Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 393
  1. #51
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,327
    I'm leaning towards Zorg's feelings on this; IMBA may feel the fight is a battle that can't be won and the loss could only further tarnish their reputation. Moving forward the National Monument scheme may be advantageous but I can't see any retroactive changes getting any traction. The Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club will continue to fight "tooth and nail" for the exclusivity on land already classified as Wilderness.

    STC is on the right track and probably the only hope.

    The roadie-based major bicycle manufacturers still seem to be in the Sierra Club's pocket so I can't say I hold much optimism. Follow the money.

    The major bicycle manufacturers could make the STC a happening thing in a blink.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  2. #52
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Based on how well that worked with the Boulder white clouds wilderness designation, IMBA is mostly sticking to a losing strategy.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Over 600 miles of trail were lost in Montana in the same time frame. Not a peep from the IMBA. What happened in Idaho was a tragedy, what happened in Montana is criminal.

  3. #53
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,395
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    So IMBA is now part of the wildernuts. They won't get another dime from me.
    IMBA's Mark Eller: "A lot of people are going to see it [STC’s bill] as an invitation for everybody to change the Wilderness Act into something they want. Mountain bikers aren’t going to be the only ones talking about changing things to suit their needs.”

    Outside Magazine: "IMBA’s concern is one that’s often broached whenever the topic of amending the Wilderness Act arises: Won’t amending the Wilderness Act open up the floodgates to political interests only too eager to add an oil derrick or a coal mine to the untrammeled places the Wilderness Act seeks to protect?"

    When oil and mining interests start donating to STC, I'll give this theory some validity. Otherwise, its just more Chicken Little talk.

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    IMBA's Mark Eller: "A lot of people are going to see it [STC’s bill] as an invitation for everybody to change the Wilderness Act into something they want. Mountain bikers aren’t going to be the only ones talking about changing things to suit their needs.”

    Outside Magazine: "IMBA’s concern is one that’s often broached whenever the topic of amending the Wilderness Act arises: Won’t amending the Wilderness Act open up the floodgates to political interests only too eager to add an oil derrick or a coal mine to the untrammeled places the Wilderness Act seeks to protect?"

    When oil and mining interests start donating to STC, I'll give this theory some validity. Otherwise, its just more Chicken Little talk.
    Yea, it sounds like Monte, Connie, or Nora are on the board of IMBA
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  5. #55
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,395
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiantsfan View Post
    Yea, it sounds like Monte, Connie, or Nora are on the board of IMBA
    That's a bit extreme. Obviously, IMBA is pro-mountain biking. For what are probably various reasons, IMBA isn't in a position to spend 80% of their resources on 5% of of the land, especially when many so-called mt. bikers are vehemently opposed to bicycling in Wilderness. But to not outright support what STC is doing is saddening and maddening. My guess is it will strain relationships with federal land managers and industry partners (e.g., money) and has very little to do with mt. bikers themselves, especially those they lose from inaction.

  6. #56
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,877
    5% of the land, but a very sizable portion of the outdoors. I tried to figure it out once and it seemed that Wilderness was over 20% of all "parks" type land.

    Edit: here is the data

    http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-product...land-uses.aspx

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by zorg; 11-30-2015 at 01:50 PM.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  7. #57
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,431
    Thanks for posting Davey, I donated

  8. #58
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    Thanks for posting Davey, I donated
    Thank you. I'm convinced that more and more spots we treasure or ones we hope to visit in the future are going to be threatened. First it was the Boulder White Clouds. I had not been able to do most of the backcountry rides when I visited Sun Valley in 2011 when XC Nationals was there. I hoped to return and do some epic rides but my hopes have been dashed by a new wilderness designation. Now the Wasatch area is under threat.

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!-wasatchnm_finalmap_small-3.jpg

    This is another one of those bucket list destinations that I would love to visit. Huge shuttles and rides that connected via chair lift. The possibilities are nearly endless. What is worse is that huge amounts of the Wasatch are already wilderness and the area will be designated a national monument. There is no need for the additional wilderness areas.

  9. #59
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,339
    I've come to believe that STC's approach is the right one. MTB'ers should be able to make common cause with the environmentalists (a lot of us are the same people) but this issue severely splits us, and under the current rules of the game MTB'ers will lose out most of the time. We shouldn't have to be driven into the political camp of polluters, miners, loggers, and developers (regardless of whether you are already in that camp or not) in order to get trail access! And I am with those who won't stand for the current blanket exclusionary rule.

