Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 393
  1. #101
    Formerly dvo
    Reputation: mtbrdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Send Davey some socks....he has deserves them.
    I'm the problem....

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drew p's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    294
    EXACTLY. I don't see why people see this as one vs. other. Personally, I do feel that the wilderness thing would be nice but mountain bike advocacy is SOOOO much bigger than this one issue. Without IMBA we've got nothing working at regional and national levels. Support them both with your $ as well as your local club with $ and time. May you be cursed with flat tires and broken chains if you can't give at least as much as you spend on tires each year!


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P View Post
    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.

  3. #103
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,395

    informed opinons

    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    This is the official IMBA response:

    https://www.imba.com/blog/mike-van-a...-policy-agenda
    I suppose I'm glad that IMBA finally got around to a "timely message"; unfortunately it's in keeping with the "too little, too late" theme.

    I'm glad they clarified "IMBA is not a national mountain biking club"; I'm not too sure that now knowing that they're "a true association" makes my understanding of their goals any better.

    Also glad they linked their Wilderness Toolkit; I hadn't taken the trouble to study this before now.


    From the "it just keeps getting worse dept" this IMBA blog response mentions "...as Wilderness accounts for only 2.7% of the total acreage in the continental US" as an apparent justification for their milquetoast Wilderness advocacy. Do they think I'm stupid enough to buy into this? I might give them some respect if they dug out a figure for "% of total available acreage". They're pushing the low ball too far...


    FWIW here in Calif. it's 31% of Federal land that is locked up as Wilderness Area; in some other western states the percentage is even higher.

    I'll keep paying my dues to IMBA but STC will be getting my discretionary donations.

    The rant shall continue.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  4. #104
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,512
    Quote Originally Posted by drew p View Post
    EXACTLY. I don't see why people see this as one vs. other. Personally, I do feel that the wilderness thing would be nice but mountain bike advocacy is SOOOO much bigger than this one issue. Without IMBA we've got nothing working at regional and national levels. Support them both with your $ as well as your local club with $ and time. May you be cursed with flat tires and broken chains if you can't give at least as much as you spend on tires each year!
    I hope that people continue to support their local IMBA club. Many of these clubs have been kind enough to endorse the STC. We don't have a chapter in Marin or the North Bay.

  5. #105
    I've had a Pliny
    Reputation: atayl0r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    389
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P View Post
    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.
    "You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Mr. P again"

    Dude, spot on.

  6. #106
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,896
    The bulk of wilderness is in the western states

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

  7. #107
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,424

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!

    Shit is getting crazy. I wonder who will be first to resign from IMBA over all this... similar to Jimmy Mac resigning from Mountain Bike Action once the magazine embraced e-MTBs? There's gotta be someone in IMBA who believes bicycling in Wilderness is not only appropriate, but also achievable!

  8. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    I suppose I'm glad that IMBA finally got around to a "timely message"; unfortunately it's in keeping with the "too little, too late" theme.

    I'm glad they clarified "IMBA is not a national mountain biking club"; I'm not too sure that now knowing that they're "a true association" makes my understanding of their goals any better.

    Also glad they linked their Wilderness Toolkit; I hadn't taken the trouble to study this before now.


    From the "it just keeps getting worse dept" this IMBA blog response mentions "...as Wilderness accounts for only 2.7% of the total acreage in the continental US" as an apparent justification for their milquetoast Wilderness advocacy. Do they think I'm stupid enough to buy into this? I might give them some respect if they dug out a figure for "% of total available acreage". They're pushing the low ball too far...


    FWIW here in Calif. it's 31% of Federal land that is locked up as Wilderness Area; in some other western states the percentage is even higher.

    I'll keep paying my dues to IMBA but STC will be getting my discretionary donations.

    The rant shall continue.
    2.7% of the country, how much of the ride-able land is it? I imagine a lot more than that.
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  9. #109
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,896
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiantsfan View Post
    2.7% of the country, how much of the ride-able land is it? I imagine a lot more than that.
    Between 10 and 50% depending on what you include. Most likely 20 to 30%. It is a huge number.

