Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 400
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Trailseeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    551
    I have been am member of IMBA for more years than I can possibly remember. I have been on the fence for opting out as well for a while. I totally support the efforts of STC. I am now going to end my membership to IMBA and send money to STC instead. I still belong to a club that is an IMBA member. Yes, that costs money as well, but I am glad to pay for belonging.

    I wish there was some way I could send a message to IMBA to let them know exactly why I am ending my membership. Any ideas?

  2. #202
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Trailseeker View Post
    I have been am member of IMBA for more years than I can possibly remember. I have been on the fence for opting out as well for a while. I totally support the efforts of STC. I am now going to end my membership to IMBA and send money to STC instead. I still belong to a club that is an IMBA member. Yes, that costs money as well, but I am glad to pay for belonging.

    I wish there was some way I could send a message to IMBA to let them know exactly why I am ending my membership. Any ideas?
    Consider keeping the IMBA membership. Doubly so if you have a local IMBA chapter. The IMBA is still very important, doubly so the regional chapters. STC are the only ones making a push for cycling on trails nationally. Locally IMBA is still very helpful. So simple, so easy. Yet everyone wants to turn this into a US vs THEM argument drama also sells interwebz ads. So there is that too. Please do fall for this. Be smarter than that! STC is not advocating with making trouble for the IMBA, the IMBA is doing that to themselves by not at the very least - getting out of the way of the STC. Hopefully, this is a temporary issue.

    Support both. STC will never have Subaru's with trail crews nationally. IMBA will not/has not written a bill for Congress, specifically for bike access. In fact the IMBA has agreed not to with the Sierra Club (the Park City agreement). So again STC, nationally, IMBA locally.
    Last edited by Davey Simon; 01-25-2016 at 10:03 PM.

  3. #203
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,993
    Bravo!
    Every rose has it's thorn.

    enjoy the ear worm

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,335
    Well, this year money is a little tight, so I am picking one, STC.
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  5. #205
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiantsfan View Post
    Well, this year money is a little tight, so I am picking one, STC.
    Name:  Jeff+Spicoli.jpg
Views: 492
Size:  9.7 KB

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ryanxj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,176
    ^^

    Every trails a flow trail ifya would just learn how to ride-stop dumbing down the planet

  7. #207
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,509
    Former IMBA chair and newest STC board member, John Bliss, chats with Vernon Felton of Bike Magazine to answer a few questions:

    Room for Two? | BIKE Magazine

  8. #208
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Reading up on this history was pretty cool. Learning that the Sierra Club wasn't always a HOHA's organization that literally does nothing while the world melts and rejoices in keeping children out of wild places was certainly refreshing.
    People forget . . . . If not for the Sierra Club and like-minded folks, there would be a lot fewer national parks, a lot more development spread across the woods, Mt. Tam State Park would be smaller than it is, and there would be a reservoir where Muir Woods stands today. People who condemn the Sierra Club here have probably ridden trails that would be paved roads or private land if not for the Sierra Club. Their anti-bike approach prevents me from supporting them any more, unfortunately, but these are not bad people; just ignorant/misguided in some ways that are important to us mountain bikers.

  9. #209
    Yeti SB95c
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,222
    J-Flo, that's enough rationality. This is the era of presidential candidates like Trump. Nobody wants to think like that anymore.

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

  10. #210
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,148
    Quote Originally Posted by J-Flo View Post
    People forget . . . . If not for the Sierra Club and like-minded folks, there would be a lot fewer national parks, a lot more development spread across the woods, Mt. Tam State Park would be smaller than it is, and there would be a reservoir where Muir Woods stands today. People who condemn the Sierra Club here have probably ridden trails that would be paved roads or private land if not for the Sierra Club. Their anti-bike approach prevents me from supporting them any more, unfortunately, but these are not bad people; just ignorant/misguided in some ways that are important to us mountain bikers.
    Past achievements do not excuse current actions. Sierra Club changed.

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Past achievements do not excuse current actions. Sierra Club changed.
    It's fun visiting the Sierra Club's lodge in the Sierra and reading their history there. I should probably take some pictures of what they have on display before they hide it. You see, they used to *run* a ski area. Very much of the 'if you see and enjoy nature you will protect it' attitude (insert John Muir quote here). Yes, some of the move towards protection is based on science and understanding human impact, but much is anti-science.

    (In the Bay Area, they've long been anti-housing. Of course, that's pro sprawl and pro global warming, but it does make their existing houses look a bit prettier. And has bitten them since they had to vacate their SF headquarters due to rising rent.)

  12. #212
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,148
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmtb View Post
    It's fun visiting the Sierra Club's lodge in the Sierra and reading their history there. I should probably take some pictures of what they have on display before they hide it. You see, they used to *run* a ski area. Very much of the 'if you see and enjoy nature you will protect it' attitude (insert John Muir quote here). Yes, some of the move towards protection is based on science and understanding human impact, but much is anti-science.

    (In the Bay Area, they've long been anti-housing. Of course, that's pro sprawl and pro global warming, but it does make their existing houses look a bit prettier. And has bitten them since they had to vacate their SF headquarters due to rising rent.)
    From Facebook (Sierra Club is pushing hard against minimal recreational access to Water lands on SF peninsula.)

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!-12002977_1009599745737456_1316333956389058760_n.jpg

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JHart94949's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    382
    I know its not all up front but I set up an automatic $20 every month to STC through PayPal. $20x12=$240 I recommend this route for those who don't have $200 to donate all at once.

  14. #214
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    From Facebook (Sierra Club is pushing hard against minimal recreational access to Water lands on SF peninsula.)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	12002977_1009599745737456_1316333956389058760_n.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	74.1 KB 
ID:	1047494
    Damn who made that image? Hammer meet nail!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #215
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    From Facebook (Sierra Club is pushing hard against minimal recreational access to Water lands on SF peninsula.)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	12002977_1009599745737456_1316333956389058760_n.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	74.1 KB 
ID:	1047494
    "Everybody needs...places to play in..."

    ---John Muir


    FWIW California State Parks quietly dropped "Recreation" from their "casual" name; the bias against recreation runs deep.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  16. #216
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Damn who made that image?
    https://www.facebook.com/opentheSFwatershed

    One initiative that really needs our support.

    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    the bias against recreation runs deep.
    It is the natural aversion to doing any actual work that is natural to any established bureaucratic system.

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blackies Pasture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    316
    relevant?


    IMBA developing volunteer app with unself | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News

    BOULDER, Colo. (BRAIN) — The International Mountain Bicycling Association is developing a mobile app for its volunteers and volunteer coordinators, working with unself, a company that develops similar apps for a variety of community organizations.
    IMBA will provide subject matter expertise in return for unself providing access to its mobile app and web portal that will include features specific to IMBA's requirements.
    "This app means new possibilities for our local chapters and a better tool to measure the incredible volume of stewardship IMBA and its chapters influence," said Kevin Adams, IMBDA's vice president of chapter and member services.
    The app is designed to streamline the process of promoting, coordinating, and reporting volunteer events.
    "We look forward to supporting IMBA by helping expand and diversify its volunteer base," said Karl Schroeder, unself's chief product officer. "This partnership will help us develop the best tool for organizations to cultivate new interest while also furthering our mission to best serve volunteers."

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,041
    I don't understand what those paragraphs of nebulous corporate-speak even mean! Can someone translate them into English?

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    431
    My read:
    IMBA is working on providing a volunteer management tool to its chapters.

    No idea what this has to do with the STC. It does fit with IMBA's current direction on chapter support, and doesn't seem to directly impact any particular external political issue.

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,374
    I think the more appropriate place for this would be in the recent IMBA thread personally.

    Just a thought...