    The other thing: The STC's approach could work, right now, with this Congress.

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: timetraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    312
    No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
    Colin Powell

    I like the STC's approach and have given a donation. I'd like to see IMBA giving at least moral and vocal support for crying out loud. I understand the big bike companies bowing out of this fight (Roadie mfg's like Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, etc) but would like to see some of the MTB companies step up. Good publicity to their buyers. Really thinking my donations to IMBA would be more efficiently and effectively used elsewhere. Maybe that's what they're concerned about? That we'll find other more effective organizations more aligned with our goals? The old "a donation to STC is less for us"?
    I never said most of the things I said - Yogi Berra

  11. #61
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,395
    I truly support IMBA and I empathize with some of their challenges... but this 180 they pulled on STC is bizarre, especially given the results of their recent member survey.

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!-img_1069.png

  12. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,695
    IMBA is dead to me.

  13. #63
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,481
    Crazy times in backcountry advocacy:

    Guest Opinion: Say no to the Sustainable Trails Coalition - Mtbr.com

    STC responds:

    SUSTAINABLE TRAILS COALITION


    PRESS RELEASE
    December 11, 2015
    For immediate release

    Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC) is pleased to respond to the allegations recently leveled against STC in public forums by the well-known mountain biker Ashley Korenblat. Ashley is the chief executive officer of Western Spirit Cycling, a former president of the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) board, and managing director of Public Land Solutions.

    STC thanks Ashley for cataloguing the many misunderstandings she has about what we’re doing. We’re not alone in our gratitude. Shortly after Ashley began accusing STC of various forms of naďveté, more money—thousands of dollars—started coming in to STC. This is no coincidence. To the extent our community is voting with dollars, it’s siding with STC.

    Let us set the record straight.

    (1) STC seeks an exceedingly modest reform. Our desired legislation would continue to let government officials ban bikes in Wilderness and on National Scenic Trails. But they would do it at the local level, based on local input and knowledge.

    (2) Our proposed legislation would merely restore the regulatory plan that the Forest Service itself had in effect from 1981 to 1984, before it solidified the blanket bicycle ban in Wilderness. It was during that period, specifically June 1982, that the Forest Service told itself, in a little-known internal memorandum, “we can look at these types of ‘vehicles’ [i.e., bicycles] as being primitive, muscle powered, aids to transporting” people in Wilderness. So it allowed local land managers to decide on bicycle access, just as we hope to achieve. Then someone whispered in the agency’s ear and in 1984 it changed its mind and solidified the bicycle ban.

    That should allay any reasonable concerns. To be sure, if anyone likes the comprehensive bicycle ban in Wilderness and on the Pacific Crest Trail—no access to a single inch of trail anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances—nothing we say will make them happy.

    Those people, however, should be aware that what has been the slow death of a thousand cuts for singletrack access is now turning into death by rapid blood loss. The newly formed Save Montana Trails group states, “over the last five years, nearly 800 miles of trail in Montana have been closed or are at risk of being closed to bikes. During their Travel Planning, the National Forests in Montana have implemented a new policy that wilderness study areas and recommended wilderness areas will be managed as wilderness when it comes to bikes.”

    In the New Mexico episode that Ashley cites as a success, here is the assessment of well-known mountain bike advocate John Fisch. While agreeing with Ashley about “the redrawing of an existing Wilderness boundary to move a portion which was inside the boundary, outside of it,” John concludes: “IMBA and many other agencies involved with the crafting of this legislation are understandably trumpeting the success of this wonderful compromise. However, not all is rosy in MTB-land. The Columbine Hondo Wilderness contains 75 miles of singletrack which is now permanently off limits to mountain biking. In what is becoming a disturbing trend, IMBA and others rave about ‘compromises’ which are in effect significant net losses. Among the many losses is the Goose Lake Trail, a singletrack route which has been ridden by cyclists for decades. . . . Cyclists will still be able to access Goose Lake legally, but only by taking a jeep road which still exists as a narrow stem protruding into the Wilderness Area.”