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

  10. #110
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,512
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    I suppose I'm glad that IMBA finally got around to a "timely message"; unfortunately it's in keeping with the "too little, too late" theme.

    I'm glad they clarified "IMBA is not a national mountain biking club"; I'm not too sure that now knowing that they're "a true association" makes my understanding of their goals any better.

    Also glad they linked their Wilderness Toolkit; I hadn't taken the trouble to study this before now.


    From the "it just keeps getting worse dept" this IMBA blog response mentions "...as Wilderness accounts for only 2.7% of the total acreage in the continental US" as an apparent justification for their milquetoast Wilderness advocacy. Do they think I'm stupid enough to buy into this? I might give them some respect if they dug out a figure for "% of total available acreage". They're pushing the low ball too far...


    FWIW here in Calif. it's 31% of Federal land that is locked up as Wilderness Area; in some other western states the percentage is even higher.

    I'll keep paying my dues to IMBA but STC will be getting my discretionary donations.

    The rant shall continue.
    The big problem with the wilderness issue is that the issue is so vague to so many outdoor recreation groups. Yay environmental protection, with the blinders on. No one realizes that wilderness areas comprise most of the "really epic" terrain in North America. If one really wants to get out there and get into the backcountry on a bike, all of the sudden wilderness areas comprise a lot of the terrain that would fit the "really epic" metric. Even worse, wilderness study areas and potential wilderness kick cyclists out of even more area than the IMBA will admit. Just ask the people at Save Montana Trails. 800 miles of trail lost in the last 10 years.

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: timetraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P View Post
    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.
    The problem with this is that IMBA is actively discouraging the STC proposal. If they had just said, "This is not an IMBA proposal and we chose to pursue other avenues for trail access." I don't think anyone would be too upset. It is Ashley's responses (granted she is not IMBA currently) and their detrimental comments that have stirred this response. I think IMBA's biggest fear is that STC will be successful. Think about the conversation in the boardroom. "Everyone likes a winner, our donations will dry up if STC succeeds". What if STC then finds a new cause for trail access after a big victory, who are you going to support with financial donations?
    I never said most of the things I said - Yogi Berra

  12. #112
    Air Pirate
    Reputation: Bokchoicowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by timetraveler View Post
    ...who are you going to support with financial donations?
    Simple, the one who gets more quality trail opened up to mountain biking at the national and local levels without giving away anything mountain bikers can already access.
    "You're messing with my zen thing, man!"

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    The big problem with the wilderness issue is that the issue is so vague to so many outdoor recreation groups. Yay environmental protection, with the blinders on. No one realizes that wilderness areas comprise most of the "really epic" terrain in North America. If one really wants to get out there and get into the backcountry on a bike, all of the sudden wilderness areas comprise a lot of the terrain that would fit the "really epic" metric. Even worse, wilderness study areas and potential wilderness kick cyclists out of even more area than the IMBA will admit. Just ask the people at Save Montana Trails. 800 miles of trail lost in the last 10 years.
    I've spent a lot of time in that "epic terrain" on foot, sometimes on horseback, and in the late 80's on my bike, and most of it would only be "ridable" to Hans Rey, Danny Macaskill, and other members of the 0.001% of mountain bikers with that level of skill, unless your idea of biking is hiking 1/2 mile for every 100 feet of trail that you can actually ride... Of course, much of that terrain is also extremely fragile, high alpine terrain: woefully thin soils and root systems among a matrix of frost heave rocks and dirt that only take a touch to erode; often geographically isolated and only acres in extant; buried under snow 9 months of the year; home to very rare animal and plant species some of which are on the edge of extinction as warming continues and their habitat shrinks; and it's already hammered along existing trails (and the many non-system human trails) by hikers, many of whom have no skills or knowledge to minimize their impacts. Bikes in most of these "epic" locations will only exacerbate these impacts. To state -or at the least imply- that all of these trails are rideable, and should be open to bikes ignores reality, ignores historical patterns of use, and ignores the ethical questions of how much impact should humans -and mountain bikers- inflict upon the environment and the flora and fauna that reside in these places.