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mossterioso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    181
    BOULDER, Colo. (BRAIN) — The International Mountain Bicycling Association is developing a mobile app for its volunteers and volunteer coordinators, working with unself, a company that develops similar apps for a variety of community organizations.
    IMBA will provide subject matter expertise in return for unself providing access to its mobile app and web portal that will include features specific to IMBA's requirements.
    "This app means new possibilities for our local chapters and a better tool to measure the incredible volume of stewardship IMBA and its chapters influence," said Kevin Adams, IMBDA's vice president of chapter and member services.
    The app is designed to streamline the process of promoting, coordinating, and reporting volunteer events.
    "We look forward to supporting IMBA by helping expand and diversify its volunteer base," said Karl Schroeder, unself's chief product officer. "This partnership will help us develop the best tool for organizations to cultivate new interest while also furthering our mission to best serve volunteers."[/QUOTE]

    This is a great idea, it will streamline the process of keeping track of volunteer hours that mountain bikers contribute in trail maintenance. Even if you are working solo, you will be able to add that contribution to a politically relevant database. Good use of Tech.

  22. #222
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by mossterioso View Post
    BOULDER, Colo. (BRAIN) — The International Mountain Bicycling Association is developing a mobile app for its volunteers and volunteer coordinators, working with unself, a company that develops similar apps for a variety of community organizations.
    IMBA will provide subject matter expertise in return for unself providing access to its mobile app and web portal that will include features specific to IMBA's requirements.
    "This app means new possibilities for our local chapters and a better tool to measure the incredible volume of stewardship IMBA and its chapters influence," said Kevin Adams, IMBDA's vice president of chapter and member services.
    The app is designed to streamline the process of promoting, coordinating, and reporting volunteer events.
    "We look forward to supporting IMBA by helping expand and diversify its volunteer base," said Karl Schroeder, unself's chief product officer. "This partnership will help us develop the best tool for organizations to cultivate new interest while also furthering our mission to best serve volunteers."
    This is a great idea, it will streamline the process of keeping track of volunteer hours that mountain bikers contribute in trail maintenance. Even if you are working solo, you will be able to add that contribution to a politically relevant database. Good use of Tech.[/QUOTE]

    Bit of a thread drift but:

    I really wish for the best and hope that this IMBA app means more volunteers out at Tamarancho. Same with the teen trail corps. Out of the entire NICA league I've only seen these kids out and they were far too young and gravity oriented for NICA:



    But at least they get it. Two rather large NICA camps at T-ranch recently with riders there all weekend. I'm cool with it but one would hope that trail MX is at least worth a mention.

    I've already contacted the Teen Trail Corps and offered up trail days "whenever". I hope they send us some volunteers. The two kids above cleared almost all the drains on the trail along with a few others. A NICA team could get the trial cleared in just a couple of hours max. The NICA teams love riding at Tranch but other than the odd straggler, zero MX participation this season.

    Of course that could be said for the entire cycling community as well. We have a zero budget and alcohol is prohibited at Tranch so we can't rock it like MBOSC but it's tough getting people involved in what should be a very basic part of off road cycling.

    I'm cautiously optimistic that an app could change things for the better but there is a cultural issue to the problem the app is trying to solve.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Silent_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    323
    Oh crap, Simon, don't open that can of worms! When I worked for the NorCal League (before NICA), I suggested that ALL athletes be required to do at least 8 hours of trail work over the summer to be able to participate in any League race/function, almost got laughed out of the room, couldn't believe it, I guess that's what you get with the league being run by roadies at the time....

  24. #224
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,509
    More from STC's John Bliss, via The Angry Singlespeeder:

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

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrozCountry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,344
    Quote Originally Posted by mossterioso View Post
    BOULDER, Colo. (BRAIN) — The International Mountain Bicycling Association is developing a mobile app for its volunteers and volunteer coordinators, working with unself, a company that develops similar apps for a variety of community organizations.
    IMBA will provide subject matter expertise in return for unself providing access to its mobile app and web portal that will include features specific to IMBA's requirements.
    Interesting approach. They could have tried to make an open source app instead, that developers which are also mountain bikers will contribute to. Bikers and trail workers would build the features they actually need. But then IMBA will not have as much control.

  26. #226
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,509
    96% of mt. bikers recently surveyed say they are in favor of Wilderness access.

    I would have guessed it would be 75% in favor and 25% opposed. Even more interesting to me is the younger demographic was even more in favor of Wilderness access than the older respondents, indicating that this issue will absolutely go away as older folks retire or pass on and today's youth is left to manage our public lands.

    96% of Mountain Bikers Think Wilderness Should Be Opened to Bikes | Singletracks Mountain Bike News

    I'm also surprised that IMBA hasn't (AFAIK) conducted a more robust survey of its members regarding Wilderness, even using a 3rd party to conduct it.

  27. #227
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    IMBA's take on designated Wilderness access:
    IMBA’s 2016 Position on Land Protection and Mountain Bike Trail Access


    IMBA’s board has determined that IMBA's mission and the mountain bike enthusiast community is best served by reiterating our strong commitment to collaboration and further diversifying and strengthening our broad partnerships
    Partnerships with who? the Sierra Club?

    ...IMBA will continue to respect both the Wilderness Act and the federal land agencies' regulations that bicycles are not allowed in existing Wilderness areas.
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,374
    Thanks Chum!

    Buuhhhh-Bye IMBA...

  29. #229
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,993
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    IMBA's take on designated Wilderness access:
    IMBA’s 2016 Position on Land Protection and Mountain Bike Trail Access




    Partnerships with who? the Sierra Club?



    They clearly can't agree on a way forward, hence the double speak that achieves nothing ...

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

  30. #230
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Bit of a thread drift but:

    I really wish for the best and hope that this IMBA app means more volunteers out at Tamarancho. Same with the teen trail corps. Out of the entire NICA league I've only seen these kids out and they were far too young and gravity oriented for NICA:
    Apologies for continued thread drift, but this doesn't sound right. I would think the kids on the big teams at Drake, Redwood, SRHS etc. would show up to work on their good local singletrack if prodded and am guessing they are just in a different orbit for trail work. I would also think that a call out to their coaches would remedy that pretty quickly if more able bodies are needed to help. Reach out to Otis and Sarah at Drake (emails available here Coaches and Staff Bios ? Drake High School ? Mountain Bike Team), team director Julia at Redwood (info@rhsmtb.com), and Jon at SRHS (coachjon@dawgsmtb.org).

    Quote Originally Posted by Silent_G View Post
    Oh crap, Simon, don't open that can of worms! When I worked for the NorCal League (before NICA), I suggested that ALL athletes be required to do at least 8 hours of trail work over the summer to be able to participate in any League race/function, almost got laughed out of the room, couldn't believe it, I guess that's what you get with the league being run by roadies at the time....
    This is a soft requirement for some teams. At Berkeley we say students are expected to volunteer for at least one day per season, but this is not enforced as a mandatory requirement (and most of our efforts are in the East Bay so you don't see us much on Marin work days). I favor making it mandatory.

  31. #231
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,502

    The last straw

    Coming on the heels of the ST MBN's "96% of MTBers want wilderness access" survey results this position statement is the last straw for me.

    https://www.imba.com/news/2016Advocacy

    What I said here # 140 was "They've made it pretty clear now with this press release, I guess my support for IMBA must cease" and I'm saying it again.

    IMBA's bread is obviously being buttered by various industry groups; not by grass-roots users.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  32. #232
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,368
    From IMBA's release:

    IMBA’s government relations and chapter-based advocacy activities are deliberately crafted with long-term, continuous success as a primary objective. Therefore, we believe that aligning with any organization or strategy that threatens our long-term success would not be in our members’ best interests. Preserving and improving effective working relationships with the various land management agencies that we have developed over the years is critically important to achieving this. We have been accused of being an organization of compromise, but that is the essence of long-term success in our democracy where many differing viewpoints on federal land protection are heard as a matter of environmental law.
    In other words, they don't think STC's effort will succeed, therefore they think it dangerous to try. Between the lines is the fear of upsetting allies in the environmental movement. The part about upsetting land management agencies is baloney; land managers have no problem working with people who are trying to change the law or influence the rulemaking process and IMBA already does that extensively.