    To quote Pyrrhus, “One more such victory and we are undone.” Pyrrhus’s army was devastated by the loss of 3,000 troops at the Battle of Asculum in 279 B.C., even though it managed to kill 8,000 Romans, (That’s where the term Pyrrhic victory comes from.) If only traditional mountain bike advocacy had recently achieved as good a ratio of trail preservation to trail losses as Pyrrhus’s lamented ratio! Alas, it’s nowhere close. Just look at Montana. Or, according to John Fisch, New Mexico.

    Finally, Ashley casts doubt on the efficacy of our efforts. (Oddly, she condemns our supposed litigation strategy, which leaves us scratching our heads. Who’s suing anyone? Not us.) Those of you who have donated to us or otherwise support us can be assured of the following:

    These days, any legislative effort is an uphill battle. Even the naming of a post office can be controversial in today’s divided Congress. Moreover, it took eight years to pass the Wilderness Act of 1964. A bill was first introduced in 1956. Although we expect to have a bill introduced in the first quarter of 2016, we have no illusions that it’s guaranteed to become law within months.

    But if we cannot achieve our goals—the loosening of the blanket bicycle bans in Wilderness and on the Pacific Crest Trail, and the undoing of recent Forest Service actions that are closing off hundreds of miles of non-Wilderness singletrack to mountain bikers—we think no one can. Here’s why.

    (1) We have two superb lobbyists. Their energy is extraordinary. They e-mail us on Sunday nights. They e-mail us in the wee hours of the morning. They have dozens or hundreds of connections to members of Congress, their staffs, and congressional committee staffs. They forbid us to report publicly on their progress, but it’s far more advanced than anything Ashley is imagining. Although they are not mountain bikers, their personal commitment to freeing the singletrack, and the amount of time they’re spending on it, well exceeds what we’re paying them, although their services indeed are expensive.

    Our lobbyists are finding members of Congress and their staffs saying, in effect, “What? You can’t ride a bicycle in a Wilderness? Never heard of such a thing.” And so we are getting support from these puzzled legislators. From Republicans. From Democrats. In the House. And in the Senate. Stay tuned.

    (2) STC’s board members have zero learned helplessness. That’s a well-known psychological syndrome that happens when people are beaten down by their opponents over 20 years. Eventually, they reach only for crumbs. We’re too new to have been beaten down and lowered our expectations to just off the floor.

    (3) Our donors have been magnanimous beyond all expectations. They have funded our lobbyists for six months and we’re halfway to being able to pay them for the third quarter, which will begin in March of 2016. The STC board is truly grateful.

    We have been rebuffed, I am sorry to say, by all of the major bike manufacturers we’ve approached for financial support. One told us that it thinks the current mountain biking institutions are doing wonderful lobbying work and it would like us to go away. Maybe we’re annoyingly asking for lobbying money certain companies would rather devote to getting e-bikes on nonmotorized singletrack.

    You have to wonder what those companies will be saying when sales slump after the Forest Service decides every trail in a roadless area in the United States will henceforth be closed to mountain biking, on the grounds that, to quote a Forest Service statement posted on the Save Montana Trails website, “. . . allowing uses that do not conform to wilderness character creates a constituency that will have a strong propensity to oppose recommendation and any subsequent designation legislation. Management actions that create this operating environment will complicate the decision process for Forest Service managers and members of Congress.”

    In other words, the Forest Service no longer wants bikes anywhere that might become Wilderness, because mountain bikers will then irritate the Forest Service by asking to be allowed to keep riding where they have for decades. No amount of cynicism can prepare one for attitudes like this.

    STC will win or lose, but at least someone will have tried. That’s a first in our community.

    Ted Stroll is one of the co-founders of the Sustainable Trails Coalition.

    IMBA responds:

    https://www.imba.com/blog/mike-van-a...-policy-agenda

  14. #64
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,877
    My guess is that IMBA is going to feel the pressure and come on board at some point, unless they're completely tone deaf and too married to the current status quo.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  15. #65
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    My guess is that IMBA is going to feel the pressure and come on board at some point, unless they're completely tone deaf and too married to the current status quo.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    I hope so. We need to be united. I can't speak for the STC board in this case but I would love to with cycling advocates rather than work against each other.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #66
    Purveyor of Trail Tales!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Some great press today regarding the Sustainable Trails Coalition:

    Opinion | US Wilderness Act: Banning Bikes is Un*-American | ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine

    If you have donated to the STC. Thank you so much!
    Hey Davey,

    Thanks, so much, for all your work on the Marin Trails and for bringing this to our attention! I just made a donation as I agree with you about the importance of this effort!!