    There are 1000's of square miles of existing Wilderness that see -at most- a few dozen people a year if that. They are that remote, that rugged, and that wild. Just because a person can carry their bike on their back to the top of a mountain on a loose, sketchy game or climber's trail doesn't mean that area is -or should be- "ridable." This shouldn't be a war against Wilderness -which provides many benefits far more important than human recreation- but rather a fight to avoid losing access to current trails and open up -on a case by case basis as is the intent of the STC effort- those trails that would be amenable to mountain bike use. It's easy to throw around numbers like "800 miles lost in 10 years" (actually 800 miles closed or at risk of closure in the last 5 years) but the fact of the matter is that a sizable amount -perhaps most- of those miles were not ridden by bikes at all prior to Wilderness designation and are simply not "ridable" unless your idea of biking is actually hiking 75%+ of the time; that or you are a super-human trials rider... They just happened to be in those areas that were designated Wilderness or are in WSAs.

    The concern and action evidenced on this thread and elsewhere against the loss of trails is a great thing. The divisive anger against other bike advocates, and the anger directed at environmental organizations (who are only one player in the original Wilderness policy in the late 70's early 80's and whose primary leaders/thinkers are now dead or retired) is really bad and does our advocacy work no good. The primary issue with resistance towards bike access in Wilderness lies in 30+ years of the status quo based on ill-informed (and commercial) decision made by past generations of policy makers, the continuing and persuasive mis-perceptiions of non-MTB'ers as to what mountain biking is and what its impacts are, a lack of knowledge of the 30+ years of science that shows that MTB impacts are equal to or lesser than traditional allowed Wilderness activities, resistance by other stakeholders (the livestock and pack outfitter industries in particular), and a lack of realization among the pro-Wilderness organizations about how the continued expansion of Wilderness is galvanizing the MTB community.

    Instead of focusing on attacks on other advocates and other stakeholders, our community should be working on educating other stakeholders as much as possible. Instead of attacks on online forums, how about sharing the science, educating on the factual reasons and reasoning behind the bike ban (it's not a conspiracy by environmentalist BTW), and why it was misguided? How about messaging environmental organizations that they are alienating a huge group of like-minded, potential allies in environmental causes (we all love and appreciate the outdoors and we all have environmental organizations and thinkers to thank for all of the public lands we are able to enjoy, do we not?)? How about realizing the distinction between national and local advocacy groups and understanding how their roles differ and how they strengthen the overall advocacy mission (and the fact that the opinion of a former ED of an organization does not reflect that of the current ED)? How about everyone recognize how much we all have in common and give some critical thought on the issue before responding with angry tirades or unsubstantiated charges (not aimed at you Davey, but our community in general)? It'll be a more focused and more successful method of achieving our goals.

  14. #114
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,512
    I don't know Hunter. I've done a lot of chatting with a friend that rides a lot out of SLC. There are a lot of wilderness areas that have a lot of trails that are not as difficult as you imply. I've seen the photos and I actually had a trip planned to this area next summer but just like the BWC I've missed the boat again. There are heaps of trails in the 5 proposed wilderness areas. Sure some may be to hard for me, but certainly not all of them.Not just the Grandure Peak area but the 4 other massive wilderness areas that will all but close the Wasatch to bikes except for the Crest and Mill Peak route to Park City. Yes Grandure Peak is hard. Few people ride it. Does that mean that it should be closed to bikes forever? 2/3rds of the Wasatch are already wilderness areas. Why won't a national monument without wilderness save the area from development? Why include the wilderness protection? Is it absolutely necessary? Why can't SOC even bother to asses the impact to the off road cycling community? Why can't they even list cycling as a prohibited activity in wilderness on their web page? WTF! Why are they making statements that this will have a zero impact on the off road cycling community? Clearly it will. Why are they being so dishonest? Sure they are not specifically anti bike, they just don't give a rats ass about off road cycling. They can still go skiing all they want. I'm sure the SUV that gets them to the trailhead with the skis and gear runs of rainbows and unicorns.