    If pro-environment activists thought this way, most of their achievements over the last 50+ years would not have occurred. It would have been much easier to go along with Big Oil, Big Mining, Big Timber etc. and avoid ruffling feathers, losing votes, and creating enemies. Certainly the environmentalists have lost more battles than they have won over the years. Yet the environmentalists manage to work with other groups (e.g., hunters) with whom many of them have strong disagreements. Why is IMBA afraid of disagreeing with them?

    Part of the problem here is that there is an aggressive move to expand Wilderness protections in numerous areas, which is already threatening to lead to banning of bikes in non-Wilderness areas (a land management strategy to make the Wilderness designation less of a change and therefore easier to push through). When mountain bikers' only response is to fight for alternative designations (e.g., Nat'l Monument) or changes to boundaries, that just lumps us in with the motorsports crowd.

    The rest of IMBA's argument, that Wilderness is only 2.9% of US acreage in the "lower 49" states, therefore this is not a big deal and we should stop complaining, is similar to the argument by Marin land managers that we have such wonderful "trail" access that we don't need more. Wrongheaded and unfortunate. And of course completely misstates reality on the ground in the Western states.

    Apparently IMBA's Board believes that we mountain bikers as a group are truly very weak and ineffective and will be unable to accomplish anything without support/collaboration with those who seek to expand Wilderness and thus expand the areas where bikes are banned. Thus we have to settle for whatever "successes" we can achieve and should not attempt anything risky. How did IMBA become so conservative and risk-averse? It seems incompatible with the spirit of mountain biking. Frankly, I think it says that IMBA has decided it is a weak and ineffective organization and should not get ambitious. Disappointing.

    The one bright spot I see here is IMBA's conclusion:

    We also want to encourage supporters to recognize that there is room in the public policy arena for you to support multiple organizations. If you are aligned with other mountain bike advocacy organizations’ vision, strategies and tactics, please support them. If you plan on mountain biking long term, IMBA values your loyal support too! This is a win-win for all.
    I read this as saying IMBA won't oppose STC. That's good. IMBA had better stick to this. We don't need a war inside the MTB community.

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,335
    Quote Originally Posted by J-Flo View Post
    From IMBA's release:



    In other words, they don't think STC's effort will succeed, therefore they think it dangerous to try. Between the lines is the fear of upsetting allies in the environmental movement. The part about upsetting land management agencies is baloney; land managers have no problem working with people who are trying to change the law or influence the rulemaking process and IMBA already does that extensively.

    If pro-environment activists thought this way, most of their achievements over the last 50+ years would not have occurred. It would have been much easier to go along with Big Oil, Big Mining, Big Timber etc. and avoid ruffling feathers, losing votes, and creating enemies. Certainly the environmentalists have lost more battles than they have won over the years. Yet the environmentalists manage to work with other groups (e.g., hunters) with whom many of them have strong disagreements. Why is IMBA afraid of disagreeing with them?

    Part of the problem here is that there is an aggressive move to expand Wilderness protections in numerous areas, which is already threatening to lead to banning of bikes in non-Wilderness areas (a land management strategy to make the Wilderness designation less of a change and therefore easier to push through). When mountain bikers' only response is to fight for alternative designations (e.g., Nat'l Monument) or changes to boundaries, that just lumps us in with the motorsports crowd.

    The rest of IMBA's argument, that Wilderness is only 2.9% of US acreage in the "lower 49" states, therefore this is not a big deal and we should stop complaining, is similar to the argument by Marin land managers that we have such wonderful "trail" access that we don't need more. Wrongheaded and unfortunate. And of course completely misstates reality on the ground in the Western states.

    Apparently IMBA's Board believes that we mountain bikers as a group are truly very weak and ineffective and will be unable to accomplish anything without support/collaboration with those who seek to expand Wilderness and thus expand the areas where bikes are banned. Thus we have to settle for whatever "successes" we can achieve and should not attempt anything risky. How did IMBA become so conservative and risk-averse? It seems incompatible with the spirit of mountain biking. Frankly, I think it says that IMBA has decided it is a weak and ineffective organization and should not get ambitious. Disappointing.

    The one bright spot I see here is IMBA's conclusion:



    I read this as saying IMBA won't oppose STC. That's good. IMBA had better stick to this. We don't need a war inside the MTB community.
    I think they are saying to keep giving money to IMBA.

    They are opposing STC by saying "we believe that aligning with any organization or strategy that threatens our long-term success would not be in our members’ best interests"
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  34. #234
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiantsfan View Post
    I think they are saying to keep giving money to IMBA.

    They are opposing STC by saying "we believe that aligning with any organization or strategy that threatens our long-term success would not be in our members’ best interests"
    IMBAs press conference follows behind the scenes politics. For now I can't say what happened but I can say it involved the Wilderness Society and the IMBA

    Sadly the outlook regarding the IMBA and STS "seeing eye to eye" remains incredibly important and a slim possibility. Although I have yet to hear the audio from today's press conference.

    STC will continue to push forward. After a bit of "sad panda" soul searching I've decided that this movement will continue to build and grow despite the best efforts of the IMBA.

    I remain positive due to the recent polling results and the overall success of STC due to our supporters. Onward to victory.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  35. #235
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!

    Quote Originally Posted by J-Flo View Post
    Apologies for continued thread drift, but this doesn't sound right. I would think the kids on the big teams at Drake, Redwood, SRHS etc. would show up to work on their good local singletrack if prodded and am guessing they are just in a different orbit for trail work. I would also think that a call out to their coaches would remedy that pretty quickly if more able bodies are needed to help. Reach out to Otis and Sarah at Drake (emails available here Coaches and Staff Bios ? Drake High School ? Mountain Bike Team), team director Julia at Redwood (info@rhsmtb.com), and Jon at SRHS (coachjon@dawgsmtb.org).



    This is a soft requirement for some teams. At Berkeley we say students are expected to volunteer for at least one day per season, but this is not enforced as a mandatory requirement (and most of our efforts are in the East Bay so you don't see us much on Marin work days). I favor making it mandatory.
    I'll let you know if any NICA teams show up for a trail day. I already mentioned I've reached out to team trail corps effort as well. We won't turn any volunteers away.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Davey Simon; 02-18-2016 at 09:58 PM.

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrozCountry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,344
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    IMBA's bread is obviously being buttered by various industry groups; not by grass-roots users.
    Wouldn't the industry want more open trails? More trails = more sales?

  37. #237
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by CrozCountry View Post
    Wouldn't the industry want more open trails? More trails = more sales?
    Industry is interested in the illusion of more open trails; an illusion that IMBA does well.

    Industry has avoided STC like it has STD; not a dime of support from the big MFG's I've been told.

    Industry want trails where the image of fun comes in the form of a $10K bike going big. Not much money in bikes adequately suited for "low impact recreation".

    Besides; IMBA reports only 2.9% of the land in the lower 48 is in wilderness so why bother with such meager gains? Surely this must be true coming from IMBA.
    Last edited by Moe Ped; 02-19-2016 at 08:27 AM.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  38. #238
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,993
    2.9% of total land but more like 30% of open space

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

  39. #239
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    2.9% of total land but more like 30% of open space

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Yes 2.9% fixed my post. Where IMBA is off by a factor of more than 10 is that here in California 31% of federal land is locked up in wilderness area. Very significant considering CA is the most populated state at around 12% of USA totals.

    IMBA likes to take our monies and what are we getting in return?


    (actually more than 31% if one adds in state wilderness; STC is not yet going after that though)
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827

    Nor Cal kids coming to Mendo coast for trail work

    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    I'll let you know if any NICA teams show up for a trail day. I already mentioned I've reached out to team trail corps effort as well. We won't turn any volunteers away.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Davey,

    A while back arrangements were made by Robert "Coco" Ramirez of the Nor Cal High School Cycling League to do trail work this Sunday on the new Resurrection trail - Rd 630. It is a way of returning the favor for all the bike guiding we have volunteered to them over the last three years.