    Good on Ya!!!

    Michael
    Last edited by michaelsnead; 12-12-2015 at 12:01 PM.
    If you can't keep the rubber side down......at least smile for the camera!

  17. #67
    heaven help me
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,811
    Bottom line, if horses and pack animals are allowed in wilderness areas, so should bikes.

  18. #68
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,327
    Quote Originally Posted by norton55 View Post
    Bottom line, if horses and pack animals are allowed in wilderness areas, so should bikes.
    Exactly!

    This cannot be stressed enough...
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  19. #69
    Don't Tread on Me
    Reputation: Lopaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    IMBA is dead to me.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TahoeBC again.
    Consciousness, that annoying time between bike rides.

  20. #70
    More Torque
    Reputation: Diesel~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,907
    Just donated. Thanks for keeping the ball rolling...

    -D

  21. #71
    dude with orange car
    Reputation: Plim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,661
    Donated a few months ago. This thread reminded me to donate again. GogogoSTC!
    This is no time for levity. - Oliver Hardy

  22. #72
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,481
    Thank you everyone!!! This really is a "people's effort" it is all from small donations.

    Also here is a web friendly link to the STCs recent press release. I feel it is very well written and also says quite a bit about STCs core values:

    http://www.singletracks.com/blog/tra...ils-coalition/


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #73
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Plim View Post
    Donated a few months ago. This thread reminded me to donate again. GogogoSTC!
    Ditto and 2nd donation paid.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  24. #74
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,483
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    IMBA is dead to me.
    *Stopped actively and openly supporting IMBA in 2002 because of how they were handling situations in Oregon and Idaho, as well as California. They have become too inactive and too often give out placating excuses for their failures. Our money has been directed elsewhere since and anything else we offer goes as far as trail building labor.

    "IMBA"= It Might Be Available
    Last edited by Obi; 12-12-2015 at 10:23 PM.

  25. #75
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,244
    We joined IMBA this past year to see what the hubbub was about. The only value I have received is access to some discounts on outdoor gear (that I really don't need).

    I already do my own trail work with a local group and participate in local advocacy organizations. IMO, I expect IMBA to fight at the national level. After not quite 1 year of membership, I'm not seeing IMBA's value ad.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  26. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    14
    Also donated again - happy to say that now STC has received more from me than IMBA ever has

  27. #77
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Plim View Post
    Donated a few months ago. This thread reminded me to donate again. GogogoSTC!
    Yup. Time to give again

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  28. #78
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,339
    Wow, just read the last few articles on MTBR about the IMBA v. STC hubbub, which made my stomach turn. Great response from STC, well reasoned and written. IMBA's response the same day (Dec. 11) is "we're working on it and will have our act together in a few months" but they attach a memo to their chapters which appears designed to discourage IMBA chapters from providing financial support to STC. Shame.

    Davey and crew, thank you so much for your work on this. You are rock stars!

    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Davey Simon again."

  29. #79
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by J-Flo View Post
    Wow, just read the last few articles on MTBR about the IMBA v. STC hubbub, which made my stomach turn. Great response from STC, well reasoned and written. IMBA's response the same day (Dec. 11) is "we're working on it and will have our act together in a few months" but they attach a memo to their chapters which appears designed to discourage IMBA chapters from providing financial support to STC. Shame.

    Davey and crew, thank you so much for your work on this. You are rock stars!

    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Davey Simon again."
    Thanks for the rep!

    Ted and Jackson are the ones who should be thanked IMO

    Here is a podcast with a lot of detail and background on the STC, the Wilderness Act etc.

    Podcast: The STC?s Plan to Get Mountain Bikes into Wilderness, Part 1 | Singletracks Mountain Bike News

  30. #80
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,877
    I think we should thank the forest service for its ineptitude as they are the best advertisement for the STC.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  31. #81
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,339
    The one point on which IMBA is correct is that STC faces long odds. But a 20% chance of changing things is far better than accepting a 100% chance of being shut out of Wilderness forever under the status quo.

    I also think this could be done in a way that does not rouse the full force and fury of the enviro lobby, even though they may oppose it on paper. E.g., a law directing the USDA, DOI, BLM etc. to rescind the no-bike regulation (in other words, this would not amend the Wilderness Act but rather would tell the agencies that their interpretation of it as prohibiting bikes was wrong) and instructing them not to prohibit bikes unless warranted by considerations affecting the particular area. That would avoid the parade of horribles with snowmobilers, motorcycles, etc. trying to pile on.