    As far as your concerns about the high alpine go... Sure those areas are difficult to protect and difficult to manage. I've spent almost all of my time in the high alpine backpacking and have seen them trashed by people who didn't have bikes. I know what LNT means. I'm an environmentalist myself as surprising as it may sound. I'm just not a hypocrite. I've met the Nature Conservatory's pilots for their private jet. I was laughing so hard afterwards. This planet will be completely uninhabitable mostly because of overconsumption by the wealthy elite, in about 100 years. Bikes won't help or hurt the current situation. If the Sierra Club took a hard line on a vegan diet and private jets I'd start to listen to them again. It isn't that I don't care for the environment. It is that I don't understand how banning bikes from wilderness will benefit anyone long term. The high alpine is disappearing at a rapid rate, not from bikes but from unsustainable transportation methods and food production methods that are contributing to the biggest change in temperature on planet earth. The 6th great extinction is happening now and mountain biking isn't to blame. Maybe environmentalists should concentrate on these issues instead of championing keeping bikes off of narrow dirt paths?

    But hey in our lifetime we can watch the world end from a mountain top and never worry about being bothered by seeing a mountain bike.

  15. #115
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,424
    I don't mind lots of hike-a-bike while on an epic adventure

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!-shoes.jpg

    And a good way to change minds of non-cyclists is to always practice this:

    Name:  Be-Nice-gallery.jpg
Views: 304
Size:  41.7 KB

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,015
    Davey, I've never implied that you are a hypocrite and I was speaking in general terms about Wilderness areas, especially those that were created prior to 2005 when the latest surge of Wilderness pushes began. The "really epic" terrain of which you mention is mostly in these older Wilderness areas and while there are areas like this in some current proposals or in the White Clouds, much of the current proposal areas are lower elevation, some are in desert climates, some are in places in the east and mid-west that have very little in the way of wild landscapes, and some are in response to very real risk of development (ski interconnect in the Wasatch and fracking oil and gas in Pennsylvania for example). I didn't even mention the proposals in the Wasatch, which are complicated maneuvers of developers, civic governments, the Feds, the state of Utah, and ski corporations, chief among them Vail Resorts, never a friend of Wilderness over profit.

    Why doesn't SOC list MTB'ing as prohibited in Wilderness? How about because it's pretty common knowledge., just like the fact that 4x4's motos, logging, mining, helicopter skiing, raves, RV camping, etc, are also not allowed. My educated guess (I've worked with SOC in the past on ski area issues) as to why they believe that this proposal won't impact MTB'ing is that they: one: aren't ardent mountain bikers, if at all, so don't share the passion and understanding of what they can do; two: don't see, and don't imagine, that bikes would ride up and down trails that are difficult, loose, rocky, and challenging enough for a day hiker; and three: believe, like I do, that there are places that bikes (or anyone in some cases) shouldn't go. That's part of the perception issue I've mentioned previously, they may not understand and "get" the sport and the abilities of those that practice it. This was the same argument I had with my boss when I quit my job in 2008 over his request that I draw up plans to add the Indian Ridge section of the Colorado Trail and much of the trails in the Hermosa Creek drainage to the Hidden Gems Wilderness proposal. There are places that bikes use with frequency because they are fun, they make critical connections, they provide a great experience, but I'm not alone in my belief that some trails aren't bike suitable due to erosion or wildlife issues, regardless of whether or not a few locals occasionally hike to the top of some peak to ride back down. I'd also probably conclude that they aren't hiker suitable for the same reason, but that would be a losing battle because hiking is pretty much allowed and accepted everywhere and anywhere...