    I agree with you that it is important to the greater community of cycling that the kids get more involved with trail maintenance. Once they see the hard work that goes into creating or maintaining the trails they are left with a sense of pride of involvement and less inclined to ride recklessly. I applaud Coco and Nor-Cal HSCL for taking the initiative to make this event happen. There is no excuse for any of the teams not participating in the future preservation of the trails.

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JefedelosJefes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    361
    Wow, screw IMBA! I've been a member for 10 years, that time has come to a close. The most important possible issue with mountain bike access is wilderness. You want to talk about long term planning, what could be more important than wilderness access??? I want to ride my bike in beautiful places. I love steep technical downhills, and big backcountry alpine rides... neither of which IMBA pushes for.

    Funny, I just moved to Washington, where the mountain bike scene is exploding and new trails are being built everywhere (legally) that are technical and fun. There is no IMBA representation here... coincidence??

    Enjoy your flow trails IMBA, go f*ck yourselves.

  42. #242
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644

  43. #243
    Purveyor of Trail Tales!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Hey Davey,

    Thanks for keeping this subject front and center!

    Twice in the last two months, whenever I've read about this issue, I've donated $25 to STC for their lobbying efforts. I know it's not a lot but I hope it helps them move the ball forward.

    While I don't believe it makes sense to stop supporting IMBA I'm not sending anything to them other than my one time annual membership fee. We vote with our money and one can hope that someone at IMBA is able to follow the dollars and connect the dots. If not we all know what happens to organizations, and organisms, that don't evolve!

    Thanks, again, for all your hard work on this and other issues!

    Take care,

    Michael
    If you can't keep the rubber side down......at least smile for the camera!

  44. #244
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!

    Well thanks!

    Personally I feel that IMBA could take credit for what STC started and see the donations flow in. Give themselves all raises, new Subarus and a trip to the BWC to ride the trails they opened.

    With success STC will no longer be a thorn in the side of IMBA and their support would mean huge donations to IMBA from the 96% of us who want to see real change.

    None of the the STC board take any $$$ we'd just be happy with success. Even getting our bill sponsored would have been a huge step in the right direction.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Well thanks!

    Personally I feel that IMBA could take credit for what STC started and see the donations flow in. Give themselves all raises, new Subarus and a trip to the BWC to ride the trails they opened.

    With success STC will no longer be a thorn in the side of IMBA and their support would mean huge donations to IMBA from the 96% of us who want to see real change.

    None of the the STC board take any $$$ we'd just be happy with success. Even getting our bill sponsored would have been a huge step in the right direction.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    There’s a reason there’s a second chopstick. This is why the Sustainable Trails Coalition exists.

    Davey, keep up the great work and focus at STC! After the recent IMBA announcement, I can no longer support IMBA's efforts or lack of. It is really about the Chapter clubs which do all the real work. I was never any good at using chopsticks. So, a fork will have to do to get the work done without IMBA, while finding them to be the weak link in the bigger picture... I'm officially on file with them saying no more "egg rolls for you baby!" Donating to IMBA just doesn't feel good anymore.

  46. #246
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,502

    Here's yer problem

    While trying to figure out who the eff was on IMBA's BOD and responsible for their Wilderness stance I stumbled upon this gem:



    (arrow added by me as editorial comment)
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blackies Pasture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    While trying to figure out who the eff was on IMBA's BOD and responsible for their Wilderness stance I stumbled upon this gem:



    (arrow added by me as editorial comment)
    Post of the month.

    Well done.

  48. #248
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,368
    I also noticed that the new IMBA piece on Wilderness protection was authored by IMBA's "Senior Director of Marketing" as opposed to any member of the Board or any advocacy official.

    Note that IMBA, by design, is not principally an advocacy organization and is limited by law to how much resources it can devote to advocacy. (This is because it is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, making donations to it tax-deductible.) The lack of IMBA support for the initiative indicates only that, as an advocacy organization, it is weak and totally compromised. But IMBA still does lots of great work supporting mountain biking so let's try to avoid spewing hate on IMBA.

    I know that many mountain bikers are also environmentalists (myself included). I wonder whether the members of the IMBA Board in taking this stance were wearing their mountain biker helmets or environmentalist hats. I have no idea what happens behind the scenes but I can tell you I cancelled my Wilderness Society membership a couple years ago and Sierra Club last year. I can't support them any more when they are trying to limit where I can ride my bike. IMBA is a different story; they are still worthy of support -- but for other reasons, not for fighting for trail access.

  49. #249
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by J-Flo View Post
    I also noticed that the new IMBA piece on Wilderness protection was authored by IMBA's "Senior Director of Marketing" as opposed to any member of the Board or any advocacy official.

    Note that IMBA, by design, is not principally an advocacy organization and is limited by law to how much resources it can devote to advocacy. (This is because it is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, making donations to it tax-deductible.) The lack of IMBA support for the initiative indicates only that, as an advocacy organization, it is weak and totally compromised. But IMBA still does lots of great work supporting mountain biking so let's try to avoid spewing hate on IMBA.

    I know that many mountain bikers are also environmentalists (myself included). I wonder whether the members of the IMBA Board in taking this stance were wearing their mountain biker helmets or environmentalist hats. I have no idea what happens behind the scenes but I can tell you I cancelled my Wilderness Society membership a couple years ago and Sierra Club last year. I can't support them any more when they are trying to limit where I can ride my bike. IMBA is a different story; they are still worthy of support -- but for other reasons, not for fighting for trail access.
    Yes what you say goes along with an IMBA sourced comment from a few weeks back; "We're not a bike club; we're an association". I get that. But what has just become very apparent is that they're an association of bicycling industry interests and what 96% of MTBers want just doesn't matter.

    Reminds me of the old adage "What's good for General Motors is good for the country".

    "Win-win"? Was it? Is it?

    FWIW IMBA's IRS 990 for 2014 revenue shows:

    $1.19M membership dues

    $1.94M "other" (contributions, gifts, grants and etc.)

    $1.51M trail consulting

    $0.98M cycling events

    So what my take-away is that if you add the non-membership income together ($4.43M) they could probably still function with no members at all.

    And that's how they seem to be proceeding.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  50. #250
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    The new VP of IMBA advocacy is Bruce Alt. So they do have someone. (Haha look at me stand up for IMBA) However IMBAs pubic tax records show that financially they have done little for national lobbying. 16K for the last two years. Now IMBA defines lobbying as pushing for cherry stems into wilderness areas and other advocacy work. However, this isn't a good enough definition for the IRS.

    IMBA is going for the low hanging fruit. Flow trails in Arkansas and selling the "2-3% of land is Wilderness so no bigs."

    In turn we have a haves and have nots of cycling. Off road cyclists in Aspen, Colorado attacking cyclists in Marin County, California for being "too aggressive." It's fine to say that there are plenty of other places to ride if you live in Arkansas or Aspen but nationally that doesn't work.

    Also this is a long term losing strategy to begin with. Mountain bikers were shut out of the BWC not by rare political circumstances but by the FACT that the IMBA was the only group opposed to a wilderness designation. Not the way to win.

    Find the audio from last weeks IMBA press conference. It does not disappoint. The IMBA even mentions the Wilderness Society as a partner.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  51. #251
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    The new VP of IMBA advocacy is Bruce Alt. So they do have someone. (Haha look at me stand up for IMBA) However IMBAs pubic tax records show that financially they have done little for national lobbying. 16K for the last two years. Now IMBA defines lobbying as pushing for cherry stems into wilderness areas and other advocacy work. However, this isn't a good enough definition for the IRS.
    Yeah I figured that may have changed; I was using the most recent graphic I could find. IMBA shouldn't leave outdated stuff laying around. At any rate; it shows no hurry to fill that function.

