership and it's over 700,000. There are 17,000 registered members on Mtbr.com. We're coming up a little short. I'm already an IMBA member and advocate. But wouldn't it be great if we could get inside the Sierra Club and change it? There's usually an awkward period in any kind of ambitious plan, where you don't quite have the resources to make it happen. Maybe we need to start out with some faith and make a sacrifice, in order to get the ball rolling.

And just to make it clear, my basic attitude is, f*ck those a-holes. I'm oh so polite on the trail. But when I see ski poles and floppy hats, I want to run people over. Trail nazis suck.


----------



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

*Very True Donkey*

If you want to improve access for Mountainbikes, you should join IMBA. Or at you can join a local club. The other part of improving access is to be involved. When I lived in TN, I was always at trail maint. days for the local State Park. The rangers knew me by face if not name. We never had a threat to access, but I am sure that being a good citizen and trail user in the eyes of the land managers would have been a benefit if there had been.

I am now involved in trail building here in ND. I have already talked with local land managers, and will be involved in building a new Mountain bike trail near Lake Sakakawea. Hopefully our involvement will create a positive relationship with the land managers, and minimize the influence of extremist groups like the Sierra Club.

Then they will just sue


----------



## BlueBlur (Oct 15, 2004)

Photo-John said:


> I posted to see what kind of flaws people people would find in my plan. And you have a good point. I went and checked Sierra Club's claimed membership and it's over 700,000. There are 17,000 registered members on Mtbr.com. We're coming up a little short. I'm already an IMBA member and advocate. But wouldn't it be great if we could get inside the Sierra Club and change it? There's usually an awkward period in any kind of ambitious plan, where you don't quite have the resources to make it happen. Maybe we need to start out with some faith and make a sacrifice, in order to get the ball rolling.


Something to consider, is probably try to keep this discussion going, and make it a "hot issue" so perhaps it is on a lot of people's minds at major events, like Sea Otter. Does Sierra Club have a both at these events? Would be interesting if they did. Hopefully more people will become more active in campaigning for unrestricted acess to trails, especially here in the Bay Area, where Sierra Club is currently trying to boot MTBers from Soquel Demonsration forest  .

I think you have a good idea, I can only see it working tho if we could get a LOT of people to commit. The other poster about how it would just give more $$ to their war chest is probably right tho. Maybe it would be better if we could just "rally the troops" and get behind an already established group instead?

-Jason


----------



## grover (Apr 14, 2004)

*I don't get it?*



STrackMike said:


> ....and drinking beer! Don't forget the beer!
> BTW, Grover, did ya ever put a little more air in your rear shock?


I thought the CO2 from the beer dispenser was supposed to have stayed in the shock forever! Yeah, It all good now. Thanks for the pointer.


----------



## rapwithtom (Feb 26, 2004)

*not me. never.*



Photo-John said:


> I've been thinking along those lines for a while. Joining the Sierra Club and changing the way it operates seems to me to be the best and most responsible action. And if we all joined, think about the power we would have. Really. Think about it.
> 
> Anyone else? If one of you will join, I will. I'm 100% serious.


I don't mean to get on a rant here, but....

To join, you have to give them $$$. I will never give those fluckheads one red cent.

Sierra Club does more to lower my quality of life than any other environmental/non-profit organization, except perhaps the penisheads at Greenpeace.

And lest anybody get the wrong impression, I am - seriously - a huge tree-hugger. But over the years these organizations have become huge with many constituencies and agendas and have become politicized and have lost their way, and are now an impediment to proper conservation and stewardship (which was originally their sole focus).

Trail Punk suggests some alternative environmental non-profits (WWF, CORAL, and Nature Conservancy). I agree with his list and think that these organizations are much more rational and effective at conservation and stewardship than most of their competitors (especially the Sierra Club). I would also add Ducks Unlimited and Surfriders to this list, even though I am neither a hunter nor a surfer.


----------



## smilycook (Jan 13, 2004)

*I second..*

supporting other organizations instead like IMBA it is a great way to spend your money. For such a small amount we can help mountain bikers voice to be heard. Imagine if every mountain biker was an imba member, how much power we would have!

I second the Ducks Unlimited thing too, I am a member! Even though I only hunt big game and upland game birds.

See you on the Trails,
Chris


----------



## StageHand (Dec 31, 2003)

Gotta second Donkey, here. Here in the Mid-Atlantic, we have a well-established group (MORE) that has good relationships with the land management. Regular trail maintenance helps that relationship. In one state park, there's a network of trails maintained by several groups, most of them non-biking. Only the shortest trails are kept off-limits to bikes. While some individual conflicts occur, the reputation they have (I haven't quite joined yet) goes a long way to preserving access and reducing access drama. Development seems to be the biggest threat, right now, not access.


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

Well, the Sierra Club isn't ALL bad. They are one of the most powerful environmental groups out there. Somewhere they got the idea that bikes are bad, but they've still protected a lot of areas from being destroyed completely. Being off limits to bikes requires political solutions, but once something is gone it is gone.

I think educating cyclist will help a lot too. I hike as well as bike, and I've encountered plenty of jerkoff bikers who tear up the trail and run other users off the trails. If not for these fools this probably wouldn't even be an issue.

It would be nice to steer the sierra clubs policies to cooporate with bikers rather than conflict with them. Does anybody have any ideas on how to do this. They'd be a powerful ally!

I didn't know they supported equestrians though. Does anybody know WHY they do? If they can support horses, why not bikers?


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

*Like I've said before....*

"The Sierra Club" (insert appropriate environmental group here) is a small group of people passionitely dedicated to keeping large groups of people out of the woods.

I lump them with other fringe groups that exist to satisfy their own distorted egos.


----------



## OokieCookie (May 31, 2004)

I'm kind of torn on them. One the one hand, like a previous poster mentioned I really do appreciate what they've done to preserve some valuable pieces of land. However, where they start to get stupid is with the whole "wilderness" designation. From my understanding, the Wilderness Act of 1960-whatever stated that wilderness was an area off limits to all forms of "mechanized transport". I don't believe the act was originally meant to outlaw bikes, because back then the thought that in 20 years there would be bikes capable of zipping through the woods didn't occur to them. 
However, since the advent of mtn bikes it seems that NOBODY, esp. the Sierra Club, has bothered to try and go back and fix this error of omission. And yes, it is ridiculous because of the blatant hypocrisy- 2000 pound horses allowed, 30 lb bikes not?? Ive tried contacting people in the SC to see if anyone was open to trying to get the wording of the legislation changed, but no responses. So at least as far as wilderness is concerned, theyve committed themselves to obeying the letter but not the spirit of the law, which in this case is preposterous.
For what its worth, I dont believe that ALL of their activities are wilderness-related, ie theyre also just trying to get alot of land out of danger from bulldozers, but I could be wrong. But the bottom line is their stance on biking is absurd. I'm not a member for that reason.


----------



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

*Multiple points*

My guess is the SC doesn't mind horses as much because the Equestrians rarely move at much more than a walking pace. Therefore, a SC member is rearely startled by an equestrian out on the trail. Never mind the fact that Horses are the MOST DAMAGING trail users. If you ever have a doubt about that, just ride trails that are used by horses. What kills me is when the IDIOT riders take them out on wet trails.

The SC seems to be focused on designating as much land as possible with the wilderness tag. That specifically excludes bikes. They support maintaining that exclusion. So, by their actions, they are ANTI BIKE! What can be done about changing the Wilderness designation so that bikes are allowed in wilderness areas? I don't know, I am not well versed on political activism.

The SC's actions virtually guarantee the closing of more and more areas to MTNbikes. As one area is closed, the remaining areas become more heavily used. Increased use causes more and faster trail degradation and increases the amount of maintenance required. Also, as use increases, so do user conflicts. (It wasn't so bad last year when just a few bikers were here, but now there are too many!) So, they now have a case (based on their monitoring criteria) for CLOSING the remaining areas to bikes.

As far as joining and trying to change from the inside, EFF them! The SC will never see penny one from me! I will stick with IMBA.


----------



## bigboulder (Jan 27, 2004)

*Very Bad Idea*

Just call them out for what they are...and for gods sake stop voting for the politicians that support and or are supporting members of the sierra club. you know who they are.


----------



## wonderdog33 (Oct 12, 2004)

*Clean air and water too*

I know your post is about bike access to wilderness areas, but since everyone is chiming in about how "evil" the SC is, I thought I'd broaden the picture a bit.

Do you enjoy breathing clean air while you ride?

Do you enjoy drinking clean water while you ride? http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanwater/

How bout' the encroaching McMansions that are getting dangerously close to your favorite singletrack? http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/

The Sierra Club does alot more than just limit access to mountain bikes. I'll still send my money to them.

My $0.02
Eric


----------



## grover (Apr 14, 2004)

*Too much Irony for me*



wonderdog33 said:


> I know your post is about bike access to wilderness areas, but since everyone is chiming in about how "evil" the SC is, I thought I'd broaden the picture a bit.
> 
> Is it my imagination or on the SC homepage under "why become a member" (lower right side) they show a picture of a guy sitting on a mountainbike enjoying the view!
> I must be losing it cause that seems more than a little misleading to me.
> Please join, give us your money and we'll use it to close the trails we took pictures of you on. Helluva deal if you ask me. I don't think they are "evil", but I sure don't agree with their "vision" of being stewards of our land.


----------



## hfly (Dec 30, 2003)

*Keep In Mind That...*

...the same arguments about the Sierra Club being "trail nazis" -- a collection of people who selfishly want all the trails to themselves -- are the _exact _ same arguments that the moto groups use against bicycle groups who try to restrict moto access. Exclusivity is always more palatable from an inside view. It's too easy to feel rightly empowered in the whole land use debate. The "hiker nazi" addresses the mountain biker with the same sense of concern that the mountain biker addresses the moto rider.

Just some perspective.

hfly


----------



## Spinny (Sep 1, 2004)

*The difference lies in rates of speed*



@dam said:


> Well, the Sierra Club isn't ALL bad. They are one of the most powerful environmental groups out there. Somewhere they got the idea that bikes are bad, but they've still protected a lot of areas from being destroyed completely. Being off limits to bikes requires political solutions, but once something is gone it is gone.
> 
> I think educating cyclist will help a lot too. I hike as well as bike, and I've encountered plenty of jerkoff bikers who tear up the trail and run other users off the trails. If not for these fools this probably wouldn't even be an issue.
> 
> ...


as an element in preserving an over all atmosphere of natural rhythms. That's why horses are allowed, even as they tear up trails. Many commercial outfitters in my state (Washington) will drive their horse packs cross country over fragile habitat to establish high impact, illegal camps.
The higher speeds of bicycles also creates further stress upon the needs of most wildlife, as well as increasing chances for dangerous encounters with freaked out predators.