  32. #82
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by J-Flo View Post
    The one point on which IMBA is correct is that STC faces long odds. But a 20% chance of changing things is far better than accepting a 100% chance of being shut out of Wilderness forever under the status quo.

    I also think this could be done in a way that does not rouse the full force and fury of the enviro lobby, even though they may oppose it on paper. E.g., a law directing the USDA, DOI, BLM etc. to rescind the no-bike regulation (in other words, this would not amend the Wilderness Act but rather would tell the agencies that their interpretation of it as prohibiting bikes was wrong) and instructing them not to prohibit bikes unless warranted by considerations affecting the particular area. That would avoid the parade of horribles with snowmobilers, motorcycles, etc. trying to pile on.
    Remember non motorized transport is non motorized. No e-bikes. Certainly no motos. Human powered only. STC is not going to change the Wilderness Act of 1964. It will change the F.S. interpretation of the act that banned mechanized transport that was not in effect until 1984. STC has been falsely depicted as a threat to the wilderness on many counts. Including that we will somehow benefit the mining, oil and other resource industries. Also certainly not true as well.

  33. #83
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,339
    That's right. Zero e-bikes in the Wilderness.

  34. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    60
    I'd be careful with this wilderness access thing. We all want more trail access but at what cost? Any type of legislation involves considerable compromise, especially when there are multiple and well funded stakeholders involved (ebike industry, resource extraction, enviros etc). As the saying goes, there are two things you don't want to see made-sausage and law.

    Ashley Korenblat's opinion piece is very consistent with my experience in crafting public policy. She speaks from the perspective of one who has actually been in the trenches and understands the process and pitfalls along the way. It's hard to understand until you've seen a piece of legislation through from start to finish. Alliances and support are hard earned and easily lost, and it involves compromise. Based on what I've read here, I believe she has more credibility than the STC guy.

    In my mind the biggest weakness of advocacy-particularly MTB advocacy-is the tendency to splinter into factions. After so many years of frustration we are all looking for quick solutions to access, but lets not ignore how this could go sideways on us and our kids with lasting consequences.
    Last edited by jl776; 12-13-2015 at 08:46 PM. Reason: spelling

  35. #85
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,327

    Park City Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by jl776 View Post
    I'd be careful with this wilderness access thing. We all want more trail access but at what cost? Any type of legislation involves considerable compromise, especially when there are multiple and well funded stakeholders involved (ebike industry, resource extraction, enviros etc). As the saying goes, there are two things you don't want to see made-sausage and law.

    Ashley Korenblat's opinion piece is very consistent with my experience in crafting public policy. She speaks from the perspective of one who has actually been in the trenches and understands the process and pitfalls along the way. It's hard to understand until you've seen a piece of legislation through from start to finish. Alliances and support are hard earned and easily lost, and it involves compromise. Based on what I've read here, I believe she has more credibility than the STC guy.

    In my mind the biggest weakness of advocacy-particularly MTB advocacy-is the tendency to splinter into factions. After so many years of frustration we are all looking for quick solutions to access, but lets not ignore how this could go sideways on us and our kids with lasting consequences.
    In my opinion things went sideways for mountain biking in 1994 when IMBA bedded with the Sierra Club and came away with this understanding:

    "Appendix A - Park City Agreement

    Sierra Club and International Mountain Bicycling Association agree:

    To work for Wilderness, park, and open-space protection;
    That mountain bicycling is a legitimate form of recreation and transportation on trails, including single track, when and where it is practiced in an environmentally sound and socially responsible manner;
    That not all non-Wilderness trails should be opened to bicycle use;
    To create joint projects to educate all non-motorized trail users;
    To encourage communication between local mountain bicycle groups and Sierra Club entities.


    (Agreement reached at Park City, Utah, April 1994.)"