    FWIW as far as CA State Wildernesses go; the trend has been to remove cherry stems and corridors, not add them. Not sure why the Feds would be any different.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  52. #252
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    http://www.bikemag.com/news/imbas-ne...SDKC0ssdK8u.97

    The audio of the press conference is above. It is a good thing to listen to. Just wondering what everyone thinks of IMBAs partnership with the Wilderness Society and how they plan to litigate over the FS Travel Plan in the Bitterroot.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  53. #253
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    IMBA Affirms Stance on Wilderness Access | BIKE Magazine

    The audio of the press conference is above. It is a good thing to listen to. Just wondering what everyone thinks of IMBAs partnership with the Wilderness Society and how they plan to litigate over the FS Travel Plan in the Bitterroot.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Thanks for the link. Van Abel sounded stressed at first; not sure why I'm picking up on that.

    IMBA is playing the oft-mentioned "local chapter" card a bit heavy I thought; in general "Wilderness" is dealing with Federal land and needs to be dealt with on the national level. Seems like just an excuse "oh we didn't have a local chapter so we didn't bother".

    (Is this because when possible litigation is pursued the "local chapter" is the one on the hook for legal fees???)

    Interesting the mention of the loss RE the GGNRA suit. (Only suit by IMBA ever; I wonder what it cost them?)

    Maybe I missed it but I didn't hear the word "partnership" RE with the Wilderness Society; I did hear that the WS is invited to the 2016 IMBA Summit. (Invitation accepted???)

    That's OK in my book; they should invite the Sierra Club too and revisit the Park City meeting. I don't think it would make matters any worse.

    Strange how Van Abel keeps referring to the "1964 Wilderness Act" as the law that bans bikes; it wasn't until somewhat later that administrative action resulted in the interpretation that "mechanized transport" was not appropriate. Maybe legal but not law by my understanding.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  54. #254
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!

    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    Thanks for the link. Van Abel sounded stressed at first; not sure why I'm picking up on that.

    IMBA is playing the oft-mentioned "local chapter" card a bit heavy I thought; in general "Wilderness" is dealing with Federal land and needs to be dealt with on the national level. Seems like just an excuse "oh we didn't have a local chapter so we didn't bother".

    (Is this because when possible litigation is pursued the "local chapter" is the one on the hook for legal fees???)

    Interesting the mention of the loss RE the GGNRA suit. (Only suit by IMBA ever; I wonder what it cost them?)

    Maybe I missed it but I didn't hear the word "partnership" RE with the Wilderness Society; I did hear that the WS is invited to the 2016 IMBA Summit. (Invitation accepted???)

    That's OK in my book; they should invite the Sierra Club too and revisit the Park City meeting. I don't think it would make matters any worse.

    Strange how Van Abel keeps referring to the "1964 Wilderness Act" as the law that bans bikes; it wasn't until somewhat later that administrative action resulted in the interpretation that "mechanized transport" was not appropriate. Maybe legal but not law by my understanding.
    Cycling was authorized in some wilderness areas until 1984. This is STCs modest proposal, a case by case basis to access some but not all wilderness areas and sustainable trail maintenance.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  55. #255
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blackies Pasture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    316
    New letter from FATRAC (Folsom Auburn Trail Riders Action Coalition), an IMBA chapter



    Quote Originally Posted by FATRAC
    Getting Political on Bikes

    While we loathe having less time on our bikes, we know that putting in the time to write letters and build relationships with land managers and policy makers is critical to gaining equitable access to trails. That's why we've been giving a lot of time towards advocating at the federal, state and local levels to increase trail access. Most recently, we sent letters to our Congressional representatives in support of The Human Powered Wildlands Management Act of 2016 by the Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC) to restore the Wilderness Act's original intent to allow bikes in wilderness areas where appropriate, as determined by local land managers. FATRAC continues to strongly support the STC despite IMBA's announcement last week to refrain from supporting the STC (see here for their announcement).

    We NEED your help to keep the ball rolling on this bill. Just one hand-written letter to your Congressional representative will have tremendous sway. For more information, visit: Write Your Congressman ? FIX AMERICA?S TRAIL SYSTEM

  56. #256
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827

    Unpinned?

    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Cycling was authorized in some wilderness areas until 1984. This is STCs modest proposal, a case by case basis to access some but not all wilderness areas and sustainable trail maintenance.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Is there a reason for unpinning this thread? I believe it is too important to do so. An IMBA conspiracy?

  57. #257
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Quote Originally Posted by RooHarris View Post
    Is there a reason for unpinning this thread? I believe it is too important to do so. An IMBA conspiracy?
    Currently we are trying to only have 2 "stickied' threads per forum.

    Right now there's a time sensitive one up for another week.

    I'll pin this one back on Monday or Tuesday
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  58. #258
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,585
    ^OK, one reason I was replying was b/c I was gonna ask the same thing.

    **Davey, are you going to Sac for NAHBS Saturday or not? Seeing as we plan on going and I want to see about some window vinyl to replace the sticker we pulled off I think it would be a good time to b.s. while drooling on bikes.

    <**YOU GUYS NEED AN "OFFICIAL" LOGO AND VINYL**> Just Saying.

  59. #259
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    Currently we are trying to only have 2 "stickied' threads per forum.

    Right now there's a time sensitive one up for another week.

    I'll pin this one back on Monday or Tuesday
    All good homie thanks!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  60. #260
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi View Post
    ^OK, one reason I was replying was b/c I was gonna ask the same thing.

    **Davey, are you going to Sac for NAHBS Saturday or not? Seeing as we plan on going and I want to see about some window vinyl to replace the sticker we pulled off I think it would be a good time to b.s. while drooling on bikes.

    <**YOU GUYS NEED AN "OFFICIAL" LOGO AND VINYL**> Just Saying.
    My wife will give birth any day. Some parts of my life are private LOL

    Anyway I'm up to my eyeballs and I'm still making A4B meetings and STC conf calls.

    Guys look for tons of press soon. Responses to stuff you have seen lately from WS. Stuff is happening and STC will be able to be a bit more transparent in the process.

    We are still on track to do something soon. Although a public acknowledgment from the WS and IMBA that they are partners was something I never could have anticipated. I think there is still a really good chance that STC can achieve our modest goal.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  61. #261
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    My wife will give birth any day. Some parts of my life are private LOL
    I'm an a55. I swear you mentioned that and I completely forgot. Hahaha. All good, we can chat face to face later on. I am gonna have to bring Jeremy my spare frame really soon to mod anyhow so it'll be a good excuse to visit w you as well as Brian at Fairfax Cyclery the same day.

  62. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,374

    Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    Currently we are trying to only have 2 "stickied' threads per forum.

    Right now there's a time sensitive one up for another week.

    I'll pin this one back on Monday or Tuesday

    -Thank you for doing that CHUM!!

    And THANK YOU Davey & STC for doing what you do!!

    -Dave

  63. #263
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blackies Pasture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi View Post
    I want to see about some window vinyl to replace the sticker we pulled off I think it would be a good time to b.s. while drooling on bikes.

    <**YOU GUYS NEED AN "OFFICIAL" LOGO AND VINYL**> Just Saying.
    AND DON'T MAKE IT LOOK LIKE BALLS.

    Graphic designers send private tweets back and forth about how hideous the IMBA logo is.

  64. #264
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackies Pasture View Post
    AND DON'T MAKE IT LOOK LIKE BALLS.

    Graphic designers send private tweets back and forth about how hideous the IMBA logo is.
    If you find me some cool artwork I'll get the project started. If I design it, it will look like balls.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  65. #265
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    If you find me some cool artwork I'll get the project started. If I design it, it will look like balls.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I was thinking of actually invoking nature to do the letters.

    The "S" a s-curve piece of single track, the "T" a tree with two limbs, and the "C" as the front or rear wheel of a bike sketch.

    That or use this as another idea entirely.