    Lastly, if you are attempting to imply that I -or anyone that considers themselves environmentally minded- is a hypocrite by supporting environmental causes or organizations because one such org may use a corporate jet or not advocate living naked in a cave as a scavenger, than you'd have to count yourselves one as well. As an environmental professional -who quit his job and paycheck over the issue of Wilderness and bikes no-less- I don't ascribe to the view that the world is ending and therefore I should do whatever whereever I want. You should be aware that bike impacts, or those of hikers and horses for that matter, are not "big picture" issues, but they can be important, even critical, factors for water quality and the well-being and survival of wildlife and even some rare species of flora, among other issues. To compare the bikes in Wilderness issue to climate change, toxic contamination, industrial extraction, and other global issues that impact us all is disingenuous. Anger can get you fired up on an issue, and that can be a great motivator, but many among the MTB community are lashing out, stereotyping, and making grand accusations towards others without fully understanding their motivations, perspectives, and assumptions about an issue only serves to widen divides of understanding and undermine any meaningful attempts at cooperation and mutual agreement (if possible).

    BTW, the Wilderness proposal in the Wasatch is just that, a proposal. It will take time to enact, if it even gets that far, so go ride it next summer, there's nothing to stop you. Maybe I'll join you if you'll have me along...

  17. #117
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,351
    Huntermos nailed it in my opinion.

    Most of the Wilderness is not the issue as it is not rideable anyhow. The problem is the areas that are ridden and those that are rideable without causing any real harm.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #118
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,397
    Quote Originally Posted by huntermos View Post
    Anger can get you fired up on an issue, and that can be a great motivator, but many among the MTB community are lashing out, stereotyping, and making grand accusations towards others without fulling understanding their motivations, perspectives, and assumptions about an issue only serves to widen divides of understanding and undermine any meaningful attempts at cooperation and mutual agreement (if possible).
    This.

  19. #119
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,351
    Reading both Huntermos and Davey's posts, I actually think they agree on 97% of the issues under discussion, and 100% of the important points. We are all on the same team here.

  20. #120
    Dirty by Nature
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,074
    Yeah, I don't think the "wilderness is too hard to ride in" reasoning holds water (or that it's too fragile). The first thing that comes to my mind is the San Mateo Wilderness in Socal. You've probably never heard about it, and that's because it's on the wrong side of the tracks (well, Hwy 74). The famous San Juan trail (11 miles start-to-finish) and locally famous Chiquito trail are on the other side of the highway.

    The wilderness contains almost 40,000 acres, has miles and miles of trails, and sees very few humans. It would be an awesome place to ride. And there are similar areas up and down the state, where an imaginary line keeps us from riding just because very few people in 1964 could imagine that mountain biking would become mainstream decades later.

    Opening some wilderness areas to riding doesn't equate to opening the flood gates. Adding a handful (if that) of riders to those trails a few days a week won't affect the environment one way or another. That's just another tired old Sierra Club red herring... If you really want to minimize impact put your energy into banning horses.
    Last edited by dirtvert; 12-17-2015 at 08:33 AM.
    Friends don't let friends ride e-"bikes" on dirt.

    Nature is not a sidewalk.

  21. #121
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,395

    Epic!?!?

    That word epic seems to throw a hiccup into the conversation; "epic" is pretty darn hard to nail down once it leaves the realm of classical literature.

    Does one even need to ride "epic terrain" to have an epic adventure?

    There's a lot campsites in Wilderness areas accessed by full-blown pack-train trails that, yes, have truly "epic terrain" (and probably sensitive) surrounding them; that doesn't mean I need to go peak-bagging on my bike to have an epic experience. Low impact as it's said. I'd just like to be able get as far in on my bike as a saddle horse can; that's all I'm interested in. Red Bull wannabes stay home please.

    There are a lot of rides that could make for an epic loop but a chunk of Wilderness stands in the way.

    STC doesn't want to make Wilderness areas wide open to bikes; just access where appropriate. IMBA sort of wants to do the same thing with "corridors" and "cherry stems"; what little success they've had with that approach seems to be very restrictive. Hence; the STC...
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    140
    The term "wilderness" seems to invoke thoughts & perceptions that aren't matched by the reality of what wilderness actually is.

    Earlier this I was in a "Wilderness" area and could look down and see &/or hear:

    1 railroad line with almost hourly trains,
    1 major cross country Interstate hwy carrying thousands of cars & trucks daily,
    3 different State hwys,
    1000s of houses, one of which is my own,
    Dozens of boats on the lake.