    That's in April '94; in just the following month the Sierra Club's BOD came out with what they really meant when the were promising cooperation:

    "Off Road Use of Bicycles

    I. POLICY

    1. Use in officially designated wilderness:
    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.

    2. Use of vehicles on other public lands:

    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, and

    ii. officially posted with signs as being open.

    b. The process must include

    i. application of objective criteria to assess whether or not environmental quality can be effectively maintained, and whether the safety and enjoyment of all users can be protected;

    ii. a public review and comment procedure involving all interested parties; and

    iii. promulgation of effective implementing regulations where impacts are sufficiently low that vehicle use is appropriate.

    c. Trails and areas designated for vehicular use must be monitored periodically to detect environmental damage or user interference inconsistent with the above criteria. Where this occurs, the trail or area must be closed to vehicles unless effective corrective regulations are enforced.

    Adopted by the Board of Directors, May 7-8, 1994

    II. BACKGROUND

    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.

    III. GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

    The following Guidelines were developed by the Sierra Club Wild Planet Strategy Team with the help of a Mountain Bicycling Task Force to help interpret and implement the policy on off-road use of bicycles:

    A. Purpose

    The Sierra Club recognizes that bicyclists can be legitimate users of many non-Wilderness backcountry trails and supports responsible off-road bicycling. In an effort to find common ground and work for positive and shared environmental and recreational goals, the Sierra Club and International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) agreed to a set of principles (Park City Agreement, Appendix A). The Sierra Club affirms its commitment to those principles.

    All backcountry users, including bicyclists, have an effect on the environment (e.g., soil erosion and effects on plants and animals). These Guidelines should be used to identify places and situations where bicycles are clearly not appropriate, to recognize opportunities where bicycle use can be encouraged, to minimize impacts where bicycles are allowed, to foster cooperation between trail user groups, and to maximize the quality of the recreational experience for all users.

    B. Site Specific Analysis

    Public lands include a range of landscapes from urban to backcountry, from alpine to coastal, from desert to wetlands, with vastly different amounts and mixes of recreational use. One solution might not work equally well in all places. Therefore, implementation of this policy will be on a site-specific basis.

    No general rule can be drawn concerning appropriateness or inappropriateness of use of bicycles on specific trails or areas until the conditions stipulated in the policy have been met: the appropriate land management agency must complete a competent analysis that considers public input.

    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. See Appendix D for suggestions on reducing impacts of bicycles.

    C. Wilderness Opportunities

    By law, bicycles are excluded from federal Wilderness areas. Potential for losing opportunities for Wilderness designation should be taken into account when planning bicycle access. Conversely, the potential for losing bicycle opportunities (and replacing such opportunities) should be taken into account when planning Wilderness designation. Sierra Club members are therefore encouraged to work with local off-road bicycle groups when preparing Wilderness proposals.

    D. Cooperation and Education

    The Sierra Club encourages its members to join in the spirit of the Park City Agreement (Appendix A) and to work with local off-road bicycle groups on projects of mutual interest.

    Trail user etiquette and rider education programs may enhance cooperation and reduce friction between different trail user groups, and may help reduce damage to the environment. The Sierra Club encourages all trail users to cooperate in efforts to heighten awareness of, and participation in, these trail user education programs. These and other programs listed in Appendix E may help reduce the need for closing trails to bicycles.

    E. Analysis, Review, and Implementation Process

    A land management agency must take into consideration the following when assessing bicycle use:

    Trails open to bicycles must successfully pass an agency review for suitability. Criteria to include in such a review are listed in Appendix C.
    Trails open to bicycles should fit compatibly into the overall trail system, providing (to the extent possible) a satisfying and safe bicycling experience that will minimize the desire of bicycle riders to enter closed areas. See Appendix D for additional guidance.
    Trails open to bicycles should be designed to need minimal enforcement, e.g. relying on natural barriers and terrain features such as ridgelines to prevent bicycle riders from straying into closed areas. While signs can be important for regulating bicycle traffic, trails needing excessive and unsightly signage are not appropriate.
    Implementing regulations should be enforceable, clearly posted in appropriate locations such as trailheads, and emphasized through agency patrols and outreach programs. The regulations should be simple, consistent, and generally understood and widely accepted by all users. See, for example, the Rules of the Trail in Appendix E.
    Trails open to bicycles should have a monitoring plan developed and implemented. For examples of key elements, see Appendix F."



    This and more comes from here: Off Road Use of Bicycles

    So what happened to "the spirit of the Park City Agreement"???

    To further this discussion; focus on "C. Wilderness Opportunities" above. Note "By law". (stretching the truth?) The SC is intransigently opposed to bikes ever being in the Wilderness.

    I suspect that if IMBA ever used the courts to try to gain Wilderness MTB access the SC would use a counter-suit based on the "Agreement".