    *You all know I draw like s#!t, so someone go with my idea and draw it up as an example please.

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation: timetraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    312
    Just got my renewal notice for IMBA. Hmm. Writing a letter explaining my delay in renewing. I do think it is important to bump up the numbers so MTB is recognized as a large user group but having a hard time with their stance.

    Thinking I'm just going to wait to pay my dues until Sea Otter. I pity the IMBA staff manning that booth.
    Another $100 sent to STC...
    I never said most of the things I said - Yogi Berra

  67. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    If you find me some cool artwork I'll get the project started. If I design it, it will look like balls.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    ...At least STC has a pair!

  68. #268
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by timetraveler View Post
    Just got my renewal notice for IMBA. Hmm. Writing a letter explaining my delay in renewing. I do think it is important to bump up the numbers so MTB is recognized as a large user group but having a hard time with their stance.

    Thinking I'm just going to wait to pay my dues until Sea Otter. I pity the IMBA staff manning that booth.
    Another $100 sent to STC...
    Thank you very much!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  69. #269
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tshred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    112
    "Luck favors the Prepared"

  70. #270
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by tshred View Post
    The IMBA held a press release to declare the status quo. They also issued a press conference as well. Nothing has changed. Can anyone guess why the IMBA would make so much noise over NOT changing their policy?

    Well nothing new isn't completely true:

    Other than the claim that they will litigate over the FS Travel Plan in the Bitterroot. That is encouraging and if STC's only contribution to advocacy was to for the IMBA to help cyclists in Montana I would be happy. Well I should say I would be bummed our bill was a failure but glad the cyclists that contacted STC from Montana were finally getting some help.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  71. #271
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644

  72. #272
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Beat me to posting that. Thanks again Kurt. Well written and well said article.

  73. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    145
    Sticky? And how about sticky on forums besides NorCal?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  74. #274
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
    Sticky? And how about sticky on forums besides NorCal?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Now that would be rad!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  75. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    145

    Seriously, why is this not a forum wide topic

    I see the MTBR trailbuilding and advocacy forum has several STC threads. Davey, I wonder if you could cross post your updates over there as well? Or maybe you do, and I am not that well read.

  76. #276
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!

    Still nothing to update. I'm extremely sorry for the delay and all I can say is that everyone at STC is working really hard with our lobbyist and each other. Emails are flying like crazy.

    I will also personally say as a cyclist with near zero access to narrow trail I do not feel good about: IMBA's strategy of pursing "high probability opportunities"

    This will create a dynamic of have and have nots. Those that live in areas where advocacy is hard will get nothing.

    Also how on earth will IMBA make good on its claim that they will not lose another trail with cycling history? One look at the current proposed wilderness areas on The Wilderness Society's web page and I'm thinking no freaking way there is not one mile of cycling trail.

    As for the IMBA-WS "stakeholder" partnership? Check out The Wilderness Society's copy writing on the subject of the Boulder Whiteclouds:

    Boulder-White Clouds Mountains offer great solitude and an abundance of hiking trails through pristine mountain terrain. People visit for opportunities to scramble, view wildlife, fish and hunt, and horseback ride - See more at: http://wilderness.org/article/113th-....WVmF9mzb.dpuf



    Not even a mention of cycling. Who thinks we won't lose another cycling trail to wilderness?



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Davey Simon; 03-02-2016 at 04:22 PM.

  77. #277
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,585

    Good job!

    How's this for an update? BOOM!

    San Diego Mountain Biking Association » SDMBA supports the Sustainable Trails Coalition ? Bikes in Wilderness!

    ..SDMBA is very concerned that we will continue to lose access to our most cherished riding areas. Recent closures in Idaho and Montana prove that IMBA’s strategies are not working, and we are not optimistic that IMBA will be able to halt the losses...

    ..SDMBA asks IMBA to reverse its out of touch anti-bike stance within Wilderness and form a partnership with STC based on their common sense approach. We urge IMBA to embrace and advocate for the 96% of MTB riders who loudly proclaimed their desire for bikes to be included within strategically agreed upon Wilderness trails...

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827

    Is there a Wasatch Crest Trail dilema?

    "Also how on earth will IMBA make good on its claim that they will not lose another trail with cycling history? One look at the current proposed wilderness areas on The Wilderness Society's web page and I'm thinking no freaking way there is not one mile of cycling trail.
    Not even a mention of cycling. Who thinks we won't lose another cycling trail to wilderness?" Davey Simon


    Davey,

    Can you tell me if the new Utah Wilderness Bill of 2013 will swallow up the Wasatch Crest Trail? If so, this would be disasterous! See following:

    "The Wasatch Wilderness and Watershed Protection Act (H.R. 2808) would protect 26,000 in the central Wasatch Mountains outside of Salt Lake City. The bill would protect 15,000 as wilderness and 11,000 acres as special management areas. The canyons of the Wasatch Range provided clean water for the early pioneers to Utah and continue to do so today to more than 500,000 people in the Salt Lake Valley. Protection will ensure drinking water for future generations, provide outstanding recreational opportunities, and secure important economic benefits to the region - See more at: http://wilderness.org/article/113th-congress-wilderness-bills#sthash.WVmF9mzb.uRTkRkcC.dpuf"

    I lived in SLC for almost 20 years. One of the best city proximity's to mountain recreation anywhere in the US. I cut my mountain biking teeth on the Wasatch Crest Trail in 1987. This is one the most spectacular trails in the western US. The Classic route From Big Cottonwood Canyon to Guardsmen Pass - Bar-none The hardest climb to the ridge of any trail I can remember (all others pale in comparison now that access can be done from PC):

    At Scott's Pass, take the double track on your left heading uphill. You're now on the way to Puke Hill, the final brute climb to the Crest.

    Name:  WCrest02.jpg
Views: 394
Size:  43.9 KB

    It's 350 vertical feet in 1/2 mile, with the steepest part at the highest altitude. The name Puke Hill was not chosen arbitrarily. WARNING: If riding this trail DO NOT PARTY HARDY NIGHT BEFORE!
    Take a break at 9900 feet to enjoy the views.[/I]

    Name:  Crest12-14.jpg
Views: 389
Size:  50.7 KB

    Name:  Crest12-09.jpg
Views: 403
Size:  60.8 KB

    Name:  Crest12-18.jpg
Views: 397
Size:  45.7 KB

    This was once the CLASSIC way to the top of the ridge trail. For anyone going to Utah to experience real mountain biking this is the paramount ride.

    To lose this trail is tantamount to the loss of the Boulder/White Clouds in my estimation. Which was another huge loss to MTB folks. I last rode that one in 1994. We can not afford to lose anymore trails to Wilderness designation under its current restrictions since 1984. An emasculated IMBA is doing nothing but jumping in bed with the Wilderness Society and procreating absolutely nothing...

    The STC has my back now. I'm no longer a member of IMBA. Any support I gave them now goes to our local trail group-Mendocino Coast Cyclists and STC. I put IMBA on notice in early February regarding not renewing if they stayed their current course. No word back from them. I guess Laurel is to busy sunning herself in Hawaii? So, they must not have the resources (balls?) to answer my letter. Too big to care for the little voice in the Wilderness story?

  79. #279
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by RooHarris View Post
    Not even a mention of cycling. Who thinks we won't lose another cycling trail to wilderness?

    Davey,

    Can you tell me if the new Utah Wilderness Bill of 2013 will swallow up the Wasatch Crest Trail? If so, this would be disasterous! See following:

    "The Wasatch Wilderness and Watershed Protection Act (H.R. 2808) would protect 26,000 in the central Wasatch Mountains outside of Salt Lake City. The bill would protect 15,000 as wilderness and 11,000 acres as special management areas. The canyons of the Wasatch Range provided clean water for the early pioneers to Utah and continue to do so today to more than 500,000 people in the Salt Lake Valley. Protection will ensure drinking water for future generations, provide outstanding recreational opportunities, and secure important economic benefits to the region - See more at: http://wilderness.org/article/113th-congress-wilderness-bills#sthash.WVmF9mzb.uRTkRkcC.dpuf"

    I lived in SLC for almost 20 years. One of the best city proximity's to mountain recreation anywhere in the US. I cut my mountain biking teeth on the Wasatch Crest Trail in 1987. This is one the most spectacular trails in the western US. The Classic route From Big Cottonwood Canyon to Guardsmen Pass - A hard as hell to climb to the top (all others pale in comparison now that access can be done from PC;
    At Scott's Pass, take the double track on your left heading uphill. You're now on the way to Puke Hill, the final brute climb to the Crest.
    Puke Hill (see image below)

    It's 350 vertical feet in 1/2 mile, with the steepest part at the highest altitude. The name Puke Hill was not chosen arbitrarily. Take a break at 9900 feet to enjoy the views.


    Name:  Crest12-14.jpg
Views: 389
Size:  50.7 KB

    Name:  Crest12-09.jpg
Views: 403
Size:  60.8 KB

    Name:  Crest12-18.jpg
Views: 397
Size:  45.7 KB

    This was once the CLASSIC way to the top of the ridge trail. For anyone going to Utah to experience real mountain biking this is the paramount ride.

    To lose this trail is tantamount to the loss of the Boulder/White Clouds in my estimation. Which was another huge loss to MTB folks. I last rode that one in 1994. We can not afford to lose anymore trails to Wilderness designation under its current restrictions since 1984. An emasculated IMBA is doing nothing but jumping in bed with the Wilderness Society and procreating absolutely nothing...

    The STC has my back now. I'm no longer a member of IMBA. Any support I gave them now goes to our local trail group-Mendocino Coast Cyclists and STC. I put IMBA on notice in early February regarding not renewing if they stayed their current course. No word back from them. I guess Laurel is to busy sunning herself in Hawaii? So, they must not have the resources (balls?) to answer my letter. Too big to care for the little voice in the Wilderness story?
    Save Our Canyons approaches this issue as a skiing development issue. They have no mention that cycling is banned in the Wilderness.

    They do have maps of the proposal and I do see that there will be trails lost. If these are "good" cycling trails is somewhat of a debate.

    I do wish I knew the area better. Maybe you can look at the Save Our Canyons maps of the Wilderness proposal and let me know if you see any high value cycling trails. It would certainly be helpful.

    As for the IMBA. I do hope that they take the time to answer your letter. The IMBA says that lack of engagement is a big problem. You seem pretty engaged to me. I'd think the IMBA would encourage that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827
    Thanks Davey.

    I have a call into the "Save Our Canyons" group now. I will report back once I have this info.

  81. #281
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by RooHarris View Post
    Thanks Davey.

    I have a call into the "Save Our Canyons" group now. I will report back once I have this info.
    They will say the crest won't be affected. I'd take a look at their webpage and maps and decide for yourself. If you have ever ridden bikes in the proposed wilderness areas I'd like to know. The IMBA should know as well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    They will say the crest won't be affected. I'd take a look at their webpage and maps and decide for yourself. If you have ever ridden bikes in the proposed wilderness areas I'd like to know. The IMBA should know as well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Thank GOD (A redwood Tree) I'm retired. The last two hours has been somewhat fruitful. Although, the SOC website did not have the available map I was looking for, they did say:

    Maintenance of a popular mountain biking trails. The Wasatch Crest Trail, Millcreek Pipeline, Mill D North, Big Water, Little Water and Lambs Canyon/Great Western Trail, all reside OUTSIDE wilderness boundaries and will remain open to bike with buffers for re-routes.

    I have an email into the Wilderness Society as well. If you see a map of proposed area please link me. Thanks!

  83. #283
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827

    Report from Save Our Canyons

    [QUOTE=Davey Simon;12513451]They will say the crest won't be affected. I'd take a look at their webpage and maps and decide for yourself. If you have ever ridden bikes in the proposed wilderness areas I'd like to know. The IMBA should know as well.


    Davey,
    Here is the prompt reply from the Save Our Canyons folks in SLC regarding clarification of the Wasatch Crest Trail's future in respect to Wilderness Proposal:

    Mr. Harris,

    No, the proposed wilderness additions put forward by Congressman Matheson would not have closed the Wasatch Crest Trail and though he is no longer in office we have an another opportunity through the Mountain Accord process to achieve real conservation for vital landscapes and habitat in the Wasatch. You'll be pleased to know that as with the Matheson bill, the Mountain Accord process maintains those same boundaries that ensure the Crest trail and other important recreation areas remain open and even get additional attention from land managers and community trail organizations to help with maintenance and trail planning.

    We have worked long and hard with all interested parties to ensure that consensus is reached to the best of our abilities when addressing the future of public lands in the Wasatch.

    Here are a few resources:

    Wasatch Wilderness; history and future | Save Our Canyons

    https://saveourcanyons.files.wordpre...wpamap_sm1.jpg

    Mountain Accord

    I hope that clarifies the issue. Please let me know if you have any questions.




    Best

  84. #284
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    [QUOTE=RooHarris;12515233]
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    They will say the crest won't be affected. I'd take a look at their webpage and maps and decide for yourself. If you have ever ridden bikes in the proposed wilderness areas I'd like to know. The IMBA should know as well.


    Davey,
    Here is the prompt reply from the Save Our Canyons folks in SLC regarding clarification of the Wasatch Crest Trail's future in respect to Wilderness Proposal:

    Mr. Harris,

    No, the proposed wilderness additions put forward by Congressman Matheson would not have closed the Wasatch Crest Trail and though he is no longer in office we have an another opportunity through the Mountain Accord process to achieve real conservation for vital landscapes and habitat in the Wasatch. You'll be pleased to know that as with the Matheson bill, the Mountain Accord process maintains those same boundaries that ensure the Crest trail and other important recreation areas remain open and even get additional attention from land managers and community trail organizations to help with maintenance and trail planning.

    We have worked long and hard with all interested parties to ensure that consensus is reached to the best of our abilities when addressing the future of public lands in the Wasatch.

    Here are a few resources:

    Wasatch Wilderness; history and future | Save Our Canyons

    https://saveourcanyons.files.wordpre...wpamap_sm1.jpg

    Mountain Accord

    I hope that clarifies the issue. Please let me know if you have any questions.




    Best
    Yep. This was about the place I got with SOC about 6 months ago. The super low resolution maps do not show the existing trails in the proposed wilderness areas. I did look at separate maps, STRAVA and Trailforks data etc and did discover that people are currently riding bikes in some of the proposed wilderness areas. SOC and others dismissed these trails as either "too hard" or not compatible with cycling access.

    I basically got to the point that without any local knowledge I could not really determine the extent of trails lost. There are trails in these proposed wilderness areas and some people ride bikes on them. Are these trails as popular as the "Crest"? No. Are they worth saving for cycling access. I'd wager that yes, likely they are. However, I've already been called out as an extremist for holding this view.

    Keep in mind the snow ski crowd that is largely pushing for this wilderness don't really care about cycling access. They also largely hold the view that there are plenty of other places to ride. Which for SLC is fortunately true.

    To me an area off limits to cycling forever is a very bad thing. Even if it isn't popular...


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  85. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827

    Dog Lake trail comes to mind

    I basically got to the point that without any local knowledge I could not really determine the extent of trails lost. There are trails in these proposed wilderness areas and some people ride bikes on them. Are these trails as popular as the "Crest"? No. Are they worth saving for cycling access. I'd wager that yes, likely they are. However, I've already been called out as an extremist for holding this view.

    Davey,
    One trail that comes to mind is the Dog Lake Tr. This is an alternative trail from the "Crest" Trail. Dog lake Trail is one of two accesses down to Millcreek Canyon. The alternative route to Millcreek is a vicious rock garden route. Worse than this:

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

    The Dog Lake trail is amazingly beautiful with swooping turns. Odd/even ride days still prevail. I'll check again regarding this trail. Hate to lose this one.

  86. #286
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827
    [QUOTE=Davey Simon;12515253]
    Quote Originally Posted by RooHarris View Post


    I basically got to the point that without any local knowledge I could not really determine the extent of trails lost. There are trails in these proposed wilderness areas and some people ride bikes on them. Are these trails as popular as the "Crest"? No. Are they worth saving for cycling access. I'd wager that yes, likely they are. However, I've already been called out as an extremist for holding this view.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Davey,

    I finally got a clear map that clearly demarcates Wilderness proposed areas in and around the Wasatch Crest Trail and Dog Lake trail. Nothing is affected. Yay! See map with blue highlighted trail marking WCT and Dog lake Trail.

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

  87. #287
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    [QUOTE=RooHarris;12517150]
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post

    Davey,

    I finally got a clear map that clearly demarcates Wilderness proposed areas in and around the Wasatch Crest Trail and Dog Lake trail. Nothing is affected. Yay! See map with blue highlighted trail marking WCT and Dog lake Trail.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	wasatchcrest.jpg 
Views:	60 
Size:	453.4 KB 
ID:	1055668
    Thanks for checking this out!

    So nothing of value in Mt Aire Wilderness or Mt Olympus Wilderness? There are 3 more proposed wilderness areas as well, south of the two designations that you checked out. These seemed to have the most cycling trails but again unless I get out there this summer I wont be able to find out for sure.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  88. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827

    Nothing of value

    [QUOTE=Davey Simon;12517172]
    Quote Originally Posted by RooHarris View Post

    Thanks for checking this out!

    So nothing of value in Mt Aire Wilderness or Mt Olympus Wilderness? There are 3 more proposed wilderness areas as well, south of the two designations that you checked out. These seemed to have the most cycling trails but again unless I get out there this summer I wont be able to find out for sure.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Davey,
    I'm not aware of any other valuable trails in those vicinities. Most of the hiking trails are too difficult to navigate with a bike and should not be done so. Similar to STC's approach regarding Wilderness, nothing would be worth advocating to get into. Both Big and Little Cottonwood canyons are extremely rocky and steep. Little Cottonwood has the highest avalanche potential of any major canyon in North America.

    Once, I climbed up the Mill "D" trail in Big Cotonwood to the Wasatch Crest Trail. I did it for chuckles. This was a monumental bear! Not worth it for the amount of elevation one must push one's bike.

    If you are thinking of riding the WCT this summer go in July or August when most of the snow is melted. Do the Classic route with a shuttle to the bottom of the trail in Guardsman Pass. Once you are down to the top of Millcreek Canyon watch your descent as it is a very fast downhill road ride to Foothill Blvd. in Holladay. A few folks have been hit and killed in this Canyon so be totally alert. Be safe!
    Last edited by RooHarris; 03-10-2016 at 11:33 AM.

  89. #289
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    144
    Hey Roo -

    As you seem familiar with these proposed Wilderness areas in Utah, in your opinion, are they really wilderness?

    What I'm getting at, is in my opinion, some Wilderness areas have no business being designated as such.

    Take for example the Mt Rose Wilderness here in Tahoe. I was up there last fall on the TRT and could see & hear:
    1 Interstate Hwy
    4 different State Hwys
    1 railroad line
    Thousands of homes
    Dozens of boats on the lake

    Not my idea of wilderness

  90. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827

    Wilderness in the Wasatch

    Quote Originally Posted by powpig View Post
    Hey Roo -

    As you seem familiar with these proposed Wilderness areas in Utah, in your opinion, are they really wilderness?

    What I'm getting at, is in my opinion, some Wilderness areas have no business being designated as such.

    Take for example the Mt Rose Wilderness here in Tahoe. I was up there last fall on the TRT and could see & hear:
    1 Interstate Hwy
    4 different State Hwys
    1 railroad line
    Thousands of homes
    Dozens of boats on the lake
    Not my idea of wilderness
    I'm very familiar with the Mount Olympus Wilderness area. It is truly remote especially with its proximity to SLC, very rugged terrain with views of the city and the Great Salt Lake. I believe to have such an area like this proximal to a major city is a gift. It is too rocky and difficult to navigate a bike into without some hazardous exposure. This area is not good for bikes and should remain off limits.

    I agree that some areas are not remote enough, but giving protection to these areas is important.

  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JHart94949's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    382
    Look what showed up today.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  92. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ryanxj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,176
    Quote Originally Posted by powpig View Post

    What I'm getting at, is in my opinion, some Wilderness areas have no business being designated as such.

    Take for example the Mt Rose Wilderness here in Tahoe. I was up there last fall on the TRT and could see & hear:
    1 Interstate Hwy
    4 different State Hwys
    1 railroad line
    Thousands of homes
    Dozens of boats on the lake

    Not my idea of wilderness

    I think your 'idea' is asinine.

    Lemme guess, you even heard some of them aero planes flying overhead? Audacious!

    To be designated as an area to be free from future infliction of humans and being out of eye/ear shot of development are not, and should not, be mutually exclusive.
    Every trails a flow trail ifya would just learn how to ride-stop dumbing down the planet

  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    827

    Save our trails

    Quote Originally Posted by JHart94949 View Post
    Look what showed up today.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Just got mine as well. Please support these guys - STC!

    Park City is doing their part to support STC. Go here:

    Save Our Trails Sticker (Pack of 2) / Park City Mountain Biking

    All proceeds from this website's bumper stickers will go to STC.
    Save Our Trails!
    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!-save.jpg

  94. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanxj View Post
    I think your 'idea' is asinine.

    Lemme guess, you even heard some of them aero planes flying overhead? Audacious!

    To be designated as an area to be free from future infliction of humans and being out of eye/ear shot of development are not, and should not, be mutually exclusive.

    And it's that kinda attitude that's got us where we are today.
    If there's a swath of land that folks want "to be free from future infliction of humans", let's just label it Wilderness. Doesn't matter if it's not "out of eye/ear shot of development", that's not important, right?

    As I said, just not my idea of Wilderness. Apparently it is yours. I just disagree and hold Wilderness to a loftier standard than you do.

  95. #295
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,644
    The Wilderness Act of 1964 specifically states "untrammeled by man".

    I think like all legislation it means different things to different people. And here is where the problems start.

    Personally for me roads are where the "wilderness" end. Of course that isn't the case in Pt Reyes. The Phillip P Burton wilderness has several old sealed roads in varying states of disrepair:






    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  96. #296
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    The Wilderness Act of 1964 specifically states "untrammeled by man".

    I think like all legislation it means different things to different people. And here is where the problems start.

    Personally for me roads are where the "wilderness" end. Of course that isn't the case in Pt Reyes. The Phillip P Burton wilderness has several old sealed roads in varying states of disrepair:






    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It's worth visiting the meaning of "trammeled"; among which being "something that restricts activity, expression, or progress; a restraint".

    So "untrammeled" would be a description of not restricting activity, expression, or progress; nor a restraint.

    Seems that the restrictions against bikes, wheelbarrows and hang gliders fly in the face of the true meaning of the word.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  97. #297
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,509
    I think most people confuse "untrammeled" with "untrampled". Kinda funny, actually

  98. #298
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    I think most people confuse "untrammeled" with "untrampled". Kinda funny, actually
    Maybe the Wilderness Act is just one big typo?
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  99. #299
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,509
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    Maybe the Wilderness Act is just one big typo?
    Ha! I could argue that the prohibition of bicycles is one big semantic, typo loophole!

  100. #300
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    Ha! I could argue that the prohibition of bicycles is one big semantic, typo loophole!
    "For all intensive purposes," that's right!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 207
    Last Post: 03-30-2017, 06:32 AM
  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, 08:22 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

Members who have read this thread: 120

Posting Permissions

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