    This was hardly the pristine & desolate experience I expect when I read or hear the term "Wilderness".

  23. #123
    Air Pirate
    Reputation: Bokchoicowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by powpig View Post
    The term "wilderness" seems to invoke thoughts & perceptions that aren't matched by the reality of what wilderness actually is.

    Earlier this I was in a "Wilderness" area and could look down and see &/or hear:

    1 railroad line with almost hourly trains,
    1 major cross country Interstate hwy carrying thousands of cars & trucks daily,
    3 different State hwys,
    1000s of houses, one of which is my own,
    Dozens of boats on the lake.

    This was hardly the pristine & desolate experience I expect when I read or hear the term "Wilderness".

    As far as "pristine"....many of the original 54 areas set aside as wilderness by the passing of the Wilderness Act in 1964 as well as many of the rest of the over 700 areas made wilderness since were not pristine when they received the protected designation. Many were already altered by man by mining, logging, or other industry...or in some cases used for military purposes such as artillery ranges (i.e. Dolly Sods Wilderness in West Virginia). Nature has come back and taken over again in these places, but they are not untouched or "untrammeled by man" to use the wording of the Wilderness Act.
    "You're messing with my zen thing, man!"

  24. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ryanxj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,154
    I vote huntermos for 2016
    Every trails a flow trail ifya would just learn how to ride-stop dumbing down the planet

  25. #125
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,896
    Besides the fact that not all wilderness is high alpine fragile trail, the reason why trails are unrideable is mostly due to the inane restrictions on power tools. The STC is trying to fix this as well. As for the "untrammeled by man" concept it's total BS and completely ignores native American history.

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

  26. #126
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,424
    TAMBA weighs in with money and reason:

    https://www.facebook.com/Sustainable...r&notif_t=like

  27. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,705
    That's awesome!

    Loved that they CC'd IMBA
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  28. #128
    Yeti SB95c
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    I'm with TAMBA and I'm going to contribute $.

    I'm exploring organizing the Our Trails Alliance. Our Trails Alliance | Take Control Of Our South SF Bay Trails The purpose will be to change the business model of land agencies in first the South SF Bay Area so they work for the trail users, not themselves. No more begging for new trails and access. Midpen, Santa Clara and San Mateo County Parks, etc will be more like contractors to the user group. Of course the user group will include all users, not just MTB.

    I've done this before. Check out Our Trails Alliance | Take Control Of Our South SF Bay Trails and subscribe to show support.

    I'm still working on the purpose text to get it right. Of course I would love feedback.

    We are not bound forever to the current organizational models of boards and commissions. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that specifies the current model.

    The USFS is an open organization with great people. Let's replace other land agency management with USFS managers. That will change things fast. Yes, I've done this before. It isn't impossible, or even that hard. Join me!

    If we can get it to work in Silicon Valley and the SF Peninsula we can spread it throughout California.

    IMBA has the slows.

    Jim
    MTB blog for intermediates: http://intermediatemtb.com. Trail analysis videos, bike and component reviews, other stuff.

  29. #129
    Dirty by Nature
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,074
    I heart TAMBA.
    Friends don't let friends ride e-"bikes" on dirt.

    Nature is not a sidewalk.

  30. #130
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,395

    Don't miss this...

    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation: squareback's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,447
    The hit squad has been sent after K.G.(A.S.S.) on his facebook page.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Meldrum, owner of Oakridge Adventures, Hood River Oregon
    The Wilderness has always accessable to all, you just have to hike to get there.
    Quote Originally Posted by John David Baca, ironically a privileged white dude
    Kurt P Gensheimer your argument here has become what negotiators call positional. This typically fails unless your position is extrodinarily strong, which it is not. You have some valid points but your fighting historical precident and negative perceptions in side a bureaucracy. Starting from a postition that vastly over estimates your own importance to the matter (I know thats the mt. biker way [probably itself a matter of the sport being one largely perused by privileged white dudes]
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve who must be on IMBA paid staff
    But, as a mountain bike of 33+ years, I feel itís OK to have wilderness with disappearing Historical trails, that itís OK to have no biking in Wilderness Study areas. Itís even OK to not defer these decisions to local land managers susceptible to more in-your-face pressue I know Iím in the minority here, but someone has to speak up for true wilderness.