    The SC could easily bankrupt IMBA; that's why STC's route is a much better choice.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  36. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    387
    i understand why IMBA is not taking the same strategy that the STC is taking.

    i don't understand why they have to dis the stc. why not say 'we agree access is important, but are not taking that strategy due to X Y and Z'. which is not the same as 'how dare they take that strategy'.

  37. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: timetraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    312
    ^^Great points. It does seem that IMBA tied their hands in this fight. I also still believe that it's about the money. A donation to STC is less for IMBA in their minds. They are campaigning pretty hard to deny funds to this effort. I've been an IMBA member for six years and read their newsletters and emails and have long thought they're weak. I understand picking fights you think you can win but we're losing hundreds of miles of trails and being shut out of areas because of a flawed interpretation.

    IMBA's mission statement - "Can't win, why try".

    I do have some concern when paid lobbyists give rosy progress reports though (according to the STC rebuttal). Hmm, maybe they want another paycheck? Hope there is some due diligence being done on what they are accomplishing and what the status really is.
    I never said most of the things I said - Yogi Berra

  38. #88
    Air Pirate
    Reputation: Bokchoicowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by timetraveler View Post
    IMBA's mission statement - "Can't win, why try".
    This is exactly what I thought of when I read Ashley KS' rebuttal to Ted Stroll's opinion piece, where she stated
    "The bike industry has declined to support the STC agenda becasue they know that the environmental community will marshall all its resources to protect the Wilderness Act.
    IMBA...the bike industry...."oh, those environmentalists are too big, we better not even try to fight." Nice....don't even try. I certainly do not wish to give my funds to gutless cowards who refuse to fight, which is what I am beginning to see IMBA and the "bike industry" as being.

    Good on ya Davey, and Ted! Res firma mitacre nescit!
    "You're messing with my zen thing, man!"

  39. #89
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Bokchoicowboy View Post
    This is exactly what I thought of when I read Ashley KS' rebuttal to Ted Stroll's opinion piece, where she stated

    IMBA...the bike industry...."oh, those environmentalists are too big, we better not even try to fight." Nice....don't even try. I certainly do not wish to give my funds to gutless cowards who refuse to fight, which is what I am beginning to see IMBA and the "bike industry" as being.

    Good on ya Davey, and Ted! Res firma mitacre nescit!
    Ashley reacted (quite poorly IMO) to the NEMBA letter giving support to the STC. Like many train wrecks it started on social media:

    https://www.facebook.com/RideTheTrai...2%3A%22R%22%7D

    I attempted a kind response to Ashley's rhetoric on FB and she blew up. I was just kind of like:



    Then Ashley wrote her editorial. Ted's response came after all this. Mostly because Ashley has a very poor understanding of what the STC is trying to achieve.

    Again I just think this is all sad. Why the IMBA can't just step aside and let someone advocate for cycling is worrying. Potentially campaigning to deny the STC bike industry money as Ashley suggests, is scandalous. If this is true they are doing so with donors money. Not good for all of us.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  40. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: squareback's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashley Korenblat Sevenoff
    ...you and STC are on the absolute wrong track and I am going to prove it.
    Yeah. I'm done with IMBA. I dont need a condescending beeyotch in my rodeo.

  41. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ryanxj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by squareback View Post
    Yeah. I'm done with IMBA. I dont need a condescending beeyotch in my rodeo.
    You realize shes former IMBA, right?

    edit: I hope nobody out there dumps there local chapter out with the IMBA bath water with this whole debacle.

    In fact, if you just donate to your local club (assuming its a chapter of IMBA) the dues you would normally pay, they receive 100% of that $ since IMBA isnt taking their hefty cut...
    Every trails a flow trail ifya would just learn how to ride-stop dumbing down the planet

  42. #92
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by squareback View Post
    Yeah. I'm done with IMBA. I dont need a condescending beeyotch in my rodeo.
    To be fair, Ms Korenblat-Sevenoff is not currently the president of the IMBA. She was the president of the IMBA from 1996-2000.