----------



## StageHand (Dec 31, 2003)

I'll try to say this without making any assumptions. If you're a member of a group (or citizen of a country, or whatever) you won't agree with everything the people in charge do or say. It is our responsibility as members of whatever group to say, "I support the philosophy, here, but there are specific items/laws/actions I cannot support." No problem with paying dues to Sierra Club, as much of what they do doesn't offend me. I would say, though, with any membership dues I'd be paying, that their stance on bikes is out of touch, outdated and contrary to some current impact studies. Even if it results in a "as long as they don't get in the way of our advocacy" stance, it's not all bad. Groups of this type, IMBA, Sierra Club and all the local clubs, and even the Jeep clubs, are better received when they take a pro-active, instead of a restrictive line when approaching land managers and governments. In some cases, though, a bigger budget (Like Sierra Club) and membership will result in the ability to lobby for restrictive measures, regardless of preservation (non)-issues.


----------



## bigboulder (Jan 27, 2004)

*u r such a tool*

I enjoy clean air and water also. I am also smart enough to know that the sierra club does nothing to make the air or water cleaner. The sierra club has become only a tool for politicians and a social club for fascists.


----------



## grover (Apr 14, 2004)

*Lmao*

The sierra club has become only a tool for politicians and a social club for fascists.[/QUOTE]

LOL!!!


----------



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

wonderdog33 said:


> I know your post is about bike access to wilderness areas, but since everyone is chiming in about how "evil" the SC is, I thought I'd broaden the picture a bit.
> 
> Do you enjoy breathing clean air while you ride?
> 
> ...


Help change my opinion of them. Can anyone give me an example of something, anything the SC has done that has preserved or gained trail access for MTNbikes? Some concrete evidence or at least anecdotal evidence with support showing how the SC has HELPED the mountainbiking community would be great.

Until I see that evidence, I am NOT going to support the SC. And, I will seriously consider my votes concerning politicians who are endorsed by them. I won't decide based on that alone, but I have to look at the SC endorsement as a negative.


----------



## BlueBlur (Oct 15, 2004)

wonderdog33 said:


> I know your post is about bike access to wilderness areas, but since everyone is chiming in about how "evil" the SC is, I thought I'd broaden the picture a bit.
> 
> Do you enjoy breathing clean air while you ride?
> 
> ...


Clean air and water are already standards established now, by governmental agencies, such as CARB. Sierra Club may be able to take credit for bringing these issues to light, but they are certainly not responsible for keeping the air & water clean by themselves.

As for urban sprawl, that is biund to happen regardless, esp here in CA. I hav'nt seen any improvement on that issue. So if SC is really, truley doing something about it, I fail to see it.

The problem with SC, like most activist-issue oriented organizations once they become big and bloated, is that they now have to continue to find ways to remain relevant and justify their ever expanding budgets, which means no issue is "too small" and eventually, they dont care if they end up screwing the same public they so proclaim "to serve". Add to this their political activisim, and you have the makings of a bureaucracy gone bad.

-jason


----------



## BlueBlur (Oct 15, 2004)

Frozenspokes said:


> Until I see that evidence, I am NOT going to support the SC. And, I will seriously consider my votes concerning politicians who are endorsed by them. I won't decide based on that alone, but I have to look at the SC endorsement as a negative.


For those of you in the Bay Area, Ira Ruskin is one of those politicians (up for election/re-election).

-Jason


----------



## Oaken (Apr 18, 2004)

Frozenspokes said:


> Help change my opinion of them. Can anyone give me an example of something, anything the SC has done that has preserved or gained trail access for MTNbikes? Some concrete evidence or at least anecdotal evidence with support showing how the SC has HELPED the mountainbiking community would be great.
> 
> Until I see that evidence, I am NOT going to support the SC. And, I will seriously consider my votes concerning politicians who are endorsed by them. I won't decide based on that alone, but I have to look at the SC endorsement as a negative.


http://angeles.sierraclub.org/mbc/


----------



## BontyRider (Feb 18, 2004)

*Imho...*

IMHO, the Sierra Club does far more good than harm, particularly in areas such as water and air quality.

I, for one, learn a lot from reading their national and local publications. For example, the latest issue of Sierra Atlantic has an article about how a giant underground water pipeline in NY leaking 40 million gallons a day, the entire pipeline is on the verge of collape, and the DEC has no idea what to do about it. Yikes!

Now I may draw fire for this, but as I see it, mountain biking does indeed cause erosion, affect plant and animal life, displace other trail users, and affect other trail users' safety. And trails on which mountain bikers ride do require a lot of maintenance.

Mountain biking does damage. It just does. Maybe it is less impactful than motorcycling, but I tend to think that on any given stretch of trail, it is far more impactful than hiking. The way I see it, the SC has voiced a concern over the impact that mountain biking is having or may have in certain areas, and by and large they're probably right.

Going on the principle that less damage and impact is generally better than more, it follows that the club would seek to minimize mountain biking in these areas, rather than advocate it. But I agree with the folks who pointed out above that the club's stance on mountain biking should be updated, since it has been shown in many places that with proper care and responsibility on part of all involved parties (especially riders), it is possible to support mountain biking in wilderness areas while minimizing its impact. It just takes far more resources to maintain a multi-use trail than a hiking-only trail.

Finally, regarding the strategy of overtaking the Sierra Club from the inside: The last attempt at this was during the most recent board election, when members of a group of anti-immigration hardliners with little or no history in the club, got on the ballot for every position. They all lost.

-My $0.03 (extra cent due to length of post)


----------



## NuMexJoe (Jan 12, 2004)

I tear up all the propaganda they send, stuff it back in the envelope so they have to pay the return postage, and on the pre-paid envelope's return adress, I write in red "angry MTB'er." Petty, yes, but it makes me feel better.
- Joe



art_vandelay said:


> I've been getting mailers from the Sierra Club for years asking me to join. And it seems like I get at least two per year. I have no idea how I got on their list or how they've managed to track me through 3 addresses unless Rodale keeps selling my name and address or they just mass mail their propaganda out to the masses.
> 
> True, all the papers and envelopes are recycled but you'd think that after a few mailings and no response from me that they'd get the picture. I find this ironic since their mission is to "explore, enjoy and PROTECT the planet."
> 
> Am I the only one who gets their junk mail?


----------



## NuMexJoe (Jan 12, 2004)

OC; My understanding is that the SC was behind the revision to the Wilderness Act that changed the original wording from "motorized" to "mechanized" many years ago. I may be spouting revisioninst history, as I'm doing this from memory and too lazy to look it up again, but I don't think that bikes were outlawed in the original Act.
- Joe



OokieCookie said:


> I'm kind of torn on them. One the one hand, like a previous poster mentioned I really do appreciate what they've done to preserve some valuable pieces of land. However, where they start to get stupid is with the whole "wilderness" designation. From my understanding, the Wilderness Act of 1960-whatever stated that wilderness was an area off limits to all forms of "mechanized transport". I don't believe the act was originally meant to outlaw bikes, because back then the thought that in 20 years there would be bikes capable of zipping through the woods didn't occur to them.
> However, since the advent of mtn bikes it seems that NOBODY, esp. the Sierra Club, has bothered to try and go back and fix this error of omission. And yes, it is ridiculous because of the blatant hypocrisy- 2000 pound horses allowed, 30 lb bikes not?? Ive tried contacting people in the SC to see if anyone was open to trying to get the wording of the legislation changed, but no responses. So at least as far as wilderness is concerned, theyve committed themselves to obeying the letter but not the spirit of the law, which in this case is preposterous.
> For what its worth, I dont believe that ALL of their activities are wilderness-related, ie theyre also just trying to get alot of land out of danger from bulldozers, but I could be wrong. But the bottom line is their stance on biking is absurd. I'm not a member for that reason.


----------



## wonderdog33 (Oct 12, 2004)

*Shelby Farms in Memphis, TN*



Frozenspokes said:


> Help change my opinion of them. Can anyone give me an example of something, anything the SC has done that has preserved or gained trail access for MTNbikes? Some concrete evidence or at least anecdotal evidence with support showing how the SC has HELPED the mountainbiking community would be great.
> 
> Until I see that evidence, I am NOT going to support the SC. And, I will seriously consider my votes concerning politicians who are endorsed by them. I won't decide based on that alone, but I have to look at the SC endorsement as a negative.


Depending on your locale, you may or may not have heard about the proposed legislation to split Shelby Farms in Memphis, TN with a new road. Shelby Farms is home to about 7 miles of singletrack and used to host the Tour de Wolf several years ago. The TdW was a smallish mtn bike race that used to draw some big names back in the day (like Tinker). Anyway, the Sierra Club Chickasaw Chapter opposed the road and helped defeat the bill. Since you want to know about direct mountain bike community influence, the proposed road would have paved a good portion of the trail. Today, as a result of the blocked legislation, mountain bikes are as popular as ever in the park.

I now live in East TN and the Sierra Club actively fights mountaintop removal (a practice that mining companies use all the time). Keeping mining companies at bay allows me to mountain bike and hike in Cherokee National Forest, Nantahala National Forest, Pisgah National Forest, and Mt Rogers National Recreation Area.
http://tennessee.sierraclub.org/chickasaw/article2.htm

Happy Trails,
Eric


----------



## @dam (Jan 28, 2004)

Wow! That Mountain Bike Commitee seems to be just what we're all looking for...

http://angeles.sierraclub.org/mbc/advocacy.htm

I'll send in my membership fee this weekend. I'd recomend anybody else who can afford it to send in their $10 too.

I believe the Sierra Club does far more harm than good, and this is just a small political issue that can be solved with some effort and education.


----------



## bigboulder (Jan 27, 2004)

*The Mtn Bike community*

was helped INDIRECTLEY by this chapter of the SC....in the short term. Now that they have established theselves as "stewards" for this area....trust me on this one...they will attempt to ban Mountain Bikes in the near future...


----------



## Oaken (Apr 18, 2004)

Rev Bubba said:


> "The Sierra Club" (insert appropriate environmental group here) is a small group of people passionitely dedicated to keeping large groups of people out of the woods.


Keep in mind that this same statement can be applied to real estate Developers....


----------



## poacher (Jul 1, 2003)

@dam said:


> Wow! That Mountain Bike Commitee seems to be just what we're all looking for...
> 
> http://angeles.sierraclub.org/mbc/advocacy.htm
> 
> ...


I disagree. The SC wants to pacify us by creating the SCMBC. Joining this "club" just supports SC and their crusade to restrict our access. The founder of SCMBC has stated they will not take a stance against initiatives that restrict MTB access because it would go against the SC's stance. Joining makes no sense at all. What we need to do is support our local organizations that stand up and fight against SC to keep our access


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

Trail Punk said:


> I've sent the $$$ in, but no more.
> 
> Expanding wilderness designations in NorCal, with Sierra Club support, will exclude mountain bikes. That bites.
> 
> ...


I also refuse to support the Sierra Club because of their MTB stance. If you want to support an environmental group, check out Natural Resources Defense Council. they spend their time fighting development and extractive use of public lands, not telling people they can or cant ride on trails. They have one of the best records as far as spending contributions on actual environmental defense, instead of giving it to telemarketers, or spending it on attracting more donors. Check out NRDC. Sasquatch


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

Photo-John said:


> And just to make it clear, my basic attitude is, f*ck those a-holes. I'm oh so polite on the trail. But when I see ski poles and floppy hats, I want to run people over. Trail nazis suck.


Huh?? Are you kidding? I have a floppy hat that I wear when its sunny and Im hiking. My friend has bad knees and uses "ski" poles when he backpacks on steep trails. We are both avid mountain bikers, so what's the problem?
Sorry john, but i don't expect you to make such ridiculous statements, so I felt I had to call you on this one. Sounds too much like laughing at xc **** in tights or Dhers riding motorcycles without motors. Stereotypes suck, so give em up.


----------



## ronny (Apr 2, 2004)

*Gotta be kidding.*



bigboulder said:


> Just call them out for what they are...and for gods sake stop voting for the politicians that support and or are supporting members of the sierra club. you know who they are.


So who would you rather support? Bush, who does absolutely nothing to acknowledge the environment? Unless you include his statement in the debate that he considers himself a "steward of the land." I agree the Sierra Club should not discriminate against mountain bikers but at least sensitive environmental areas are getting protected because of their work. Which is a lot better than W has done.

What has W done. NOTHING, but set back over 200 environmental laws and policies. I guess that does not matter because he does publicity shots on his Trek on his private ranch. Bush is a environmental tyrant and I really hope you dont support him based on Environmental principles because the man has none.

If you dont believe me I can provide a couple hundred examples.


----------



## Spinny (Sep 1, 2004)

*Fact is, SC agenda isn't the issue; Sci is*

The Sierra Club isn't the source to your problem as regards mtbike access and wilderness designation issues: SCIENCE IS. The SC uses sound science to establish and win cases. The SC, like real science, doesn't rely upon populist pabulum--and the idea of "return on the donated dollar"--to determine their direction of effort.

The real issue here is a steadily increasing human population pushing the limits and boundaries of sustainable ecosystems. Recall the fact that we humans but members of the top of the food chain--web, really.

Fact is, if the ecosystems for which we depend upon for things like clean air, water, food, psychological well-being and peace of mind should crumble, so do we. As an avid mountain biker, I am yet aware there are indeed sensitive areas where newly invading machines that may provide us with convenient speed and increased access plainly don't belong. Some of these areas found to be in need of specific protections are critical habitat corridors, or are capable of becoming so.

I don't mean to lecture here, I'm just surprised at the ill-or mis-informed content of so many of the posts on this thread.


----------



## Aussie Bob (Jan 9, 2004)

*Yea Right !*

Like MTBE was suposed to keep the air clean, Junk Science !!!!!!!!


----------



## dpdsurf (Jan 19, 2004)

> The Sierra Club isn't the source to your problem as regards mtbike access and wilderness designation issues: SCIENCE IS. The SC uses sound science to establish and win cases. The SC, like real science, doesn't rely upon populist pabulum--and the idea of "return on the donated dollar"--to determine their direction of effort.


Unfortunately the SC has been caught falsifying scientific evidence and/or telling half truths to get what they want. No, not in all cases, but it only takes once to leave a sour opinion of this group from my perspective. Click here to read a little on this. There are more articles but this is a nice brief one for starters. It seams that many SC members are "misinformed" as well as to what they think they are supporting.

Here's a good point of view from the other side regarding the SC.

http://www.sharetrails.org/index.cfm?page=131


----------



## smilycook (Jan 13, 2004)

*Here is the scariest thing...*

that the Sierra Club supports for me, and this is the reason I will never support the Sierra Club. It is called NREPA and would lock up enormous parts of my state in wilderness, concentrating mountain bikers and motorized users on tiny chunks of public lands. It will get mighty crowded and be horrible for the enviroment. Check it out, and if you live on the east coast please ask your representative to not coosponor this bill, there is a lot of eastern reps who are out of touch with the west.

https://www.wildrockies.org/nrepa/assets/pix/brochure/mapbig.jpg

If you want clean air, then you should give your money to the American Lung Association at lungusa.com I am an asthma suffer so I value clean air and know the lung association will do a lot more for me than the SC.

Chris


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

BontyRider said:


> IMHO, the Sierra Club does far more good than harm, particularly in areas such as water and air quality.
> 
> I, for one, learn a lot from reading their national and local publications. For example, the latest issue of Sierra Atlantic has an article about how a giant underground water pipeline in NY leaking 40 million gallons a day, the entire pipeline is on the verge of collape, and the DEC has no idea what to do about it. Yikes!
> 
> ...


The only research I've seen on trail damage from various user types is on the IMBA page, which was from the Appalachian Mountain Club. Bet you won't see the Sierra Club reprinting that.

You might like to look at your local trails for evidence to the contrary, but keep in mind just how much traffic local bike trails get, and exactly how much hikers use trails.

We're the newcomers, we can travel up to 10 times as fast as a hiker, and do it in relative silence. The obvious, unrealistic, anti-bike bias is shown by their support of equestrians.

They're pissed that they hike for an hour and get caught up by a mountain biker who's barely broken a sweat, and able to make it out and back from a hiker's overnight destination in a morning ride.

Rich


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

NuMexJoe said:


> OC; My understanding is that the SC was behind the revision to the Wilderness Act that changed the original wording from "motorized" to "mechanized" many years ago. I may be spouting revisioninst history, as I'm doing this from memory and too lazy to look it up again, but I don't think that bikes were outlawed in the original Act.
> - Joe


No, the original language was "mechanized", although bikes were not specifically mentioned. Pertinent paragraph from the September 3, 1964 act:

_PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES_​_(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._


----------



## ronny (Apr 2, 2004)

*Missing the point*



smilycook said:


> that the Sierra Club supports for me, and this is the reason I will never support the Sierra Club. It is called NREPA and would lock up enormous parts of my state in wilderness, concentrating mountain bikers and motorized users on tiny chunks of public lands. It will get mighty crowded and be horrible for the enviroment. Check it out, and if you live on the east coast please ask your representative to not coosponor this bill, there is a lot of eastern reps who are out of touch with the west.
> 
> https://www.wildrockies.org/nrepa/assets/pix/brochure/mapbig.jpg
> 
> ...


Protecting "enormous parts of your state in wilderness" is doing nothing but provide cleaner air and protects at risk species. I agree that concentrating users into a small area is not the greatest thing but protecting large areas of wilderness is a good thing. Motorized users should not get any land set aside IMO. There is an area outside of Calgary where the 4x4 users can do their thing and the land is absolutely chewed up and destroyed. These vehicles are costantly breaking down and spilling oil all over the place and are very loud and pollute. Not to mention the users are always throwing their garbage all over the place and using picnic tables for firewood etc.

Does the American Lung Association set aside wilderness and sensitive areas from future development? Keep it real here. You may not like it but it is called conservation and over time maybe mountainbikers will be allowed into the areas you have described. We cant have it all.


----------



## dpdsurf (Jan 19, 2004)

ronny said:


> Protecting "enormous parts of your state in wilderness" is doing nothing but provide cleaner air and protects at risk species. I agree that concentrating users into a small area is not the greatest thing but protecting large areas of wilderness is a good thing. Motorized users should not get any land set aside IMO. There is an area outside of Calgary where the 4x4 users can do their thing and the land is absolutely chewed up and destroyed. These vehicles are costantly breaking down and spilling oil all over the place and are very loud and pollute. Not to mention the users are always throwing their garbage all over the place and using picnic tables for firewood etc.
> 
> Does the American Lung Association set aside wilderness and sensitive areas from future development? Keep it real here. You may not like it but it is called conservation and over time maybe mountainbikers will be allowed into the areas you have described. We cant have it all.


Nice generalizations. Some MTBers leave trash too. But I wouldn't generalize by implying that all of them do.

As far as polution goes, what a crock of shiot! You can't tell me that one month or even years worth of OHV activity even puts a dent into one morning and evening commute! Using polution as an excuse to limit OHV access is just a convinient excuse to get a victory against a minority. Tell me, do you car pool or use public transportation to get work?


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

dpdsurf said:


> As far as polution goes, what a crock of shiot! You can't tell me that one month or even years worth of OHV activity even puts a dent into one morning and evening commute! Using polution as an excuse to limit OHV access is just a convinient excuse to get a victory against a minority. Tell me, do you car pool or use public transportation to get work?


Yeah, you obviously don't know the difference between 2 cycle engines and 4 cycle.

It does put a dent in it, in fact in places like Tahoe the water clarity is decreasing due to 2 cycle use.


----------



## ronny (Apr 2, 2004)

dpdsurf said:


> Nice generalizations. Some MTBers leave trash too. But I wouldn't generalize by implying that all of them do.
> 
> As far as polution goes, what a crock of shiot! You can't tell me that one month or even years worth of OHV activity even puts a dent into one morning and evening commute! Using polution as an excuse to limit OHV access is just a convinient excuse to get a victory against a minority. Tell me, do you car pool or use public transportation to get work?


Yes, I do carpool and catch rides and offer rides to others when I can. I also use public transportation whenever I can. I also walk or ride my bike to rent videos and get things like milk, or whatever as well.

You bet some riders leave trash and destroy trails also. On the other hand Mountainbiking does not leave the footprint that 4x4 vehicles do. Not even close. The type of pollution I was referring to was what is left behind by offroaders. I have seen puddles of radiator coolant, differential fluid, oil, antifreeze, pieces of parts broken off of vehicles, broken bottles everywhere and on and on. I have been offroading to popular spots in my buddies lifted jeep and all that I see is huge massive ruts and mud wallows and massive erosion left by these vehicles.

Like I said before mountainbikes can cause damage also but nearly as bad as a 4x4. It is not even comparable. Even when 4x4 vehicles are responsible when going off road there is still way more damage left behind than a mountainbike.

What do you think harms the environment more? A puddle of oil left behind by a SUV and a torn up landscape or a powerbar wrapper left behind and some 2.1 tire treads in the mud left behind by a mtber?

There is arguements to be made for both sides but comparing a offroad vehicle to a mountainbike is like comparing a bb gun to an assault rifle.


----------



## dpdsurf (Jan 19, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Yeah, you obviously don't know the difference between 2 cycle engines and 4 cycle.
> 
> It does put a dent in it, in fact in places like Tahoe the water clarity is decreasing due to 2 cycle use.


Hmm, since it was so obvious, you'll have to clue me in to where it was in my post that I mentioned that a 2-cycle motor does not emit more polution than a 4 cycle. NOT all OHV vehicles ar 2-strokes by the way, but you obviously didn't know that  You are obviously good at making false assumptions.

My point was, is that we are not going to solve the world's polution problems by attacking a small portion of societies offenders. That the real offenders are all of us who drive our vehicles every day. 100's of millions of us and growing.

As far as Tahoe goes, that's really an entirely different topic regardings PWC's that doesn't apply here.


----------



## dpdsurf (Jan 19, 2004)

ronny said:


> Yes, I do carpool and catch rides and offer rides to others when I can. I also use public transportation whenever I can. I also walk or ride my bike to rent videos and get things like milk, or whatever as well.
> 
> You bet some riders leave trash and destroy trails also. On the other hand Mountainbiking does not leave the footprint that 4x4 vehicles do. Not even close. The type of pollution I was referring to was what is left behind by offroaders. I have seen puddles of radiator coolant, differential fluid, oil, antifreeze, pieces of parts broken off of vehicles, broken bottles everywhere and on and on. I have been offroading to popular spots in my buddies lifted jeep and all that I see is huge massive ruts and mud wallows and massive erosion left by these vehicles.
> 
> ...


I agree with you that what you saw is disheartening. It happens all the time where a few bad apples ruin it for the rest of us. I am not a 4x4er, but I just believe that as off road enthusiasts, we need to all stick together and not point the finger at others. It doesn't do any good to say they do more damage than us. The Sierra Club doesn't want any of us.

If that trail you are talking about is a designated jeep trail, then there will likely be volunteers and Rangers maintaining it at the end of the season. At least that's how it works at the OHV areas I'm familiar with.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

dpdsurf said:


> NOT all OHV vehicles are 2-strokes by the way, but you obviously didn't know that You are obviously good at making false assumptions


Most OHVs, jetskis, etc, are 2 cycle, and in this case, I'm actually good with making true generalizations.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

dpdsurf said:


> My point was, is that we are not going to solve the world's polution problems by attacking a small portion of societies offenders. That the real offenders are all of us who drive our vehicles every day. 100's of millions of us and growing.


exponentially increasing population and the perception that we have to procreate is to blame, but you'll never find anyone that will "tackle the problem" because it's not a popular stance, and you have to win popular vote to make such changes...


----------



## ronny (Apr 2, 2004)

*Agree.*



dpdsurf said:


> I agree with you that what you saw is disheartening. It happens all the time where a few bad apples ruin it for the rest of us. I am not a 4x4er, but I just believe that as off road enthusiasts, we need to all stick together and not point the finger at others. It doesn't do any good to say they do more damage than us. The Sierra Club doesn't want any of us.
> 
> If that trail you are talking about is a designated jeep trail, then there will likely be volunteers and Rangers maintaining it at the end of the season. At least that's how it works at the OHV areas I'm familiar with.


Unfortunately, it is usually a few spoiling it for the majority. I just replied to a post on passion where riders have carved a new trail around a curve in an existing trail. The vast majority of mtbers dont make new trails but the few that do leave behind the proof and it takes a long time for the damage to repair itself. Then some well to do hikers or equestrians see this and begin to complain and then another area is off limits to mountainbikers. In many cases we do it to ourselves.

Equestrians do more damage than bikes and hikers do the same amount of damage but for some reason we remain in the minority so it is important to for us to govern ourselves accordingly. Many people perceive Mountainbikes as machines that damage the environment so riders are behind the 8-ball right off the bat. Actions speak louder than words I guess. This is my reasoning by trying to co-exist with other trail users. Even though I cannot stand the fact that horses and cattle do more damage than bikes. I was just pointing out the damage that can be caused by offroading and you are right that everyone has a stake in protecting the environment.


----------



## ronny (Apr 2, 2004)

*Which is why JM, I want you to vote for*



Jm. said:


> exponentially increasing population and the perception that we have to procreate is to blame, but you'll never find anyone that will "tackle the problem" because it's not a popular stance, and you have to win popular vote to make such changes...


Kerry because he cares about the environment unlike W, who has gone backward in protecting the environment during his years in office. We can but heads on the other issues, but this one is pretty black and white without a lot of grey in the middle to confuse things.

I am not just talking about Kyoto either, but all of the environmental issues that Bush avoids or disregards.


----------



## Spinny (Sep 1, 2004)

*Read up on the facts about emissions, dude*



dpdsurf said:


> Nice generalizations. Some MTBers leave trash too. But I wouldn't generalize by implying that all of them do.
> 
> As far as polution goes, what a crock of shiot! You can't tell me that one month or even years worth of OHV activity even puts a dent into one morning and evening commute! Using polution as an excuse to limit OHV access is just a convinient excuse to get a victory against a minority. Tell me, do you car pool or use public transportation to get work?


Yes indeedy, OHV emissions are exponentially higher than autos, including trucks.
2 stroke engines produce more air and water pollution in one hour than a modern auto does in a month.


----------



## Spinny (Sep 1, 2004)

*Nonsense: See a dose of dpdsurf's reality*



dpdsurf said:


> Unfortunately the SC has been caught falsifying scientific evidence and/or telling half truths to get what they want. No, not in all cases, but it only takes once to leave a sour opinion of this group from my perspective. Click here to read a little on this. There are more articles but this is a nice brief one for starters. It seams that many SC members are "misinformed" as well as to what they think they are supporting.
> 
> Here's a good point of view from the other side regarding the SC.
> 
> http://www.sharetrails.org/index.cfm?page=131


The above cited "proof" demonstrates my prior utilization of the term, "populist pabulum".
Thank you for providing reinforcement.
Bicycles do not belong in wilderness. 'M' k?


----------



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

*A bit of a stretch*



wonderdog33 said:


> Depending on your locale, you may or may not have heard about the proposed legislation to split Shelby Farms in Memphis, TN with a new road. Shelby Farms is home to about 7 miles of singletrack and used to host the Tour de Wolf several years ago.


I researched this. I checked out the Friends of Shelby Farms Park (FOSFP) web site. There were multiple articles about the road project, but no mention whatsoever of the Seirra Club. Of coarse this doesn't mean that they weren't involved, but I have no "Evidence reported with Journalistic acuracy" that puts the SC on scene. What it does say is that the FOSFP hired it's own traffic engineer to present an alternative proposal.

FOSFP articles

There is a mention of Shelby Farms State Park on the SC link provided by Wonderdog33. It mentions an abondoned CSX rail bed that passes through part of the park. The SC is looking at "rehabilitating" this rail bed into a rail trail for pedestrians and bikes, (in that order). OBTW, does this sound familiar to anyone? That is the "short term plan", the long term plan according to the SC article would be to turn it into a light rail system. So, in their own words, they wish to GIVE us a trail only to TAKE IT AWAY in the future.

Sierra Club article

Also, Wonderdog33 has painted the problem of Mountaintop removal mining with a MUCH wider brush than it warrants. Even in the SC write-up provided in link, they only mention this practice being used in West Virginia. Wonderdog33 paints it across TN, KY, VY, and NC. I do agree that the practice is horrid, but I don't agree with the mis-information. I lived in East TN, up until the spring of 2003 and to my knowledge, there were no mining operations of this kind outside of WV.

To the poster who wishes to bring up science, I have two challenges.

1. Show me YOUR studies. I want to see how they were cunducted, what type of controls were in place, and the credentials of the scientists conducting them.

2. Look at the study done by IMBA. It is the only one I know of that has actually been done, and the results may surprise you.

Keep trying SC, I really do enjoy the challenge.


----------



## smilycook (Jan 13, 2004)

*how would you feel about loosing your local trails.*



ronny said:


> Protecting "enormous parts of your state in wilderness" is doing nothing but provide cleaner air and protects at risk species. I agree that concentrating users into a small area is not the greatest thing but protecting large areas of wilderness is a good thing. Motorized users should not get any land set aside IMO. There is an area outside of Calgary where the 4x4 users can do their thing and the land is absolutely chewed up and destroyed. These vehicles are costantly breaking down and spilling oil all over the place and are very loud and pollute. Not to mention the users are always throwing their garbage all over the place and using picnic tables for firewood etc.
> 
> Does the American Lung Association set aside wilderness and sensitive areas from future development? Keep it real here. You may not like it but it is called conservation and over time maybe mountainbikers will be allowed into the areas you have described. We cant have it all.


Ronny, How is it that eliminating mountain bikes creates cleaner air? Or how will removing mountain bikes have an effect on at risk species? Designating an area as wilderness is not the only way to conserve an area, but that is what you have been led to believe by Sierra Club propoganda. There is an amazing act call NEPA and this applies to any actions on National Forest Land. All of the land in NREPA is on National Forest land and in fact some of that national forest land is protect not only by NEPA, but also National Recreation Areas. The national forest do not allow high rise developments and any timber or mining operations have to go throught a NEPA process.

Oh and if you think your oh so holy wilderness prevents development think again. There is a nice gold mine being built into the Frank Church Wilderness in Idaho. Wilderness could not prevent this gold mine, is this not development? And they just finished working on this wilderness bill in another part of Idaho which would allow the further development of cattle ranching operations in these new wilderness areas by authorizing large fence and water projects inside the new wilderness areas. So now this wilderness bill will actually encourage development and destruction of the land. Wilderness allows cattle grazing which is far more damaging to any enviroment than mountain bikes or even motorcycles would every be. I always find it ironic when someone tells me that everytime I cross a stream I release sediments, but at those same crossings it is ok for 10 cows to wallow in the stream and trample the vegetation. If the enviromentalist were really concerned about the enviroment then mountain bikes and motorcylces would be the least of there worries. I am all for protecting our natural enviroment. Oh and I don't believe I need to have it all either, in fact Idaho already has 4 million acres of wilderness.

So lets see 4 million acres of wilderness is almost equal to RI and CT.
668,800 acres = Rhode Island 
3,100,160 acres = Connecticut

So where do you live? And how would you feel if someone closed the majority of your local riding areas?

Have you heard of places like Sun Valley and Fischer/Williams Creek, well all these areas would be gone if NREPA is passed.


----------



## ronny (Apr 2, 2004)

*Whatever.*



smilycook said:


> Ronny, How is it that eliminating mountain bikes creates cleaner air? Or how will removing mountain bikes have an effect on at risk species? Designating an area as wilderness is not the only way to conserve an area, but that is what you have been led to believe by Sierra Club propoganda. There is an amazing act call NEPA and this applies to any actions on National Forest Land. All of the land in NREPA is on National Forest land and in fact some of that national forest land is protect not only by NEPA, but also National Recreation Areas. The national forest do not allow high rise developments and any timber or mining operations have to go throught a NEPA process.
> 
> Oh and if you think your oh so holy wilderness prevents development think again. There is a nice gold mine being built into the Frank Church Wilderness in Idaho. Wilderness could not prevent this gold mine, is this not development? And they just finished working on this wilderness bill in another part of Idaho which would allow the further development of cattle ranching operations in these new wilderness areas by authorizing large fence and water projects inside the new wilderness areas. So now this wilderness bill will actually encourage development and destruction of the land. Wilderness allows cattle grazing which is far more damaging to any enviroment than mountain bikes or even motorcycles would every be. I always find it ironic when someone tells me that everytime I cross a stream I release sediments, but at those same crossings it is ok for 10 cows to wallow in the stream and trample the vegetation. If the enviromentalist were really concerned about the enviroment then mountain bikes and motorcylces would be the least of there worries. I am all for protecting our natural enviroment. Oh and I don't believe I need to have it all either, in fact Idaho already has 4 million acres of wilderness.
> 
> ...


First of all I never said that eliminating mountainbikes creates cleaner air. I was stating that protecting areas is better than nothing at all. Talk about twisting my words. I live in Alberta, Canada and riding areas where I live do get closed by the way. Alberta, is the ranching and oil production capital of Canada and I am also a environmental technician and I have some knowledge in this area.

There is more cattle and oil rigs in Alberta than anywhere else in Canada and both cross over into riding areas. I never said there was anything wrong with any of the organizations that you support. If you understood about at risk species, sometimes all development has to be removed from an area to help to ensure a species survival. Certain species of animals cannot tolerate intrusion into their habitat.

The grizzly bear is declining in number very fast in the Banff/Lake Louise area by my home because of people/animal encounters. The Grizzly is facing extirpation from the area. I can dumb that down for you. The Grizzly bear faces extinction in the Lake Louise area. The same goes for the wolf. The animal always loses in this situation. Certain wildlife corridors are compromised if there is development and yes mountainbikers can have an impact on certain species. I am not saying mountainbikers directly cause this but it is a culmination of many factors.

This is why sometimes it is best to have no development in certain areas and is what I was getting at when I said that protecting an area is better than nothing at all. Now you got me started on cattle. I hate cows because they destroy the trails, but you are not entirely right when you say cattle are bad for the environment.

Many range resource managers actually encourage "free range" grazing to keep help create spaces in the forest for new trees to grow and to keep grass under control. Many years ago there was millions upon millions of Buffalo and herds of grazing animals were much larger than they are now in North America. These animals served as a sort of natural fire control by grazing and keeping the fire fuels down on the prairies and in the forest regions. Large ungulates(hoofed mammals) also created space in the forest by knocking down small trees and eating sapplings etc. Now most of the Forests across North America are in very poor health because of crowding. There is no natural fires anymore and not as many large ungulates. (mainly buffalo and large elk and deer herds). There still is large herds but no where near the number there was before we came along. The cattle help with this to a certain extent. I am not speaking of the large feed lot operations that you would see on the prairies, but free range cattle that are kept in the bush during the summer.

The large feed lot operations are the very bad for the environment. For the free range operations to work properly the cattle have to be in a big enough area so the effects are beneficial. Large numbers of cattle in the wilderness concentrated in a small area are of course detrimental.

Could you imagine what a herd of 100,000 buffalo would do to a biking trail? You might think buffalo were only on the prairie but they had a very broad geographical distribution. This is how it used to be and it was natural. There was not buffalo at very high elevations but I hope you get my point. I hate riding over post holes caused by cattle and horses just as much as the next guy believe me.


----------



## dpdsurf (Jan 19, 2004)

Spinny said:


> Yes indeedy, OHV emissions are exponentially higher than autos, including trucks.
> 2 stroke engines produce more air and water pollution in one hour than a modern auto does in a month.


We're talking overall numbers here. Not vehicle vs. vehicle. And I think your comparison is an exageration. Do you have proof to this 1 hr vs 1 month theory?


----------



## Ridin'Dirty (Jun 4, 2004)

*Wake up space cadets*

Excuse me for not being more articulate when I say the SC are a bunch of wack-jobs. Anyone who would give money to these guys based on some broad belief that they protect the environment are just as crazy. I guess it's logical to assume that horses are also a threat to "critical habitat corridors" in their view. NO!?!?? Hmmm.... I don't think some singletrack winding through the woods is going to be the ecological disaster they would like to make it out to be. We should work to help maintain and preserve our natural environment AND we should also have the freedom to enjoy it on legal trails.

BTW if they are so passionate about not disturbing the land then why is ok to even hike on a man-made trail? Isn't the creation of a trail for any purpose the destruction of the environment by definition?


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

BontyRider said:


> Now I may draw fire for this, but as I see it, mountain biking does indeed cause erosion, affect plant and animal life, displace other trail users, and affect other trail users' safety. And trails on which mountain bikers ride do require a lot of maintenance.


The single, most common reason that trails require maintenance is that they exist. Once a trail is created, it will start to degrade without any use. IF trails are open and maintained, the trail will be in better shape than if just left alone. THe Sierra Club will complain about mountain bikes ruining trails, but they'll fight to the death to allow their 2,000 pound post-hole diggers (horses) access to those same trails. Bikes may endanger hikers, but horses are a far greater danger. The Sierra CLub just wants what they want.



BontyRider said:


> Mountain biking does damage. It just does. Maybe it is less impactful than motorcycling, but I tend to think that on any given stretch of trail, it is far more impactful than hiking. The way I see it, the SC has voiced a concern over the impact that mountain biking is having or may have in certain areas, and by and large they're probably right.


Explain their support for horses.....unless you're stating that horses cause less damage to trails than bikes.


----------



## ronny (Apr 2, 2004)

*It goes both ways.*



Blue Shorts said:


> The single, most common reason that trails require maintenance is that they exist. Once a trail is created, it will start to degrade without any use. IF trails are open and maintained, the trail will be in better shape than if just left alone. THe Sierra Club will complain about mountain bikes ruining trails, but they'll fight to the death to allow their 2,000 pound post-hole diggers (horses) access to those same trails. Bikes may endanger hikers, but horses are a far greater danger. The Sierra CLub just wants what they want.
> 
> Explain their support for horses.....unless you're stating that horses cause less damage to trails than bikes.


Bikes can do damage to trails but recent studies have shown that hikers do the same amount of damage to trails as bikes(In dry weather). I dont know the link but a quick google will provide some answers. If the arguement is just about trail damage and not the surrounding areas then horses should be banned from trails without question. There is a flip side to the arguement though.

There is many trails where I live that were pretty chewed up by mtbers that would not wait for trails to dry before riding or would not ride through mud but made meandering side trails around the water and mud. Some of the trails became 20ft wide in spots and these are singletrack trails. The proof was and is still there for everyone to see. On most of these trails all I could see was tire treads and not post holes or footprints from hikers. The unfortunate thing is most riders do not behave this way but the actions of a few often get trails closed.

I think an area where mountainbikers get into trouble is that too many of us ride trails after it rains and the proof is left behind.ie ruts, wider trails, tread marks in the mud. Hikers tend to not use trails as much when it rains but a lot of riders enjoy riding in the mud. I have seen a lot of evidence of horse damage in the mud also but footprints in the mud after it rains is not as common. I am more of a biker than a hiker but we have to govern ourselves a little better I think. All users do.


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

gobike69 said:


> I personally like Sierra Club members, if you stack up enough of them they make great water bars.


 You really shouldn't diss like this. Its funny but next thing you know, it will be quoted on one of their websites making bikers look even worse. When discussing this stuff, we should always wear a professional and serious hat! Seriously!


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

ronny said:


> Bikes can do damage to trails but recent studies have shown that hikers do the same amount of damage to trails as bikes(In dry weather). I dont know the link but a quick google will provide some answers. If the arguement is just about trail damage and not the surrounding areas then horses should be banned from trails without question. There is a flip side to the arguement though.
> 
> There is many trails where I live that were pretty chewed up by mtbers that would not wait for trails to dry before riding or would not ride through mud but made meandering side trails around the water and mud. Some of the trails became 20ft wide in spots and these are singletrack trails. The proof was and is still there for everyone to see. On most of these trails all I could see was tire treads and not post holes or footprints from hikers. The unfortunate thing is most riders do not behave this way but the actions of a few often get trails closed.
> 
> I think an area where mountainbikers get into trouble is that too many of us ride trails after it rains and the proof is left behind.ie ruts, wider trails, tread marks in the mud. Hikers tend to not use trails as much when it rains but a lot of riders enjoy riding in the mud. I have seen a lot of evidence of horse damage in the mud also but footprints in the mud after it rains is not as common. I am more of a biker than a hiker but we have to govern ourselves a little better I think. All users do.


Yep. We're definitely not squeaky clean. I see your point. I suppose it also matters where you ride. In the area where I ride, you will see mtb tire tracks in the mud in some places. Other areas are so pock-marked from horses that it looks like a lunar landscape.

The bottom line is acceptance. We all want to use these trails. When a group like the SC focuses their attention on mountain bikers, it's self-serving and wrong. Bikes cause trail damage. Horses cause trail damage. Hikers cause trail damage. A policy of acceptance of all of these groups along with trial maintenance will do wonders.

The more trails that are opened, the less crowded trails will be. THere will be less interaction between the groups and everyone , except self-centered morons that only wnat the trails for themselves, will be happier.

I find it interesting. On the occasions when I've done trail work.....I never spoke to one horse rider because I never saw one. It's almost always mostly mountain bikers.


----------



## Ridin'Dirty (Jun 4, 2004)

@dam said:


> Wow! That Mountain Bike Commitee seems to be just what we're all looking for...
> 
> http://angeles.sierraclub.org/mbc/advocacy.htm
> 
> ...


So you read up on only one piece of an issue and then decide to support an organization with your money to use however they like? If you can go the extra mile on your mtn bike the why don't you try it with your brain too? Get some real convictions instead of the 10 second ones.


----------



## TwoWheeldTerror (Aug 30, 2004)

This is an interesting thread...it has given me, a newbie rider, a lot to think about whom I want to support with my dollars and whom not too.

I do have one question though...are we supposed to just never ride at all when it rains and for two or three days after it rains? If so...well I can imagine that in certain parts of this country you might as well just sell the mountain bike then because it rains so much. Pac NW just as an example.

How about hiking in the rain? I mean I do that too....


----------



## smilycook (Jan 13, 2004)

*Depends on the soil*



TwoWheeldTerror said:


> This is an interesting thread...it has given me, a newbie rider, a lot to think about whom I want to support with my dollars and whom not too.
> 
> I do have one question though...are we supposed to just never ride at all when it rains and for two or three days after it rains? If so...well I can imagine that in certain parts of this country you might as well just sell the mountain bike then because it rains so much. Pac NW just as an example.
> 
> How about hiking in the rain? I mean I do that too....


It all comes down to the soil and the area, if you ride on the coast of the pacific northwest you will find more organic soil and you can ride on the trails in the rain without leaving marks. Now if you go to other parts of the northwest like idaho you need to watch which trails you ride on, especially if they are more of a clay. After it rains I will go and ride the sandy soil areas or the sandy motorcycle trails, because the rain makes it possible to ride those trails that would otherwise be too sandy to ride. Basically the general rule of thumb is if you are leaving tire tracks, hoof prints, or shoe prints then you should come back another day. I don't know much about riding in your area, but you may be able to find trails that you can ride the day after a rain and some that will take a week to dry out.

Chris


----------



## kneecap (Dec 20, 2003)

ronny said:


> So who would you rather support? Bush, who does absolutely nothing to acknowledge the environment? Unless you include his statement in the debate that he considers himself a "steward of the land." I agree the Sierra Club should not discriminate against mountain bikers but at least sensitive environmental areas are getting protected because of their work. Which is a lot better than W has done.
> 
> What has W done. NOTHING, but set back over 200 environmental laws and policies. I guess that does not matter because he does publicity shots on his Trek on his private ranch. Bush is a environmental tyrant and I really hope you dont support him based on Environmental principles because the man has none.
> 
> If you dont believe me I can provide a couple hundred examples.


 Gee Ronny, I guess the forrests are much healther due to the previous liberal administration's agenda of absolutely no human management whatsoever, including unhealthy timber removal, & demolishing/removing access roads for fire suppression. 
Yea, we really needed the recent devastating forest fires in Calif., Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. By the way, this is the sierra clubbers idea of forrest management implemented through " their" indebted politicians. Thank God there arn't any of those pesky mountain bike tire marks in those MILLIONS of lost forrest acres.


----------



## smilycook (Jan 13, 2004)

*oh I understand*



ronny said:


> If you understood about at risk species, sometimes all development has to be removed from an area to help to ensure a species survival. Certain species of animals cannot tolerate intrusion into their habitat.
> 
> The grizzly bear is declining in number very fast in the Banff/Lake Louise area by my home because of people/animal encounters. The Grizzly is facing extirpation from the area. I can dumb that down for you. The Grizzly bear faces extinction in the Lake Louise area. The same goes for the wolf. The animal always loses in this situation. Certain wildlife corridors are compromised if there is development and yes mountainbikers can have an impact on certain species. I am not saying mountainbikers directly cause this but it is a culmination of many factors.
> 
> ...


I do understand at risk species in fact we have an exploding population of wolves in this state in many areas I ride, so I can't imagine we are having more of negative impact than any other user if they are thriving. We have grizzly bears too and the FS has restricted trails and closed old roads in those areas to help the grizzly bear. So the FS can easily protect an area using nepa and wilderness is not needed in those areas. I have never been opposed to wilderness designation for areas that do not have trails and meet the criteria, but when it comes to areas with existing trail systems we can find another way and still protect at risk species. You got to love the wilderness bill in Cali that includes a cell tower.

Cows are an intresting love and hate relationship since I enjoy riding cow trails, but hate to see riparian areas trampled and noxious weeds spread. I defiantly would not propose removing all cattle grazing from public lands, but in the end I find it ironic that cattle can be kept in wilderness areas while bikes can not if you are looking at enviromental effects.


----------



## ronny (Apr 2, 2004)

kneecap said:


> Gee Ronny, I guess the forrests are much healther due to the previous liberal administration's agenda of absolutely no human management whatsoever, including unhealthy timber removal, & demolishing/removing access roads for fire suppression.
> Yea, we really needed the recent devastating forest fires in Calif., Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. By the way, this is the sierra clubbers idea of forrest management implemented through " their" indebted politicians. Thank God there arn't any of those pesky mountain bike tire marks in those MILLIONS of lost forrest acres.


Well, Bush wants to do logging and other activities with no or little research regarding environmental impact assessments. Bush also does not care about the last remaining stands of Old growth forests. Yes the forests were much healthier before Bush came into power. Under Bush the environment has become under attack. I am not a Sierra Clubber either. I just understand what is going on concerning the environment. I never said the Sierra Club is perfect organization either.

America was actually headed in a better environmental direction before Bush came into power. Bush has quashed 200 environmental laws and policies since being elected. No agenda of human involvement under liberal involvement in forest management is folly. There is always human involvement. Spin it some more.

Here are some examples of what Bush is doing to protect the environment.

*White House considers dropping some fish protections to promote logging * (10/31/03)

EPA tricks public, treats industry on dangerous pesticide (10/31/03)

Bush administration ignores damming evidence (10/29/03)

EPA refuses to tackle rising mercury pollution in Great Lakes region (10/29/03)

EPA may allow continued phosphate dumping in Gulf of Mexico (10/28/03)

Costly USFS and BLM outsourcing studies prove unhelpful (10/23/03)

EPA changes rule to exempt hazardous waste requirements (10/23/03)

EPA developing ways around the Clean Water Act (10/22/03) September 
EPA to issue daily air quality alerts (09/30/03)

White House study: benefits of environmental regulation far outweigh costs (09/29/03)

BLM opens millions of acres of wilderness to energy development (09/29/03)

EPA strikes deal with polluting factory farms (09/25/03)

White House recommendations could shut the public out of environmental review (09/24/03)

GAO finds that energy production pollutes wildlife refuges (09/24/03)

Corps of Engineers violates judge's ruling, won't lower Missouri River flows for wildlife (09/24/03)

Forest Service to sell Tongass timber at a loss (09/23/03)

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2003.asp

The fires that you brought up happen more because of about 60 years of fire supression, which results in more intense fires today, not a liberal agenda. Fire supression is a nation wide program not a Liberal agenda. The loss of million of acres of forest has very little to do with a Liberal agenda. Totally ridiculous. I am an environmental technician with some education in forest management and I am sorry but you need to do some research because what you are saying is fiction to a certain extent.


----------



## heggler9 (Aug 18, 2004)

*jokes on them*

you know whats great? if we do get banned we are pretty much the only ones that do trail maitnence, with the exception of a few hikers, so alot of trails will fall into disrepair and become unusable


----------



## TwoWheeldTerror (Aug 30, 2004)

smilycook said:


> It all comes down to the soil and the area, if you ride on the coast of the pacific northwest you will find more organic soil and you can ride on the trails in the rain without leaving marks. Now if you go to other parts of the northwest like idaho you need to watch which trails you ride on, especially if they are more of a clay. After it rains I will go and ride the sandy soil areas or the sandy motorcycle trails, because the rain makes it possible to ride those trails that would otherwise be too sandy to ride. Basically the general rule of thumb is if you are leaving tire tracks, hoof prints, or shoe prints then you should come back another day. I don't know much about riding in your area, but you may be able to find trails that you can ride the day after a rain and some that will take a week to dry out.
> 
> Chris


Thanks Chris....I live in the SE, near Atlanta.

I am a big "outdoor" guy and do wish to protect the environment...but not to the point of making my existence in them, well, non-existant.

I will continue to hike and ride trails after it rains....I mean dang, this does seem a bit ridiculous about leaving no impact on the environment.


----------



## g c (Apr 22, 2004)

There is one very simple way to protect your access that many have already learned.

Shut your mouth, join a local club and pick up a trail tool.

Good stewards go much further than those that just complain, which the true blue hiker groups tend to be.

I know those within the SC trying to change it, and while I support their efforts and wish them well, I don't carry a SC card.


----------



## smilycook (Jan 13, 2004)

*Remeber...*

the world is run by those who show up! That is why I always show up and make sure my voice is heard, isn't democracy cool!

Chris


----------



## ronny (Apr 2, 2004)

*Ironic to say the least.*



smilycook said:


> I do understand at risk species in fact we have an exploding population of wolves in this state in many areas I ride, so I can't imagine we are having more of negative impact than any other user if they are thriving. We have grizzly bears too and the FS has restricted trails and closed old roads in those areas to help the grizzly bear. So the FS can easily protect an area using nepa and wilderness is not needed in those areas. I have never been opposed to wilderness designation for areas that do not have trails and meet the criteria, but when it comes to areas with existing trail systems we can find another way and still protect at risk species. You got to love the wilderness bill in Cali that includes a cell tower.
> 
> Cows are an intresting love and hate relationship since I enjoy riding cow trails, but hate to see riparian areas trampled and noxious weeds spread. I defiantly would not propose removing all cattle grazing from public lands, but in the end I find it ironic that cattle can be kept in wilderness areas while bikes can not if you are looking at enviromental effects.


Like I said it is a culmination of factors and not just mountainbiking. Everything has an effect and no one trail user should bear the brunt of the blame. It is interesting to read that wolves are thriving in your area while wolves and Grizzlies are not doing so well in the Banff-Lake Louise area. It is unfortunate when only mountainbikers get singled out. I think when a trail is becoming stressed from over use, all users should not be allowed on the trail until it is repaired sufficiently. How is a trail going to repair itself if only one out of three or more types of users gets the boot?

One thing I forgot to mention is that Banff National Park is the busiest park in Canada and one of the busiest in North America. There are numerous Grizzlies killed by vehicles and even trains as well as conflicts with people. It is a misnomer in terms that Banff is known so well for its wildlife and landscape because development in the area is out of control and the wildlife has suffered enormously as a result. The FS and park staff will close trails where there has been negative encounters or frequent sightings of Grizzly bears also. In the Lake Louise area this summer, park staff would not let users on certain trails unless they were in groups of six or more because this lessens the chance of Grizzly/trail user encounters.

The cattle debate will always be a hot topic. One interesting thing that the cattle do that I did not mention is that cattle grazing patterns can also mimic the effect of fire on the environment, allowing new plant species to emerge. It has to be done properly to not have a negative effect though. Cattle can cause a lot of damage to riparian areas, I agree. I am not a cattle activist either, I just wanted to give some insight to the other side of the coin.


----------



## danK (Jan 15, 2004)

The SC is slowly but surely trying to get everyone off "their" land with carefully worded propoganda.
I remember when they first screwed up and said "no mechanized" and caught themselves with camp stoves and snowshoes and... Uh oh, better change things. They had to change their rules to "motorized."

First they kicked out the motorcyclists and they used ignorant cyclists to help get it done. Now they're kicking out the cyclists. It's all or nothing with them.

My money goes to Blue Ribbon Coalition.
http://www.sharetrails.org/


----------



## kneecap (Dec 20, 2003)

Alright danK, I've belonged to the BRC for at least 10 yrs., they work to keep public land open for all users & accomplish it with a pitiful amount of $ compaired to "big business sierra club".


----------



## CanyunRider (Oct 29, 2004)

*Interesting handle...*



poacher said:


> I disagree. The SC wants to pacify us by creating the SCMBC. Joining this "club" just supports SC and their crusade to restrict our access. The founder of SCMBC has stated they will not take a stance against initiatives that restrict MTB access because it would go against the SC's stance. Joining makes no sense at all. What we need to do is support our local organizations that stand up and fight against SC to keep our access


From someone who who is an officer in a prominent SoCal MTB club. Poaching? Yep, that will surely do the sport good!
And an interesting spin you put on Randall's remark; taken totally out of context, by the way.

Love you too, Molly!


----------



## CanyunRider (Oct 29, 2004)

*Ya got it backwards there danyboy*



danK said:


> The SC is slowly but surely trying to get everyone off "their" land with carefully worded propoganda.
> I remember when they first screwed up and said "no mechanized" and caught themselves with camp stoves and snowshoes and... Uh oh, better change things. They had to change their rules to "motorized."
> 
> First they kicked out the motorcyclists and they used ignorant cyclists to help get it done. Now they're kicking out the cyclists. It's ayll or nothing with them.
> ...


"Motorized" was the initial transportation designation, subsequently changed to "mechanized"... originaly for the purpose of restricting horse drawn wagons carrying machinery (purportedly for mining).
You could always use camp stoves AND snowshoes in designated wilderness.


----------



## dpdsurf (Jan 19, 2004)

*Here are the facts I could find "dude"*



Spinny said:


> Yes indeedy, OHV emissions are exponentially higher than autos, including trucks.
> 2 stroke engines produce more air and water pollution in one hour than a modern auto does in a month.


ATVs and Motorcycles emit 5,000 of the 23,393,000 tons per year of NOx pollution produced nationally

This report focuses on diesel engines but provides some of the the figures needed to compare. I got the motorcycle and ATV figures from the EPA website. I couldn't really find enough figures to compare hydrocarbons but I think this sets an obvious trend and proves my point that OHV vehicles are a minority contributor to pollution.


----------



## CanyunRider (Oct 29, 2004)

*Here's some big biz for ya*



kneecap said:


> Alright danK, I've belonged to the BRC for at least 10 yrs., they work to keep public land open for all users & accomplish it with a pitiful amount of $ compaired to "big business sierra club".


I love it when people use that term. From what I've seen, BRC gets a good infusion of cash from the likes of Honda, Kawasaki, Bombadier(sp?), et al, plus rumor has it a fair chunk of change from some timber companies, albeit back door. And by the looks of it, lots of other smaller businesses and groups as well : 
http://www.sharetrails.org/index.cfm?page=14
Oh, and how about the director the of BRC gettin' busted for running ilegal m/c tours? Seems Mr Dart forgot to get an outfitters license; now he has to take a leave w/o pay. Hope he made enough on those tourist trips. But then, maybe un-employment (your tax dollars and mine) will kick in


----------



## dpdsurf (Jan 19, 2004)

CanyunRider said:


> I love it when people use that term. From what I've seen, BRC gets a good infusion of cash from the likes of Honda, Kawasaki, Bombadier(sp?), et al, plus rumor has it a fair chunk of change from some timber companies, albeit back door. And by the looks of it, lots of other smaller businesses and groups as well :
> http://www.sharetrails.org/index.cfm?page=14
> Oh, and how about the director the of BRC gettin' busted for running ilegal m/c tours? Seems Mr Dart forgot to get an outfitters license; now he has to take a leave w/o pay. Hope he made enough on those tourist trips. But then, maybe un-employment (your tax dollars and mine) will kick in


I recently heard that the BRC actually has more members now than the Sierra Club! I sure hope that's true. The tide is changing if it is


----------



## danK (Jan 15, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Most OHVs, jetskis, etc, are 2 cycle, and in this case, I'm actually good with making true generalizations.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. Unless you typed this in 1992, you are utterly and completely ignorant.


----------



## danK (Jan 15, 2004)

CanyunRider said:


> "Motorized" was the initial transportation designation, subsequently changed to "mechanized"... originaly for the purpose of restricting horse drawn wagons carrying machinery (purportedly for mining).
> You could always use camp stoves AND snowshoes in designated wilderness.


Thank you for setting me straight. I do appreciate it. Now what do you have to say about the rest of my post and the others who say the Sierra Club is going through the back door to kick out mtb riders after they used them to get motorized folk thrown out? 
You're a freerider. Don't even think the SC doesn't have you in their sights.


----------



## danK (Jan 15, 2004)

CanyunRider said:


> I love it when people use that term. From what I've seen, BRC gets a good infusion of cash from the likes of Honda, Kawasaki, Bombadier(sp?), et al, plus rumor has it a fair chunk of change from some timber companies, albeit back door. And by the looks of it, lots of other smaller businesses and groups as well :
> http://www.sharetrails.org/index.cfm?page=14
> Oh, and how about the director the of BRC gettin' busted for running ilegal m/c tours? Seems Mr Dart forgot to get an outfitters license; now he has to take a leave w/o pay. Hope he made enough on those tourist trips. But then, maybe un-employment (your tax dollars and mine) will kick in


You better believe BRC gets $$$ from the motorized outdoor manufacturers. Took a long time to get them onboard to battle the exponetially fatter coffers of the SC and other enviro clubs. Not many multi-millionaires riding dirt bikes and snowmobiles. They were all raised taking walks in the lillies and being brainwashed.

Mr. Dart has a new job:

The Off-Road Business Association (ORBA) is pleased to announce that they have hired Bill Dart to fill the new position of Land Use Director. Mr. Dart is one of the most experienced off-road vehicle advocates in the nation, and will greatly expand the capabilities and range of ORBA as well as advance the goal of ORBA to be a major national trade association.

Bill has a long history in land use advocacy going back over 20 years, first as a volunteer, and then professionally for over 16 years. In 1988, Dart began working for District 36 of the American Motorcyclist Association as their Legislative Action Officer and quickly established District 36 as a significant force with land managers and legislators in northern California and Nevada. Additionally, he has been a member of the Board of Directors of the California/Nevada Snowmobile Association as well as a State Partner and now an Advisor for the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, where he met and worked with off-highway vehicle advocates from around the country. In 2001, Dart moved to the BlueRibbon Coalition as their National Public Lands Director before he was promoted to Executive Director at the beginning of this year. Dart has coordinated many successes over the years working with local clubs and activists and other organizations.

"I am extremely pleased to add Bill Dart to the ORBA team, as his skills and experience are an excellent complement to our staff." stated ORBA President and CEO, Roy Denner. "Bill will be overseeing all land use issues for the organization and delegating responsibility to the ORBA team, while he will personally focus on western states." Denner added. "I am very excited to join the fastest growing off-road vehicle organization in the nation," Bill Dart stated, "and I look forward to helping accelerate the growth and effectiveness of ORBA. I have the highest respect for the ORBA team, and I look forward to working with the staff and Board of Directors of ORBA, as well as working with other organizations and activists as I have in the past."

Mr. Dart will manage an ORBA office in Pocatello, Idaho as it is centrally located to deal with issues in most western states. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 208-241-7894.


----------



## dpdsurf (Jan 19, 2004)

danK said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong. Unless you typed this in 1992, you are utterly and completely ignorant.


That's right. I'd say at least 50% if not more of the bikes on the trails today are 4 strokes.


----------



## smilycook (Jan 13, 2004)

*Mining Carts?*



CanyunRider said:


> "Motorized" was the initial transportation designation, subsequently changed to "mechanized"... originaly for the purpose of restricting horse drawn wagons carrying machinery (purportedly for mining).
> You could always use camp stoves AND snowshoes in designated wilderness.


I don't know why they would use horse drawn carriages in 1964 for mining when they had trucks back then. Anyways wilderness does not ban mining anyways, read the act and you will learn that mining can still occur in wilderness. There is a nice example in Idaho called the Gold Hand Mine, you have huge dump trucks driving into wilderness. Wilderness is not the only or best tool, but it is still pushed for because there is a whole wilderness industry out there right now. Just like big oil is paid to promote big oil and they would love to see us use more oil because it benifits their jobs. There is large wilderness industry and there jobs depend on more wilderness, it is ironic.

So the wilderness and mechanized definition lets do a little reading out of websters:

**********************************************************************
mech·a·nize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mk-nz)
tr.v. mech·a·nized, mech·a·niz·ing, mech·a·niz·es 
To equip with machinery: mechanize a factory. 
To equip (a military unit) with motor vehicles, such as tanks and trucks. 
To make automatic or unspontaneous; render routine or monotonous. 
To produce by or as if by machines.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mecha·ni·zation (-n-zshn) n. 
mecha·nizer n.

**********************************************************************

me·chan·i·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-kn-kl)
adj. 
Of or relating to machines or tools: mechanical skill. 
Operated or produced by a mechanism or machine: a mechanical toy dog. 
Of, relating to, or governed by mechanics. 
Performed or performing in an impersonal or machinelike manner; automatic: a droning, mechanical delivery of the speech. 
Relating to, produced by, or dominated by physical forces: the mechanical aspect of trumpet playing. 
Philosophy. Interpreting and explaining the phenomena of the universe by referring to causally determined material forces; mechanistic. 
Of or relating to manual labor, its tools, and its skills.

n. Printing 
A layout consisting of type proofs, artwork, or both, exactly positioned and prepared for making an offset or other printing plate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me·chani·cal·ly adv. 
me·chani·cal·ness n.

*************************************************

So if we look at the mechanized definition more specifically "To produce by or as if by machines" then that would mean everything produced by a machine should be banned in wilderness. So all that fancy gortex, nylon, stoves, backpacks, etc they are all made by machines, shouldn't they be banned if bikes are? I love it how hanggliders are banned to fly over wilderness but airplanes are not, does that make any sense?

Now the mechanical definition has the same produced by machines line in the definition. Some people will say that bikes have a mechanical advantage, I admit they certainly do. But what about xc-skiies, oars, internal frame backpacks, boots, snowshoes, and others are all allowed in wilderness and they provide a mechanical advantage to the user.

The fact remains that the sierra club, wilderness society, and others are less intrested in protecting the eviroment and more intrested in ensuring their form of recreation is preserved. There moto is "we are preserving it for future generations" but what they are really saying is "we are preserving it for our future generations who like to do the same things we do."

If they cared about the enviroment then they would allow mountain bikes in wilderness areas since we do vastly less damage than other users. In the end they will never do this and we need to use other designations like national recreation areas as opposed to wilderness, that way we can balance the recreation uses. All uses concentrate on a small portion of public land is just not good for the land!

Chris


----------



## g c (Apr 22, 2004)

Now that we've entered into the long drawn out pissing contest of the '64 Wilderness bill and its changes, let's discuss some real life and real time situations.

Here in SoCal a major resort just bought a 9 hole pitch and putt adjacent to one of the most popular wilderness parks in CA, if not the world. This park is home to some of the most treasured riding in the US and home to the infamous RADS, which include Dave Lopes, Hans Rey and many others.

This resort has been in secret talks with county gov't to develop some of this treasured open space for a world class golf course through some sort of mitigation. We may even get a paved path to the beach...yeah. Seems like a great trade off, open space for grass and polution (golf courses RUIN all creeks and streams around them due to run off of fertilizers and pesticides).

Fast forward to today. 

A local mtn bike advocate was quoted in one of the two major papers stating that the development would be a disaster. 

This advocate was contacted by the Surfrider Foundation, The Sierra Club, equestrain groups and many others concerned with multiuser trail use within hours of the article being published.

We are now forming a united front to fight big corporations and big government.

I guess all battles aren't black and white afterall.

BTW, I never heard from the BRC about maintaining this important open space.


----------



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

*GC That is the type of info we need*

I had asked days ago for some examples of how the SC had helped the mountain biking community. I was directed to a link to there TN site, but nothing in there really proved anything. Quite frankly it only re-enforced some of my prejudices.

If you have any decumentation/propaganda that shows the SC actually advocating on behalf of the MTNbike community to back this up that would be excellent.


----------



## g c (Apr 22, 2004)

> If you have any decumentation/propaganda that shows the SC actually advocating on behalf of the MTNbike community to back this up that would be excellent.


FS, let me stick my toe in the water a little more. The SC HAS screwed mountain bikers on certain occassions (more than once). The current form of the Wilderness Bill is exclusionary in form and is attempted to be applied to lands that it doesn't fit for those same exclusionary purposes. This is the bad side of the SC; the old regiem hates us two wheeled freaks.

However, there is good in the SC as well. If you look at all of the wooded public open space in the country there is a 50% chance that they may have had something to do with saving it for all of us to use.

In this case of big gov't potentially leasing public park land of a freakin' golf course it is good to have them and their litigious selves on our side. There is no printed material on all of this as of yet as the story I explained just happpened yesterday (the quote by the mountain bike advocate was in yesterday's LA Times). Everything is unfolding even as I type...


----------



## CanyunRider (Oct 29, 2004)

*I say you're wrong...*



danK said:


> Thank you for setting me straight. I do appreciate it. Now what do you have to say about the rest of my post and the others who say the Sierra Club is going through the back door to kick out mtb riders after they used them to get motorized folk thrown out?
> You're a freerider. Don't even think the SC doesn't have you in their sights.


...only in that as far as I can tell, the Wilderness Act, even with it's "mechanized" definition came into being long before mountain bikes. We, as mountain bikers, were never allowed in there to begin with. And we were never used to get moto's thrown out.
Moto's do a pretty good job of getting themselves thrown out of areas by local land managers. Having owned and built 7 4WD's and "wheeled" in most of the popular areas throughout CA and the Southwest, I have seen first hand some of the sh** done by what we called "knuckas" (insert "heads" or "draggers"; both fit equally well) that scewed it up for the rest of us. From leaving mounds of trash, to draining crankcases(or transfer or diff) on the ground, to busting through fences to create illegal hill climbs, these halfwits should be kept out of everything(including the general public), and I don't care what they pay in taxes and how many flags the have waving or plastered on their beer coolers.
So tell me, where did you get the idea that mtb's were the fall guyz/patsies?


----------



## CanyunRider (Oct 29, 2004)

*Here's a little..*



Frozenspokes said:


> I had asked days ago for some examples of how the SC had helped the mountain biking community. I was directed to a link to there TN site, but nothing in there really proved anything. Quite frankly it only re-enforced some of my prejudices.
> 
> If you have any decumentation/propaganda that shows the SC actually advocating on behalf of the MTNbike community to back this up that would be excellent.


Last year, the mtb committee of the local SC put on a trail maintenance on a very popular and well known local spot called the San Juan Trail. It brought together all types of riders and hikers, and drew folks from up to 75 miles away. 3-1/2 miles of trail was improved, as were a lot of relations. 
Now, here's da rub: SJT was the red headed step child of the 2 local mtb clubs. They had this bogus agreement that one would only work in the Nat'l Forest (yep, where the SJT is) and the other only on county and state trails. Whale... the Nat'l Forest designated group's leader privately said that he wanted to see SJT "get grown over so the shuttlers and downhillers would quit using it", so that group never worked on it. The other club saw the benifit, so they came out to help the SCMBC(their leader had the balls to say "screw that agreement"), as did a real big mtb club from L.A. It was pretty cool seeing floppy hatted ski polers working next to baggy shorted freeriders, then all of them at the feed trough swapping stories and sharing tips on how to build better trails. 
There's a whole lot more to this story, but I won't bore with details of the TPG, or more trail work days in the San Gabes and beyond. But lemme know if you want more; I'd be more'n happy to oblige.


----------



## smilycook (Jan 13, 2004)

*Sorry to resurrect this old thread...*

but our friends at the Sierra Club are trying to close access to demo forest in santa cruz. In the end the Sierra Club is just trying to restrict us to a few paces and close off the majority of the places we ride.

Here is the SC info of there website:
http://ventana.sierraclub.org/conservation/nisene_marks/article0310.shtml

Then an action alert to respond to how ridiculous the lawsuit is:
http://imba.com/news/action_alerts/11_04/11_07_nisene_marks.html

Do you still trust the SC, now?


----------



## Big Daddio (Feb 20, 2004)

*Scum*

Basically the Sierra Club is scum as are all of its members. Trash them when you can.


----------



## g c (Apr 22, 2004)

Agreed, the SC isn't perfect and in many cases, not bike friendly but neither is ANY organization other than a bike club (which some "advocacy clubs" pretend to be).

But riddle me this, out of the open space in the US of A, how much of it have mountain bikers saved? Mere acres.

Does this make the SC God? No. However, it does give us a platform to start our advocacy from. Mtn bikers have a lot to learn on this front. Instead of just begging for access, we should be at the front protecting open space as that, open and something we can ride.

I am working RIGHT NOW on saving part of one of the most popular mountain bike parks in the country and have yet to hear from the Blue Ribbon Coalition, but am meeting with the SC, Surf Rider Foundation and many others tomorrow.

Heck, even IMBA is avoiding this issue, right Chris Cook? Funny how colors change.

Never put your eggs in one basket, my friend. In fact, never trust those clubs that it is all or nothing with, you know who they are... Some are in my same area code.


----------



## Big Daddio (Feb 20, 2004)

*Re: Scum*

Point well taken. Sometimes passion over rides reason.


----------



## smilycook (Jan 13, 2004)

*Mountain Bikers are at the protecting open space*



g c said:


> Agreed, the SC isn't perfect and in many cases, not bike friendly but neither is ANY organization other than a bike club (which some "advocacy clubs" pretend to be).
> 
> But riddle me this, out of the open space in the US of A, how much of it have mountain bikers saved? Mere acres.
> 
> ...


I disagree that mountain bikers have not been pushing for the protection of open space, in fact the local mountain bike club I am president of was a key part of passing a city levy to raise 10 million dollars to preserve open space in the boise foothills. We got the levy passed and are now enjoying the rewards as open space is being protected forever right in my back door.

What about the effort in massachusetts to save the vietnam trail system, they raised the money to preserve large amounts of open space in an area full of development.

These are just two examples and I am sure there will be more in the future. It is amazing how much more time we would have to preserve open space if we were not at the same time fighting ridiculous trail closures.

I don't have any real grasp of your situation in socal.

Chris


----------



## g c (Apr 22, 2004)

Chris, while that is great and I applaud the effort (and I wish it happened more in Socal); the SC has been saving land since you and I were kids. That is my point.

While you and may be taking our clubs on a different direction than that has been currently pursued, we are leading a front that is rare. Mtn bikers are the new kids on the block and have been late to the table in saving land and overall recreation access.

There are those that save land and those that want access, we've been the latter. Mountain bikers need to find a central ground in these battles, and this ground is starting to be broken by clubs like those that save Veitnam, your club and mine.

We're getting there, but don't throw the baby out with the water. We've still a ton to learn as advocates.

Grant
President
SHARE Mountain Bike Club
www.sharemtb.com
Since 1987, the oldest mtn bike club in socal


----------



## dpdsurf (Jan 19, 2004)

> I am working RIGHT NOW on saving part of one of the most popular mountain bike parks in the country and have yet to hear from the Blue Ribbon Coalition, but am meeting with the SC, Surf Rider Foundation and many others tomorrow.


Is this an OHV area too? I'm under the impression that it is not. You've mentioned twice now that the BRC is not getting involved. Would you really expect them to take on another trail battle on top of the countless they are already involved with if it doesn't help the primary members who are contributing funds to the BRC? 

Good luck on saving your trails by the way


----------



## g c (Apr 22, 2004)

Bro, I've saved more trails than you can count on one hand, first off.

However, my comment on the BRC is simply this: Any group that pretends to represent mtn bikers should do anything it can to ensure access to bikes in any and all situations.

The BRC only helps us when it helps them. Check out Fruita if you don't believe me.

Again, my point is that bike groups need to reach out to those that will help us, not resting all eggs in one basket like the BRC or SC, because both will screw you.

Just ask those in Fruita, they've been taken by both.

However, I will say, I'm working with the SC, SRF and others to save land AND access, something that mtn bikers aren't adept at yet and the BRC doesn't do. Put that in your calculator and figure it.

Thanks for the kind words. We'll save'em alright, and without the BRC or WS. We don't need ponytails or motorcycles to save land.


----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

*Hfly, a Moab observation?*



hfly said:


> ...the same arguments about the Sierra Club being "trail nazis" -- a collection of people who selfishly want all the trails to themselves -- are the _exact _ same arguments that the moto groups use against bicycle groups who try to restrict moto access. Exclusivity is always more palatable from an inside view. It's too easy to feel rightly empowered in the whole land use debate. The "hiker nazi" addresses the mountain biker with the same sense of concern that the mountain biker addresses the moto rider.
> 
> Just some perspective.
> 
> hfly


If I recall, you're in Moab, right? Having been a constant Moab visitor for years, I've noticed this attutude occassionally while on the trail when motorcycles or ATVs have come along. I come from a background of dirt motorcycles, so I was never offended or alarmed when I see them on the trail. I occassionally hear a mountainbiker maker some deragatory remark when a motor comes along. Up to this point, all the motos I've seen at Moab were polite and not being a-holes when encountering MTBs. I'm sure there are exceptions, but as you point out, it's funny to see an unjustified reaction that mountainbikers sometime display in a semi-SC manner.


----------



## g c (Apr 22, 2004)

Guys, this is what we are working on. Rich Cunningham kindly put it on their site.

At some point, I am going to beg you to help us. However realize, the only group that can save our access is us.

GC

http://www.mbaction.com/detail.asp?id=1110


----------



## smilycook (Jan 13, 2004)

*sounds like fun..bikers against the golf course...*



g c said:


> Guys, this is what we are working on. Rich Cunningham kindly put it on their site.
> 
> At some point, I am going to beg you to help us. However realize, the only group that can save our access is us.
> 
> ...


so how did the meeting go on monday, even thought this item was not on the formal agenda? I guess my take would be that the leaders in share should meet with the goverment officials and the golf course and see if this is really going to go anywhere, becuase right now it sounds like a bunch of rumors. Do your homework and then get organized when they officially bring this into the public. Then again I am thousands of miles away, and have never lived in socal.


----------