  32. #132
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    IMBA won't stick its neck out for mtb. They will, however, peek through a partially opened door to see if the coast is clear and claim some credit.
    I don't rattle.

  33. #133
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,395

    STC; time to write letters

    Those of us who have donated to the cause got an email this morning updating STC's progress and also a notification that it's time to start communicating with our elected representatives in support of Wilderness Area bicycle access.

    And not just via quickie email; drop half a buck on a stamp and send a hard copy via snail mail:

    "Which leads us to what we now need from you. We are now at the point where we need to have each of you, and your friends, write a letter to your legislators in Congress (representatives and senators). Our D.C. advisers recommend physical letters, not emails, as snail mail indicates that someone feels particularly strongly about an issue. They also recommend that we not use a form letteróall letters should be personal and individualized. So we are not going to say anything more than you should tell them how you feel about lack of bike access in Wilderness and on the Pacific Crest and Continental Divide trails."

    ...or send an email AND a letter!
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  34. #134
    Yeti SB95c
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    Donated but nothing from STC. Maybe they only contact donors of over $1000.
    MTB blog for intermediates: http://intermediatemtb.com. Trail analysis videos, bike and component reviews, other stuff.

  35. #135
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,395
    Quote Originally Posted by jmpreston View Post
    Donated but nothing from STC. Maybe they only contact donors of over $1000.
    I'm not to the $1K mark (yet). Maybe check your spam folder?
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  36. #136
    Dirty by Nature
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,074
    ^^ Mine was in my Google "Promotions" folder.
    Friends don't let friends ride e-"bikes" on dirt.

    Nature is not a sidewalk.

  37. #137
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    IMBA won't stick its neck out for mtb. They will, however, peek through a partially opened door to see if the coast is clear and claim some credit.
    Ha!!

    I'm actually quite cool with that. We will need IMBA's local chapters and advocates to speak up for access in local areas once the blanket ban is lifted.

    They can take all the credit they like IMO.

  38. #138
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,512
    Quote Originally Posted by jmpreston View Post
    Donated but nothing from STC. Maybe they only contact donors of over $1000.
    Ted has been writing a lot of very personal emails to donors. Nearly all of them under 1K.

    If you can't find your letter I'd be happy to buy you a beer or 3 at gestalt this week. PM me if you don't have much going on with the rainy weather.

    Thank you very much!!!

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    398
    What action are we asking our representatives for?

    A generic 'I like bikes yay'?
    A request for help "I want to bike in places which i used to be able but are now 'wilderness', please help me"?
    A note of support 'I like the work the STC is doing to help biking'?
    A very specific 'please support resolution/thingy xyz'?

    I assume we're earlier in the continuum--but where?

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,041
    You should have gotten an auto-generated thank you from STC. Everyone is getting one. Also, STC thanked you personally on FB in response to a message you posted, if it's still there.

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,041
    STC board members are starting to hear requests for more letter-writing guidance than the e-mail provided. The board is going to have to send out another e-mail with more specifics. But it won't be until after Christmas.

    If anyone's having trouble deciding what to write, it's better to wait for more guidance. If anyone is planning to go ahead now, you can certainly mention STC but don't have to. Whether you do or not, a letter should say that the bans on bicycles in Wilderness and the PCT (if you care about the latter) are out of date, bad for both conservation and recreation, and need to go. You can also say you've heard a bill may be introduced that would let local land managers decide where human-powered travelers can go, and you support that, because the current Wilderness ban rests on edicts from Washington, D.C. that are decades old and don't take local knowledge into account. Something like that would be fine.

  42. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke View Post
    STC board members are starting to hear requests for more letter-writing guidance than the e-mail provided. The board is going to have to send out another e-mail with more specifics. But it won't be until after Christmas.
    Thanks; the guidance you have here is good too. I just don't want the representatives to be put the letter in the WTF pile, if the goal is that they should be putting it in the take action pile.

    Do consider posting draft guidance somewhere like here, where you'll reach a number of people who can provide you feedback before you send to everyone.

  43. #143
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,424

    Re: Writing your legislators...

    Re: Writing your legislators...

    It would probably be very good to bring up how lots of kids are connecting with nature and the outdoors via riding bicycles, whether they be little one's on striders or bigger ones on an ever-growing high school mountain bike team. These are the next generation of conservationists, forest rangers and land managers who matter so much when it comes to protecting wild places now and in the future. They are people who don't share their die hard Sierra Club grandparent's ideals that bicycles are evil, dangerous or inappropriate in nature. Wilderness can't be experienced or cared about on a mobile device or video game either.

    Personal stories about your kids and the outdoors would be powerful additions to your letters.

  44. #144
    More pie please
    Reputation: Skyline35's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,644

    Question for the STC folksÖ

    Some of what the STC is asking for seems analogous to the 2012 change in Natíl Park Service policy to which shifted the bikes/no-bikes decision to the local office. Could you compare and contrast this to the STC proposal for me?

    I ask because if that NPS policy change is analogous, then it seems like a positive, real-world example of what would happen if the STC is successful.

    Thanks,
    ///Charlie

  45. #145
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Ha!!

    I'm actually quite cool with that. We will need IMBA's local chapters and advocates to speak up for access in local areas once the blanket ban is lifted.

    They can take all the credit they like IMO.
    It will be the same locals who will do the speaking, make no mistake. Bid for local SF BayChapters is a pure power and money grab now that the hardest work has been done while IMBA has taken CA and SF monies and worked everywhere else but here for 25 years. I was at the table in 2012 with 25 local advocates and they saw it for what it was.
    I don't rattle.

  46. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    140
    Looks like the bar is set so low, they'll now make just about any place a National Park.

    Americaís most polluted nuclear site is now a national park /

  47. #147
    MarkyMark
    Reputation: MarkMass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,196
    Thanks for your work on this important issue, Davey! I just donated to STC.

    - I saw that Philip Keyes @ NEMBA took a stance supporting STC. That reminds me that I need to re-up with NEMBA. I left the Greater Boston area years ago and kept up my membership.
    - I think I got a letter from IMBA asking for money or membership renewal. I think I'll let it lapse and send the $ to TAMBA instead.

  48. #148
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,424
    Wow.

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!-memo1.jpg

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!-memo2.jpg

    Timeline on how things went from bikes okay to bikes not okay, to actually bikes are okay, to no bikes:

    https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...5944704&type=3

  49. #149
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,512
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMass View Post
    Thanks for your work on this important issue, Davey! I just donated to STC.

    - I saw that Philip Keyes @ NEMBA took a stance supporting STC. That reminds me that I need to re-up with NEMBA. I left the Greater Boston area years ago and kept up my membership.
    - I think I got a letter from IMBA asking for money or membership renewal. I think I'll let it lapse and send the $ to TAMBA instead.
    Cheers! The NEMBA support was a huge step in the right direction. As was TAMBA's endorsement and big donation.

    Keep in mind I'm riding on the coat tails of a much smarter group of advocates. Ted Stroll being a dude we all owe a huge debt of gratitude.

    I'm really pleased they let me join the board. I'll keep working on this issue till the day I die.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  50. #150
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,512
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMass View Post
    Thanks for your work on this important issue, Davey! I just donated to STC.

    - I saw that Philip Keyes @ NEMBA took a stance supporting STC. That reminds me that I need to re-up with NEMBA. I left the Greater Boston area years ago and kept up my membership.
    - I think I got a letter from IMBA asking for money or membership renewal. I think I'll let it lapse and send the $ to TAMBA instead.
    Also Mark, thanks for donating! Sorry I didn't put that in my first response to you! Oops!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 208
    Last Post: 3 Weeks Ago, 03:48 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
  •