    It is also amazing to me how the situation nationally exactly mirrors the situation for cycling advocacy in Marin County. Trails are being lost by the dozens and the 5 miles of saved trail are considered a huge victory. Top-heavy new trail proposals are made that will likely never see the light of day and championed as a huge victory. I do agree Ashley's tone is condescending. That is also the go to tactic of many cycling advocates. I've gotten used the tone, it generally means we can do better.

    https://mcbcoffroad.wordpress.com

    We as a group have to set the bar higher. We have to do better. We can not as a whole adopt the IMBAs losing tactic of getting the scraps. It doesn't work long term.

  43. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: squareback's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,447
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanxj View Post
    You realize shes former IMBA, right?

    edit: And I hope nobody out there dumps there local chapter out with the IMBA bath water with this whole debacle. In fact, if you just donate to your local club (assuming its a chapter of IMBA) the dues you would normally pay, they receive 100% of that $ since IMBA isnt taking their hefty cut...
    Oh I know, but I don't care. IMBA obviously asked her to write the letter, and they shall reap what she sows.

  44. #94
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by squareback View Post
    Oh I know, but I don't care. IMBA obviously asked her to write the letter, and they shall reap what she sows.
    This is the official IMBA response:

    https://www.imba.com/blog/mike-van-a...-policy-agenda

    I am uncertain if Ashely's comments are a reflection of current thinking at the IMBA. I sure hope not. It would be very helpful if the STC got even a minor amount of industry funding or even support from those in the endurance off road cycling community.

  45. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: squareback's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,447
    gee whiz .

    Nothing like analyzing a situation with an open mind.... NOT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashley Korenblat Sevenoff

    In the next few weeks we should have a full analysis of the STC proposed bill, its chance of success, and the unintended cosequences (sic)--

    PS. Professional documents by someone of your...shall we say..."stature"... should be spellchecked before distribution.

  46. #96
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by squareback View Post
    gee whiz .

    Nothing like analyzing a situation with an open mind.... NOT.




    PS. Professional documents by someone of your...shall we say..."stature"... should be spellchecked before distribution.
    Agreed. The current scrum in the off road cycling community is downright embarrassing. And we are airing our dirty laundry for the whole world to see.

    I'd prefer cooperation. Maybe in a few months? Hope so.

  47. #97

  48. #98
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,064
    Quote Originally Posted by J-Flo View Post
    That's right. Zero e-bikes in the Wilderness.
    They are already allowed under ADA.

  49. #99
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Agreed. The current scrum in the off road cycling community is downright embarrassing. And we are airing our dirty laundry for the whole world to see.

    I'd prefer cooperation. Maybe in a few months? Hope so.
    Yep. I hope so too.

    The rhetoric has been ratcheting up. Did you expect IMBA or former IMBA people to just roll over?

    This forum and other discussions, concern me about a split, which could be a lose/lose.

    Lose/lose comes in the form of STC not succeeding, while alienating riders from IMBA. 99% of riders are looking for any excuse to not join/participate/donate, cuz that $25 can go towards a new $1000 fork!!!

    I actually like a two pronged scenario, one pushing hard, the other working the politics. To me, working both angles, seems like a win for riders. A win/win is STC succeeding and IMBA support.

    I'm flummoxed by people unable to look at the benefits to each, having to "chose a side" when both are working for riders interests.

    Again... Both are working for riders interests.

    By saying FU to one, because you like the other one better, just means you have made yourself half represented and weakened.

    P

    Probably unpopular in the forums of hate, but I support both STC and IMBA, as I believe both make us stronger.

  50. #100
    Dirty by Nature
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,980
    My support for IMBA has dwindled steadily over the last few years to the point where it's now like the Cheshire Cat. Only I'm not smiling.

    Count me in, STC! Now where can I buy some product to replace my IMBA kit, including...socks (#100!)?

    Btw: Donated.
    Last edited by dirtvert; 12-16-2015 at 08:34 AM.
    Friends don't let friends ride e-"bikes" on dirt.

    Nature is not a sidewalk.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 205
    Last Post: 11-18-2016, 02:08 PM
  2. Sustainable Trails Coalition.ORG - Care to join the cause?
    By DaGoat in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 235
    Last Post: 05-02-2016, 07:23 AM
  3. PTBA Sustainable Trail Conference -- are you going?
    By HypNoTic in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-08-2014, 07:22 AM
  4. FASTA - Freeride and Sustainable Trail Association
    By Ride-Aid in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-2013, 04:45 PM
  5. Jim Thorpe Trail Coalition
    By topoftheworldma in forum Pennsylvania
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-12-2012, 10:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •