Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 401 to 500 of 515
  1. #401
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,673
    No words... a wildernut snowflake bullied a local magazine into pulling an article The ASS wrote about bikes and Wilderness, plus other demands

    Editor's Note: Human Powered | Adventure Sports Journal

  2. #402
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    No words... a wildernut snowflake bullied a local magazine into pulling an article The ASS wrote about bikes and Wilderness, plus other demands

    Editor's Note: Human Powered | Adventure Sports Journal
    Fascists

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  3. #403
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    85
    ^ A group of fascists. Wanna bet they're from Marin?

  4. #404
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Callender View Post
    ^ A group of fascists. Wanna bet they're from Marin?
    Yeah it doesn't surprise me at all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #405
    mtbr member
    Reputation: timetraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    316
    Wow. Guess he never learned about handling bullies when he grew up. Probably gave them his lunch money for years.
    Well he did ask for feedback so I wrote him.

    "Hi Matt,

    I strongly disagree with your stance on removing an article on Wilderness access for Mountain Bikers. Pandering to a few people with the time to write a few letters or emails to your sponsors is sending exactly the wrong message. Adventure Sports Journal should be about adventure sports and what is going on in those sports. Certainly detailing one group's views should not be censored. If others disagree you can print a rebuttal or response but to cave in to a threatened advertiser campaign to censor your magazine is really the opposite of adventure reporting. I understand you're running a business but this is a dangerous first step in acceding to the demands of a minority group and I believe this is just the beginning of the demands you will be receiving now that you have rewarded these extremists. When all you feel safe in featuring is road riders you will lose, and much more than if you had bravely taken a stance in the first place. How about, "Understand your concern and we can print a short response, thank you".
    I also believe your sponsors are bright enough to know that the threat of a boycott if they advertise in your magazine is hollow. I backpack, climb, and surf and I would go out of my way to support your advertisers who tell these people they support freedom of speech, not censorship. I bet most of the "Get off my lawn" people who complained aren't exactly buying much adventure gear."
    I never said most of the things I said - Yogi Berra

  6. #406
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    154
    Also, if they published the names of companies that would boycott the magazine, I'd be happy to shift my spending away from those companies.

  7. #407
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Callender View Post
    ^ A group of fascists. Wanna bet they're from Marin?
    We are dealing with a group from Woodside that is no better. I guess that is a property of spoiled rich people with too much free time and deep hatred towards people that is being masked as care of nature.

  8. #408
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    We are dealing with a group from Woodside that is no better. I guess that is a property of spoiled rich people with too much free time and deep hatred towards people that is being masked as care of nature.
    I think this is an effective summary


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #409
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Silent_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    348
    Won't be paying any attention to ASJ anymore....cowards.

  10. #410
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,539
    I can't believe the caved like that. If it is the Marin group they would only lose about 6 readers.
    Last edited by sfgiantsfan; 09-18-2017 at 04:52 PM.
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  11. #411
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiantsfan View Post
    I can't believe the caved like that. If it is the Marin group they would only loose about 6 readers.
    Or lose them. Either way.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  12. #412
    mtbr member
    Reputation: evdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,556
    So who was this group that bullied ASJ? Would be good to know...

  13. #413
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Silentfoe View Post
    Or lose them. Either way.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    ooops
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  14. #414
    Now with flavor!!
    Reputation: kidwoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    5,611
    Never heard of the ASJ but in that move they're essentially taking the stance, or at the very least siding with the stance that mountainbikes are not part of whatever 'human powered' coverage they want to promote.

    So fvck'em.


    And on a side note, thanks to everyone who's stood up for e-bikes to make their decision less obvious.
    STRAVA: Enabling dorks everywhere to get trails shut down........ all for the sake of a race on the internet.

  15. #415
    mtbr member
    Reputation: b0bg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    190
    ASJ is a regular feature at MBoSC trailwork events, I'm sad they felt they had to cave to bullies, but they're generally on the side of good. I won't armchair quarterback their decision, they have a business to run, and won't do any good (or sponsor any bike friendly events) if they're out of business.

    That said, I've seen positive outcomes from bringing these sort of threats out into the daylight. Name these cowards who threaten privately but won't own up to their actions. Publish their demand letter and let ASJ readers know who they are. Even if they still felt the need to bow out of the discussion about bikes in wilderness, it would be empowering for ASJ to make clear who they were being blackmailed by. I hope they think about drafting a formal reply to the people who threatened them, and publish the whole transcript for their readership to see.

    If the people making these threats are so righteous they can defend their position in public with facts and research or show themselves to be the same class of elitist, nimby, entitled haters we all assume them to be.

  16. #416
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!

    Quote Originally Posted by b0bg View Post
    ASJ is a regular feature at MBoSC trailwork events, I'm sad they felt they had to cave to bullies, but they're generally on the side of good. I won't armchair quarterback their decision, they have a business to run, and won't do any good (or sponsor any bike friendly events) if they're out of business.

    That said, I've seen positive outcomes from bringing these sort of threats out into the daylight. Name these cowards who threaten privately but won't own up to their actions. Publish their demand letter and let ASJ readers know who they are. Even if they still felt the need to bow out of the discussion about bikes in wilderness, it would be empowering for ASJ to make clear who they were being blackmailed by. I hope they think about drafting a formal reply to the people who threatened them, and publish the whole transcript for their readership to see.

    If the people making these threats are so righteous they can defend their position in public with facts and research or show themselves to be the same class of elitist, nimby, entitled haters we all assume them to be.
    Post of the year here.

    I'm constantly baffled by the lack of support for STC. Doubly so when I hear "there could be a negative backlash from our partners for our support." I'd bet in every case the partners referenced would slit the throats of off road cyclists and their access if they could get away with it.

    That being said ASJ isn't an advocacy group and the margins on publishing are historically thin at the moment. I can't blame them for caving to a boycott. It would be great if they published the threatening letter and a response.

    Fingers crossed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #417
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    424
    this is only me personal opinion, not that of any organization that I'm a part of:

    support STC. Good people on a good mission and completely complementary to other advocacy approaches. We, as a mountain biking community, need to seriously up our game on advocacy and that's going to require everyone to give something...time, money, etc...
    Support local trail-building: www.mbosc.org
    Help our most vulnerable population: www.goodkarmabikes.org

  18. #418
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Can some of y'all STC-lovin folks school me on their goal(s)?

    I totally get wanting to preserve existing bike trails in newly designated wilderness, but have a hard time understanding why opening existing wilderness to bikes is a good idea.

    Can someone explain, or point me in the direction of a thorough policy statement? I'm well-schooled in the Wilderness Act and public land policy, and a (**gag**) lawyer, but hold my hand. I've also read Sen. Lee's bill from the 114th Congress. Persuade me.

    Going one step further, all else being equal, it seems a much better investment of time and money for MTBers would be expanding trail access in non-Wilderness portions of federal land dedicated to multiple use as well as expanding/retaining access on private land and state park land.

  19. #419
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    526
    Simple: Because Wilderness has been regularly expanded. If you define 'newly designated' as 'within the past decade', then your statement might make sense. But 'existing' wilderness includes places which were only designated such in the last year or two. (See: Boulder-White Clouds).

    Some people will say some of the existing 'old' wilderness also was supposed to have bikes included from long ago. (see: parts of Pt Reyes).

    There is also the precedent, others love to cite things like "well the feds say no so we say no locally, it's best practice".

  20. #420
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,673
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Can some of y'all STC-lovin folks school me on their goal(s)?

    I totally get wanting to preserve existing bike trails in newly designated wilderness, but have a hard time understanding why opening existing wilderness to bikes is a good idea.

    Can someone explain, or point me in the direction of a thorough policy statement? I'm well-schooled in the Wilderness Act and public land policy, and a (**gag**) lawyer, but hold my hand. I've also read Sen. Lee's bill from the 114th Congress. Persuade me.

    Going one step further, all else being equal, it seems a much better investment of time and money for MTBers would be expanding trail access in non-Wilderness portions of federal land dedicated to multiple use as well as expanding/retaining access on private land and state park land.
    Goal: Reasonable human powered bicycle access in Wilderness, on a case-by-case basis, as it was during the first 20 years of the Act. STC decided to pursue this legislatively through congress as the best option.

    I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can say that will persuade you this is worth fighting for, unless you live in an area where trails you rode or maintained were taken away by designated Wilderness/Wilderness Study Area or recommended Wilderness.... or you are a bikepacker... or you are an adventure rider that knows how to share trails.

    Maybe this will help answer some of your quiestions though: FAQ/Resources - Sustainable Trails Coalition

    IMBA/IMBA chapters and other bike advocacy organizations are investing time and money into expanding access in non-Wilderness lands... STC is only seeking to end the the losses and re-gain some of what has been taken away in arguably some of our most scenic lands.

    How about you explain why it sounds like you think opening existing wilderness to bikes is not a good idea? If it involves quoting from the WA "....no other form of mechanical transport...", we'll be off on the wrong foot. :-)

  21. #421
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,183
    Don't forget the "but wilderness is only 3-4% of US land mass" excuse. That's always funny too.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  22. #422
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    Goal: Reasonable human powered bicycle access in Wilderness, on a case-by-case basis, as it was during the first 20 years of the Act. STC decided to pursue this legislatively through congress as the best option.

    I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can say that will persuade you this is worth fighting for, unless you live in an area where trails you rode or maintained were taken away by designated Wilderness/Wilderness Study Area or recommended Wilderness.... or you are a bikepacker... or you are an adventure rider that knows how to share trails.

    Maybe this will help answer some of your quiestions though: FAQ/Resources - Sustainable Trails Coalition

    IMBA/IMBA chapters and other bike advocacy organizations are investing time and money into expanding access in non-Wilderness lands... STC is only seeking to end the the losses and re-gain some of what has been taken away in arguably some of our most scenic lands.

    How about you explain why it sounds like you think opening existing wilderness to bikes is not a good idea? If it involves quoting from the WA "....no other form of mechanical transport...", we'll be off on the wrong foot. :-)
    Thanks for the context, solid response, and link.

    I completely understand why people would be very angry to have trails they worked on and maintained be taken away from them. There's a similar dynamic, but even stronger, for folks who have had their economic livelihood (e.g., cattle-grazing or oil exploration) taken away as a result of other public land management changes.

    To me, Sen. Lee's bill had the ratchet in the wrong direction (default to "open to bikes" rather than the opposite). That seems to lead directly to most Wilderness being open to bikes. And, of course, local land managers reasonably respond primarily to local pressure rather than "national" pressure, so that dynamic would be further accelerated.

    Ultimately, I think one's view of bikes in Wilderness come down to your basic philosophy of the purpose of Wilderness Areas. If you think Wilderness is about preventing mining and real estate development, bikes are a drop in the bucket, and certainly not relevant. If you think about Wilderness as a place reserved and removed from the incursions of modern life, leave your gawddamn iPhone/Gopro/etc at home.

    Thx 4 the edumacation.

  23. #423
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,183
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Thanks for the context, solid response, and link.

    I completely understand why people would be very angry to have trails they worked on and maintained be taken away from them. There's a similar dynamic, but even stronger, for folks who have had their economic livelihood (e.g., cattle-grazing or oil exploration) taken away as a result of other public land management changes.

    To me, Sen. Lee's bill had the ratchet in the wrong direction (default to "open to bikes" rather than the opposite). That seems to lead directly to most Wilderness being open to bikes. And, of course, local land managers reasonably respond primarily to local pressure rather than "national" pressure, so that dynamic would be further accelerated.

    Ultimately, I think one's view of bikes in Wilderness come down to your basic philosophy of the purpose of Wilderness Areas. If you think Wilderness is about preventing mining and real estate development, bikes are a drop in the bucket, and certainly not relevant. If you think about Wilderness as a place reserved and removed from the incursions of modern life, leave your gawddamn iPhone/Gopro/etc at home.

    Thx 4 the edumacation.
    Incursions from modern life excuse does not withstand scrutiny. Wilderness concept basically implies that it should look like the late 1800s (I.e. without native Americans but with non native horses). It is just a pretext for folks to rationalize the ban on human powered bikes.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  24. #424
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Incursions from modern life excuse does not withstand scrutiny. Wilderness concept basically implies that it should look like the late 1800s (I.e. without native Americans but with non native horses). It is just a pretext for folks to rationalize the ban on human powered bikes.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    The current interpretation of Wilderness is a vehicle (boom) for holding on to the status quo.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #425
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    That seems to lead directly to most Wilderness being open to bikes. And, of course, local land managers reasonably respond primarily to local pressure rather than "national" pressure, so that dynamic would be further accelerated.
    That would make sense, and that would be great.

    There is no reason to exclude bicycles, but allow horses on any trail that can accommodate either.

    Important consideration is that discrimination against cycling that is enshrined in the current misguided interpretation of the Wilderness act serves as a blueprint for management of other public lands, on state and local level. Fighting to overturn the wilderness blanket ban may be the most effective way to improve access elsewhere.

  26. #426
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    There is no reason to exclude bicycles, but allow horses on any trail that can accommodate either.

    Important consideration is that discrimination against cycling that is enshrined in the current misguided interpretation of the Wilderness act serves as a blueprint for management of other public lands, on state and local level. Fighting to overturn the wilderness blanket ban may be the most effective way to improve access elsewhere.
    I am total agreement that horses cause 100x more impact than bikes. There's no impact-based argument that should lead to exclusion of bikes if horses are allowed.

    Unfortunately, the Wilderness Act does indeed enshrine a John Muir-esque view of wilderness - devoid of Native Americans but traversed by non-native horses. It's right in the damn law. "Wilderness" is defined as:

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

    That sure sounds like Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness.

    And there's also this:

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

    USFS interpretation of WA in 1966 said this was limited to objects "propelled by a nonliving power source". . . and agency interpretations of laws they implement are entitled to deference. But then USFS changed its tune in the 80s and added bikes.

    Anyhoo, I better shut my trap since it's clear yall are way more invested in this than me. I'll keep working on opening up and maintaining access on trails, but in urban, suburban, and WUI areas. Good luck.

  27. #427
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,183
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    I am total agreement that horses cause 100x more impact than bikes. There's no impact-based argument that should lead to exclusion of bikes if horses are allowed.

    Unfortunately, the Wilderness Act does indeed enshrine a John Muir-esque view of wilderness - devoid of Native Americans but traversed by non-native horses. It's right in the damn law. "Wilderness" is defined as:

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

    That sure sounds like Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness.

    And there's also this:

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

    USFS interpretation of WA in 1966 said this was limited to objects "propelled by a nonliving power source". . . and agency interpretations of laws they implement are entitled to deference. But then USFS changed its tune in the 80s and added bikes.

    Anyhoo, I better shut my trap since it's clear yall are way more invested in this than me. I'll keep working on opening up and maintaining access on trails, but in urban, suburban, and WUI areas. Good luck.
    Looks like you drank the kool aid and made up your mind already. Thanks for working on opening new trails. Let's just hope they don't get shut down when they magically become part of Wilderness.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  28. #428
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Touche.

    For real though, that BWC deal is fuct. "Imba got rolled on this. Thank the motorized community and Idaho's GOP legislators. 600,000 monument with bikes allowed or 275,000 acre wilderness with no bikes allowed and gerrymandered around motorized playgrounds. Never seen a snowmobile club in favor of wilderness until this bill went through.

    http://woodriverbike.org/loss-in-the-boulder-white-clouds-by-tom-flynn/"

    Had no idea it was that bad.

  29. #429
    mtbr member
    Reputation: evdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,556
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    For real though, that BWC deal is fuct. "Imba got rolled on this. Thank the motorized community and Idaho's GOP legislators. 600,000 monument with bikes allowed or 275,000 acre wilderness with no bikes allowed and gerrymandered around motorized playgrounds. Never seen a snowmobile club in favor of wilderness until this bill went through
    Don't forget business interests. Rules for national monuments can be more restrictive to mining than wilderness designation - since the mining act pre-dates the wilderness act existing claims are often grandfathered.

  30. #430
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,092
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    I am total agreement that horses cause 100x more impact than bikes. There's no impact-based argument that should lead to exclusion of bikes if horses are allowed.

    Unfortunately, the Wilderness Act does indeed enshrine a John Muir-esque view of wilderness - devoid of Native Americans but traversed by non-native horses. It's right in the damn law. "Wilderness" is defined as:

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

    That sure sounds like Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness.
    http://helenair.com/news/natural-res...60da177dd.html

  31. #431
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrozCountry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Ultimately, I think one's view of bikes in Wilderness come down to your basic philosophy of the purpose of Wilderness Areas. If you think Wilderness is about preventing mining and real estate development, bikes are a drop in the bucket, and certainly not relevant. If you think about Wilderness as a place reserved and removed from the incursions of modern life, leave your gawddamn iPhone/Gopro/etc at home.
    Either way you look at it mining is still allowed in some wilderness areas, which makes the whole designation little bogus for whatever goal it tries to achieve.

    It would be nice to see banning non native animals and mining.

  32. #432
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,673

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!

    Never mind. Tomato... Tomahto... Pointless debate.
    Last edited by Empty_Beer; 09-20-2017 at 08:27 AM.

  33. #433
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by CrozCountry View Post
    Either way you look at it mining is still allowed in some wilderness areas, which makes the whole designation little bogus for whatever goal it tries to achieve.

    It would be nice to see banning non native animals and mining.
    Agree. Some of the post-96 NMs allow mining to occur under pre-existing rights; same with WAs.

    Completely agree - that's why I noted "Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness". Muir and a lot of the preservationists wanted preservation without Native Americans, or at least a landscape they pretended had never been traversed, used, or occupied by humans. The article you link to is right on. (I'll also note that Muir the sheepherder had no problem with grazing in delicate alpine environments, which have caused far more destruction than a million MTBers ever would.)

    I don't agree with that part of Muir's vision, but I do think that vision motivated and informed a lot of the drive towards establishing the Wilderness Act. Even if it wasn't based in history or science. Or correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    Wait.... you went there.. but then you edited/neutered it? Tough to say in these retarded MTBR forums.
    Edited it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    Anyway, you summoned the "...has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation..."

    You're visualizing indigenous people smoking peace pipes in their tee-pees prior to going on a "walkabout" or riding bareback on their appaloosa's... and hi-tech hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, rafting, kayaking, skiing and modern horseback riding aren't registering with your personal preference for "Wilderness". Cool. But "primitive and unconfined recreation" has nothing to do with indigenous people or Lewis & Clark. It defines recreation without borders, snack bars, kiosks, ranger stations, bathrooms, roads, wi-fi, etc. Riding/pushing/carrying a bicycle in the rugged backcountry on one's own terms doesn't require non-primitive amenities.
    Good point - I like your read.

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    You can put your stake in the ground on a semantic basis, but you will likely be surprised to learn that semantics are the weakest argument for the bicycle prohibition.... thus I won't waste my time with "...no other form of mechanical transport..." You suck for invoking that phrase because it shows you don't know jack sheet about stuff that lead up to the passing of the Wilderness Act of 1964. If you backcountry ski in Wilderness areas, you are likely violating the words you promote for your personal vision for Wilderness.
    I suck? I'm just reading the law and regs that govern WAs. If you (or STC) want to change the status quo, you have to change the law or regs. I know you know that, and that's the whole point of Lee's bill.

    Interpreting that phrase is a big battle ground. Does drilling bolts and aid climbing on alpine walls count as a "form of mechanical transport"? Does backcountry skiing that relies on mechanical bindings? How about snowshoeing? What about helicopters for SAR? With such a malleable phrase, there is a lot of disagreement about what this includes -- that's why I said it comes down to your vision of the purpose of Wilderness.

    So, as much as the law or regs need to change to accommodate bikes, you also need people to change their vision of Wilderness in order to get the change you want. Telling me I (or others) suck for citing the words in the statute won't get you there. Giving concrete reasons like the ones above will.

    I thought about this a lot last night, and Zorg's comment about magically disappearing trails. I am from the Midwest, so the kool-aid is all we are fed as kiddos but my mind is open.

  34. #434
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,974
    I'm pretty sure when Muir discovered Yosemite he did it on horseback. He suggested his friends travel to Yosemite as close as they could via stage coach. This whole thing about Muir walking everywhere is sheep crap. When he changed from being a part-time sheep herder/sawmill operator to full time scientist/journalist he began to romanticize his travels. In real life he traveled in the best way practical. I suspect that if he were alive today he'd be riding a bicycle as far as he could and then hike from there.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  35. #435
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,183
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Agree. Some of the post-96 NMs allow mining to occur under pre-existing rights; same with WAs.



    Completely agree - that's why I noted "Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness". Muir and a lot of the preservationists wanted preservation without Native Americans, or at least a landscape they pretended had never been traversed, used, or occupied by humans. The article you link to is right on. (I'll also note that Muir the sheepherder had no problem with grazing in delicate alpine environments, which have caused far more destruction than a million MTBers ever would.)

    I don't agree with that part of Muir's vision, but I do think that vision motivated and informed a lot of the drive towards establishing the Wilderness Act. Even if it wasn't based in history or science. Or correct.



    Edited it?



    Good point - I like your read.



    I suck? I'm just reading the law and regs that govern WAs. If you (or STC) want to change the status quo, you have to change the law or regs. I know you know that, and that's the whole point of Lee's bill.

    Interpreting that phrase is a big battle ground. Does drilling bolts and aid climbing on alpine walls count as a "form of mechanical transport"? Does backcountry skiing that relies on mechanical bindings? How about snowshoeing? What about helicopters for SAR? With such a malleable phrase, there is a lot of disagreement about what this includes -- that's why I said it comes down to your vision of the purpose of Wilderness.

    So, as much as the law or regs need to change to accommodate bikes, you also need people to change their vision of Wilderness in order to get the change you want. Telling me I (or others) suck for citing the words in the statute won't get you there. Giving concrete reasons like the ones above will.

    I thought about this a lot last night, and Zorg's comment about magically disappearing trails. I am from the Midwest, so the kool-aid is all we are fed as kiddos but my mind is open.
    It's mostly a western states issue where trails keep disappearing because of new or proposed wilderness. That won't stop until we fix the incorrect interpretation.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  36. #436
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Agree. Some of the post-96 NMs allow mining to occur under pre-existing rights; same with WAs.



    Completely agree - that's why I noted "Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness". Muir and a lot of the preservationists wanted preservation without Native Americans, or at least a landscape they pretended had never been traversed, used, or occupied by humans. The article you link to is right on. (I'll also note that Muir the sheepherder had no problem with grazing in delicate alpine environments, which have caused far more destruction than a million MTBers ever would.)

    I don't agree with that part of Muir's vision, but I do think that vision motivated and informed a lot of the drive towards establishing the Wilderness Act. Even if it wasn't based in history or science. Or correct.



    Edited it?



    Good point - I like your read.



    I suck? I'm just reading the law and regs that govern WAs. If you (or STC) want to change the status quo, you have to change the law or regs. I know you know that, and that's the whole point of Lee's bill.

    Interpreting that phrase is a big battle ground. Does drilling bolts and aid climbing on alpine walls count as a "form of mechanical transport"? Does backcountry skiing that relies on mechanical bindings? How about snowshoeing? What about helicopters for SAR? With such a malleable phrase, there is a lot of disagreement about what this includes -- that's why I said it comes down to your vision of the purpose of Wilderness.

    So, as much as the law or regs need to change to accommodate bikes, you also need people to change their vision of Wilderness in order to get the change you want. Telling me I (or others) suck for citing the words in the statute won't get you there. Giving concrete reasons like the ones above will.

    I thought about this a lot last night, and Zorg's comment about magically disappearing trails. I am from the Midwest, so the kool-aid is all we are fed as kiddos but my mind is open.
    If your mind is truly open and you want to learn what we mean about disappearing trails please watch this video:



    Keep in mind this movie was made the first season bikes and motos were banned from this area of the BWC in Idaho. I asked a friend who lived in Hailey ID to check it out. He made this video and you can see numerous problems emerging on what was once an impeccably maintained backcountry trail. A few more years of this and the trail will be unusable and the tread will be a huge undertaking to repair.

    The GAO reports that the USFS can only maintain 25% of its trail inventory. I've already posted the link here and it is easy to find online. Restrictions on bicycles, wheelbarrows and (gasp) chainsaws, makes it nearly impossible to maintain the backcountry trail system.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  37. #437
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    If your mind is truly open and you want to learn what we mean about disappearing trails please watch this video:



    Keep in mind this movie was made the first season bikes and motos were banned from this area of the BWC in Idaho. I asked a friend who lived in Hailey ID to check it out. He made this video and you can see numerous problems emerging on what was once an impeccably maintained backcountry trail. A few more years of this and the trail will be unusable and the tread will be a huge undertaking to repair.

    The GAO reports that the USFS can only maintain 25% of its trail inventory. I've already posted the link here and it is easy to find online. Restrictions on bicycles, wheelbarrows and (gasp) chainsaws, makes it nearly impossible to maintain the backcountry trail system.
    I'll watch it - thanks for sharing.

    This GAO report? http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655555.pdf I'll read up.

    One more Q: what are some other prominent examples of MTB trails/access being lost to WAs?
    Last edited by meter-man; 09-20-2017 at 10:36 AM. Reason: Deleted extraneous quotes

  38. #438
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    I'll watch it - thanks for sharing.

    This GAO report? http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655555.pdf I'll read up.

    One more Q: what are some other prominent examples of MTB trails/access being lost to WAs?
    Yes. That GAO report.

    Over 1000 miles of Backcountry trail lost to the cycling community this year:

    http://www.savemontanatrails.com/trails.html


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  39. #439
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Yes. That GAO report.

    Over 1000 miles of Backcountry trail lost to the cycling community this year:

    Trails - Save montana trails​
    Thanks - appreciate the info. Got to get educated.

  40. #440
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Thanks - appreciate the info. Got to get educated.
    Keep in mind 1000 miles of trail lost to cycling forever, just this year, in just one state. To a Wilderness Study Area. Not actual Wilderness but managed as such.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  41. #441
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    I am total agreement that horses cause 100x more impact than bikes. There's no impact-based argument that should lead to exclusion of bikes if horses are allowed.

    Unfortunately, the Wilderness Act does indeed enshrine a John Muir-esque view of wilderness - devoid of Native Americans but traversed by non-native horses. It's right in the damn law. "Wilderness" is defined as:

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

    That sure sounds like Muir's fantasy vision for wilderness.

    And there's also this:

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

    USFS interpretation of WA in 1966 said this was limited to objects "propelled by a nonliving power source". . . and agency interpretations of laws they implement are entitled to deference. But then USFS changed its tune in the 80s and added bikes.

    Anyhoo, I better shut my trap since it's clear yall are way more invested in this than me. I'll keep working on opening up and maintaining access on trails, but in urban, suburban, and WUI areas. Good luck.
    You read there what you want to read. To me, solitude and recreation is riding a bicycle on a remote trail. That is the core purpose of the wilderness. Any interpretation or language that does not serve that core purpose should be corrected.

    No rational argument can be made for a blanket exclusion of cycling as a recreational activity. None.

    But apparently you made up your mind. Sad.

  42. #442
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,673
    Exciting!

    From STC Facebook:

    We are very pleased to announce that the House Committee on Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing on H.R. 1349 this Thursday, December 7th. This is taking place because of all the phone calls, emails, and effort YOU have made thus far! Thank you!!

    While this is just a legislative hearing (i.e., info gathering session on the bill), opponents of this bill have begun bombarding members of congress with form letters and phone calls, spreading misinformation and hyperbole (the same rhetoric you hear about bikes on your local multi-use trails). If you have a minute to write your members of congress a note of support for HR 1349 before Thursday, that would be excellent.

    Write Congress - Sustainable Trails Coalition

    After the hearing, the bill will likely go to mark up (the process by which the committee debates, amends, and rewrites legislation)... and this is when you will receive a strong call to action from us. Please stay tuned! In the meantime, pat yourselves on the back and celebrate this historic step for human powered mountain biking.

    https://naturalresources.house.gov/c...EventID=403471

    Important committee members to contact: https://naturalresources.house.gov/about/members.htm

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!-12ad7bfca05a4b92a7e9376c1e048354.jpg

  43. #443
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,407
    Sounds like this is not the same as the bill introduced in last congress. This one covers wheelchairs and game carts? Electric wheelchairs?

  44. #444
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,673
    Yeah, different bill since the original one (introduced in the Senate) expired upon the end of Obama's presidency. McClintock (introduced in the House) went for simple: Non-motorized, human powered things with wheels will not be prohibited by law... but the agencies can still regulate use, just like they do with backpackers, horses, etc. I'm not sure why McClintock included wheelchairs as they are already permitted in Wilderness (including motorized versions): https://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes...heelchairs.pdf

  45. #445
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    154
    Ok, I wrote to all 3 representatives (House and Senate). Hope my communications are read!

  46. #446
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    526
    know anyone in socal? looks like 2 of the committee members are from CA 34 (downtown LA and environs) and CA 35 (Inland Empire--Ontario and environs)

  47. #447
    mtbr member
    Reputation: b0bg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    190
    Ugh, another cherry picking editorial from the Back Country Horsemen Association:

    America's wilderness is no place for mountain bikes | TheHill

    And sadly my house (SF) and senate charlatans are allergic to this issue, or at least voting along with the bill sponsors anyway. I've sent my letters and expect to get the "thanks for your letter but..." excuses back soon.

  48. #448
    mtbr member
    Reputation: evdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,556
    I'm much more pissed off at the testimony of IMBA on the HR1349 bill: https://www.imba.com/sites/default/f...ny_12-6-17.pdf

    They are all for local land manager discretion over e-bike access to non-motorized trails but not for local land manager discretion over mountain bikes on wilderness trails.

  49. #449
    Hella Olde
    Reputation: DH40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,001
    Here's the PB (by Vernon Felton) version for short-attention-span shredders.

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/imba-o...ilderness.html

  50. #450
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,270
    Never donate a cent to IMBA ever again. Tell your friends not to donate.

    They are just working on behalf of their ebike selling corporate sponsors

  51. #451
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Never donate a cent to IMBA ever again. Tell your friends not to donate.

    They are just working on behalf of their ebike selling corporate sponsors
    LOL tell us how you really feel.

    But seriously, I’ve never seen this kind of vitriol for the IMBA before. Not you Axe like the entire internet...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  52. #452
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,270
    They are evil traitors. I really regret supporting them over the years. I wish I could get a refund.
    And of course partisan politics plays into that as well.

  53. #453
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RooHarris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    They are evil traitors. I really regret supporting them over the years. I wish I could get a refund.
    And of course partisan politics plays into that as well.
    Axe,

    Your response hit hard. Damn, I have been feeling exactly this way-cheated as well!

    IMBA blew it with their lily livered lack of support for STC. I gave IMBA notice 2 years ago on my renewal to take me off their mailing list until they reflected my feelings of what a bike organization should do for the common biker. (Where the phuck were they when Idaho's Boulder/White Cloud mountain area access was kiboshed. I once rode there and it just flat pissed me off losing that beautiful piece of nature.)

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!-boulderwhiteclouds.org_.jpg

    Then on top of it all off, Dave Wiener's support of Class 1 e-Bikes was the crowning bullsh!t move for IMBA. How do you spell;

    I-M-B-A-S-O-L-D-O-U-T?

    There are too many "weak links" in the IMBA chain now for me to support them ever again. Members are leaving in droves. I recently heard that they are reducing their charter fees/member to bolster back those they have lost. Our club is looking into it and I'm torn about staying a local club member if this comes to fruition. Don't get me wrong, I'll be doing trail maintenance till the day I can't. I will not be a supporter of IMBA, period.

    I know you and I will not be missed, we'll be just another disappointed ex-supporter link. I'm too old for this BS politics. Either, we're all in the same boat without incorporating the big money interest (ie: E-BIKES) or it going to sink...

    Thanks for the opportunity to rant!

  54. #454
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by DH40 View Post
    Here's the PB (by Vernon Felton) version for short-attention-span shredders.

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/imba-o...ilderness.html
    Ehh I've never been a fan of Vernon Felton... too often I feel like he epitomizes the worst aspects of Pinkbike. So far though, his take here seems pretty balanced.

  55. #455
    mtbr member
    Reputation: timetraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    316
    My two year IMBA membership expired this year and I have been sending back every begging letter with a note that I can't support an organization that doesn't support mountain bike access and I would reconsider if they change their stance on the Wilderness Bill. I guess my (and many others) membership fees don't carry the weight of big sponsors. Maybe when their membership roles dwindle and they lose sponsors they will listen....or another organization will take their role.
    I never said most of the things I said - Yogi Berra

  56. #456
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,415
    I too am DONE with IMBA. Extremely disappointed with their decision to drop that bomb at yesterdays hearing. it's just a bad look...
    "There's two kinds of people in this world - Walkers and Talkers." Which one are you?

  57. #457
    Crazed Country Rebel
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,317
    I've said it before and I'll say it again. most mountain bikers are in a logical catch 22. they support the sustainable trails coalition fighting for local control and policy - but freak out when President Trump gives local control to the states and local land managers. MAGA by giving local land managers and states control over lands.
    Stupid, but sometimes witty. Occasionally brilliant. Slow and fat though.

    Mike Vandeman Sucks Dong

  58. #458
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,333
    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles View Post
    I've said it before and I'll say it again. most mountain bikers are in a logical catch 22. they support the sustainable trails coalition fighting for local control and policy - but freak out when President Trump gives local control to the states and local land managers. MAGA by giving local land managers and states control over lands.
    Why would states have any right to control federal lands?

    If you're referring to the National Monuments in Utah, Utah has never, not for a second, owned that land. Why are you implying that Trump is giving land control to the states with this move? He isn't. And I'm confused as to how you'd think that was the case.

    Would I like to see local BLM and USFS managers making decisions re: Wilderness areas? Of course.

    But what you mentioned and "states" have nothing to do with each other.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  59. #459
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,415
    I think there's a pretty big difference there iheartbicycles.
    Cyclists just want the Wilderness Act restored to it's original writing. Actually less-than it's original intent....

    The current Administration wants to undo all the protections, do away with Parks and turn total control over to the individual States which won't be able to fund them which will force massive land-sales to Industry and/or the very wealthy who inturn will look to Industry or Development.
    "There's two kinds of people in this world - Walkers and Talkers." Which one are you?

  60. #460
    Hella Olde
    Reputation: DH40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by phogan22 View Post
    Ehh I've never been a fan of Vernon Felton... too often I feel like he epitomizes the worst aspects of Pinkbike. So far though, his take here seems pretty balanced.

    He hasn't worked there long, but I think he raises the overall content quality considerably with his occasional rants and reviews, but I hear you. I still think it's weird that Richard Cunningham is a staffer there, too.

  61. #461
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles View Post
    I've said it before and I'll say it again. most mountain bikers are in a logical catch 22. they support the sustainable trails coalition fighting for local control and policy - but freak out when President Trump gives local control to the states and local land managers. MAGA by giving local land managers and states control over lands.
    I find it odd. These two issues have nothing to do with one another.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  62. #462
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,396
    Agreed 100%!! Anybody that is against human powered MTB's in the Wilderness obviously has never had 250,000+ acres of riding area snatched away from them with a stroke of a pen.

    As fas as IMBA caring about our $$, there are only about 38,000 IMBA members if I remember correctly. I'm sure the corporate sponsors give more money the all the other members combined. They surely don't care about us.

    Quote Originally Posted by RooHarris View Post
    Axe,

    Your response hit hard. Damn, I have been feeling exactly this way-cheated as well!

    IMBA blew it with their lily livered lack of support for STC. I gave IMBA notice 2 years ago on my renewal to take me off their mailing list until they reflected my feelings of what a bike organization should do for the common biker. (Where the phuck were they when Idaho's Boulder/White Cloud mountain area access was kiboshed. I once rode there and it just flat pissed me off losing that beautiful piece of nature.)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	boulderwhiteclouds.org_.jpg 
Views:	41 
Size:	212.2 KB 
ID:	1171176

    Then on top of it all off, Dave Wiener's support of Class 1 e-Bikes was the crowning bullsh!t move for IMBA. How do you spell;

    I-M-B-A-S-O-L-D-O-U-T?

    There are too many "weak links" in the IMBA chain now for me to support them ever again. Members are leaving in droves. I recently heard that they are reducing their charter fees/member to bolster back those they have lost. Our club is looking into it and I'm torn about staying a local club member if this comes to fruition. Don't get me wrong, I'll be doing trail maintenance till the day I can't. I will not be a supporter of IMBA, period.

    I know you and I will not be missed, we'll be just another disappointed ex-supporter link. I'm too old for this BS politics. Either, we're all in the same boat without incorporating the big money interest (ie: E-BIKES) or it going to sink...

    Thanks for the opportunity to rant!
    2017 Intense Primer
    2016 Santa Cruz 5010

  63. #463
    Sweater
    Reputation: Buzzaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,857
    Quote Originally Posted by k2rider1964 View Post
    Agreed 100%!! Anybody that is against human powered MTB's in the Wilderness obviously has never had 250,000+ acres of riding area snatched away from them with a stroke of a pen.

    As fas as IMBA caring about our $$, there are only about 38,000 IMBA members if I remember correctly. I'm sure the corporate sponsors give more money the all the other members combined. They surely don't care about us.
    Will the corporations continue to sponsor an organization without members?
    All out of S**** and down to my last F***

  64. #464
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles View Post
    I've said it before and I'll say it again. most mountain bikers are in a logical catch 22. they support the sustainable trails coalition fighting for local control and policy - but freak out when President Trump gives local control to the states and local land managers. MAGA by giving local land managers and states control over lands.
    No catch 22 here for this mountain biker. The Cheeto’s recent decision was not about State’s rights and local land managers but rather a narcissistic combo of having to undue what his successful predecessors have done and catering to special interest groups.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...581_story.html

  65. #465
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by dustedone View Post
    No catch 22 here for this mountain biker. The Cheeto’s recent decision was not about State’s rights and local land managers but rather a narcissistic combo of having to undue what his successful predecessors have done and catering to special interest groups.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...581_story.html
    I think antiquities act was being abused and that was a correct decision to undo it. Of course Washington Post will complain, because Trump. Well, that’s the time we live in.

    Has nothing to do with Wilderness act, and too bad some misguided people conflate all those issues.

  66. #466
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzaro View Post
    Will the corporations continue to sponsor an organization without members?
    We need a new national organization.

  67. #467
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    https://youtu.be/f37hxxdkC4w


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  68. #468
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    We need a new national organization.
    STC looks like a good start.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  69. #469
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles View Post
    I've said it before and I'll say it again. most mountain bikers are in a logical catch 22. they support the sustainable trails coalition fighting for local control and policy - but freak out when President Trump gives local control to the states and local land managers. MAGA by giving local land managers and states control over lands.
    There is a huge difference between local control of a benign activity like mountain biking and local control over destructive activities like mining and oil drilling.

  70. #470
    Sweater
    Reputation: Buzzaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,857

    Sustainable Trail Coalition is still at it!

    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    STC looks like a good start.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    But shouldn’t we call it the International Horseman’s and Hikers Trail Council or something?
    All out of S**** and down to my last F***

  71. #471
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Why would states have any right to control federal lands?

    If you're referring to the National Monuments in Utah, Utah has never, not for a second, owned that land. Why are you implying that Trump is giving land control to the states with this move? He isn't. And I'm confused as to how you'd think that was the case.

    Would I like to see local BLM and USFS managers making decisions re: Wilderness areas? Of course.

    But what you mentioned and "states" have nothing to do with each other.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Trump stated many times during the campaign he opposed giving federal land back to the states. Other than a few loudmouths in Congress (like Ron Bishop, Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee), there really is no strong movement to do so. The various state land and natural resources agencies do not want all the land, maybe a few choice parcels, but not the whole enchilada. Fearmongering by left-wing never-trumpers.

    With the Monument rollback, the land will remain under BLM and FS control, and will be managed as before obama's land grab. If they were not being bulldozed before, why would you think they will now?
    So many trails... so little time...

  72. #472
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,333
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    Trump stated many times during the campaign he opposed giving federal land back to the states. Other than a few loudmouths in Congress (like Ron Bishop, Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee), there really is no strong movement to do so. The various state land and natural resources agencies do not want all the land, maybe a few choice parcels, but not the whole enchilada. Fearmongering by left-wing never-trumpers.

    With the Monument rollback, the land will remain under BLM and FS control, and will be managed as before obama's land grab. If they were not being bulldozed before, why would you think they will now?
    Why do I think they'll move into this area? Most likely because of statements like this:

    "But the nation's sole uranium processing mill sits directly next to the boundaries that President Barack Obama designated a year ago when he established Bears Ears. The documents show that Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., a subsidiary of a Canadian firm, urged the Trump administration to limit the monument to the smallest size needed to protect key objects and areas, such as archeological sites, to make it easier to access the radioactive ore.

    In a May 25 letter to the Interior Department, Chief Operating Officer Mark Chalmers wrote that the 1.35 million-acre expanse Obama created "could affect existing and future mill operations." He later noted, "There are also many other known uranium and vanadium deposits located within the [original boundaries] that could provide valuable energy and mineral resources in the future."

    Uranium firm lobbied to have Bears Ears National Monument scaled back - Chicago Tribune

    Or, should we not take the word of the COO of the nation's only uranium milling company at face value? Is there some other meaning you'd like to ascribe to his words?

    Also, can you explain to me how, if federal land remained in federal hands, and cattle ranchers still had access to areas they previously did (hint: they did), how was creating those monuments a "land grab"? Who did they "grab" it from?
    Death from Below.

  73. #473
    mtbr member
    Reputation: squareback's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by dustedone View Post
    The Cheeto’s recent decision was not about State’s rights and local land managers but rather a narcissistic combo of having to undue what his successful predecessors have done and catering to special interest groups.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...581_story.html
    Wait....so NOW uranium is important?

    Bears Ears was a restricted monument for less than a year.

    You call President Trump "Cheeto", based on his skin color. Did you call Obama "Blackie"?

  74. #474
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by squareback View Post
    Wait....so NOW uranium is important?

    Bears Ears was a restricted monument for less than a year.

    You call President Trump "Cheeto", based on his skin color. Did you call Obama "Blackie"?
    Because the left wingnuts are the most bigoted racists of all. They just lack the integrity and courage to admit it.
    So many trails... so little time...

  75. #475
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by squareback View Post
    You call President Trump "Cheeto", based on his skin color. Did you call Obama "Blackie"?
    Your confusion is noted.

    I call the Cheeto, “The Cheeto,” based on his pathetically comic makeup and not the color of his skin.

  76. #476
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    The thing is: Trump, Bears Ears, Uranium, Mining, and Logging have nothing to do with STCs bill.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  77. #477
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    The thing is: Trump, Bears Ears, Uranium, Mining, and Logging have nothing to do with STCs bill.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I wish you (us, really) luck in getting the bill, as written, passed. That would be great.

    I will continue supporting you.






    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  78. #478
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I wish you (us, really) luck in getting the bill, as written, passed. That would be great.

    I will continue supporting you.






    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Thank you very much. I am but a humble volunteer. If anything is amended I will be extremely transparent about it and most importantly: if it involves any kind of resource extraction of any kind I will outright start fighting against the bill with the Wilderness Society et al. And I think the rest of the board would as well. If this didn’t kill the bill I don’t know what would.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  79. #479
    aka: Bucky Fikes
    Reputation: Oh My Sack!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,688
    We're going to need that uranium since Hillary gave 25% of ours to Putin.
    Always ride with a purpose.

  80. #480
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95124 View Post
    There is a huge difference between local control of a benign activity like mountain biking and local control over destructive activities like mining and oil drilling.
    And why do you think bureaucrats in Washington are any better at managing natural resource extraction than bureaucrats in some state capital? As we do need some resources, up until everything is powered by unicorn dust.

    In any case, this thread is a sad reminder how politicized even simple and obvious issues had become. And yes, to pass anything in congress, one needs to work with Republicans, and yes, they are normal humans too, no matter what you read in Washington Post.

  81. #481
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    And why do you think bureaucrats in Washington are any better at managing natural resource extraction than bureaucrats in some state capital? As we do need some resources, up until everything is powered by unicorn dust.

    In any case, this thread is a sad reminder how politicized even simple and obvious issues had become. And yes, to pass anything in congress, one needs to work with Republicans, and yes, they are normal humans too, no matter what you read in Washington Post.
    And why should local politicians be any better? Public lands belong to all Americans so when we are talking about doing anything to them that will cause them harm I don’t want some local yokels having the sole decision making authority on them.

  82. #482
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrozCountry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    I think antiquities act was being abused and that was a correct decision to undo it. Of course Washington Post will complain, because Trump. Well, that’s the time we live in.

    Has nothing to do with Wilderness act, and too bad some misguided people conflate all those issues.
    Having said that, dustedone is correct about the motives of that rollback and Trump's actions and rational, regardless of whether rolling it back is good or not (irrelevant) or what the Post says.

    Worth mentioning because this is the reality now. It's the tone in DC and we should take advantage of it as long as it lasts.

    This is not how things should run, but the objections to the STC bill are straight hate based politics, so everything is on the table.
    Last edited by CrozCountry; 1 Week Ago at 02:16 PM.

  83. #483
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    Check out our YouTube channel:

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIx...yB_qirJH9ZPo9A


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  84. #484
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,974
    Deleted duplicate.
    Last edited by Moe Ped; 1 Week Ago at 02:09 PM.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  85. #485
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,183
    Quote Originally Posted by CrozCountry View Post
    Having said that, dustedone is correct about the motives of that rollback and Trump's actions and rational, regardless of whether rolling it back is good or not (irrelevant) or what the Post says.

    Worth mentioning because this is the reality now. It's the tone in DC and we should take advantage of it as long as it lasts.

    This is not how things should run, but the objections to the STC bill are straight hate based politics, so everything is on the table.

    Good timing for this thread to pop up again before the end of the tax year, charitable donation.
    STC donations are not tax deductible but that shouldn't stop anyone from donating.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  86. #486
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95124 View Post
    And why should local politicians be any better? Public lands belong to all Americans so when we are talking about doing anything to them that will cause them harm I don’t want some local yokels having the sole decision making authority on them.
    Are you forgetting the democrat positions from a few years ago?

    Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 had campaign position statements calling for increased local control over federal lands. Bush did not in either campaign. In 2008 obama was largely silent on federal land issues, other than a vague lukewarm statement about preserving the right of public use and managing according to the best available science.
    So many trails... so little time...

  87. #487
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    Are you forgetting the democrat positions from a few years ago?

    Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 had campaign position statements calling for increased local control over federal lands. Bush did not in either campaign. In 2008 obama was largely silent on federal land issues, other than a vague lukewarm statement about preserving the right of public use and managing according to the best available science.
    What’s that got to do with my opinion? I am not Al Gore or John Kerry why should I have to adhere to their positions?

  88. #488
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95124 View Post
    And why should local politicians be any better? Public lands belong to all Americans so when we are talking about doing anything to them that will cause them harm I don’t want some local yokels having the sole decision making authority on them.
    State level control seems reasonable to me, given how this country had been set up.

    And predictably, my post calling for normality in interaction gets a neg rep calling me “pedophile and KKK sympathizer”. And then democrats wonder why they lost so many national elections.

  89. #489
    aka: Bucky Fikes
    Reputation: Oh My Sack!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,688
    Seriously? Unf'ing believable.

  90. #490
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,783
    Again none of this has to do with STCs bill. Wilderness is Federal and Wilderness will always be managed by the Federal employees of each Wilderness district.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  91. #491
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Again none of this has to do with STCs bill. Wilderness is Federal and Wilderness will always be managed by the Federal employees of each Wilderness district.
    Yep. Indeed. But since the bill has support of pedophiles and KKK sympathizers, we all should oppose it, right?

  92. #492
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrozCountry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    STC donations are not tax deductible but that shouldn't stop anyone from donating.
    Oops, I took it out. Thanks for the correction.

  93. #493
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,183
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    State level control seems reasonable to me, given how this country had been set up.

    And predictably, my post calling for normality in interaction gets a neg rep calling me “pedophile and KKK sympathizer”. And then democrats wonder why they lost so many national elections.
    I don't condone insulting but there is no logic to your argument. Either way, I am glad that Republicans hold Congress when it comes to getting Wilderness open to bikes.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  94. #494
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    State level control seems reasonable to me, given how this country had been set up. ...
    True. The Forest Service was originally created to promote rural economic development and to facilitate the harvesting of timberlands for the benefit of local communities. The BLM was created out of the General Land Office, which was the caretaker of the federal public lands pending transfer to the states or private ownership. In 1947, all that was left was the land no one wanted and thus BLM was born. John Wesley Powell's blueprint for western public lands was counties were to be established along watershed boundaries and control over the land given to local communities. The Federal Land Management Act of 1976 gave local government a greater voice in land management decisions (or was supposed to, anyway).

    The 'national control' argument is a recent idea. Throughout this country's history local control was always the desire.

    As far as who does a better job compare state owned lands to the adjacent federal owned. In an overwhelming number of comparisons the state land is healthier, more biologically diverse, and more resilient to catastrophic disturbance.
    You want a real shocker? Compare the corporate timber company holdings to the adjacent national forests. In California the private lands are better managed and healthier.
    So many trails... so little time...

  95. #495
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,539
    Emails show Ryan Zinke push for controversial road - CNNPolitics

    Well we have this guy that wants to put a road through some wilderness area in Alaska. Im not sure if that's good or bad.
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  96. #496
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,673
    Today, you're either a mountain biker, or you aren't. Do not let this opportunity to express your support pass by. Today.

    https://www.facebook.com/Sustainable...71763669599094

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Double down and email the committee:
    https://naturalresources.house.gov/contact/

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

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

    https://naturalresources.house.gov/u...__12.13.17.pdf

  97. #497
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,415
    Done!!
    "There's two kinds of people in this world - Walkers and Talkers." Which one are you?

  98. #498
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,270
    My congresswoman is not on the natural resources committee - and I doubt that somebody from San Francisco gives a damn about mountain biking, but wrote an email to her nevertheless.

  99. #499
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,183
    Email sent to committee

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  100. #500
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    My congresswoman is not on the natural resources committee - and I doubt that somebody from San Francisco gives a damn about mountain biking, but wrote an email to her nevertheless.
    If you don't have a Rep on the committee, contact the committee directly:

    https://naturalresources.house.gov/contact/

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 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: 254

Posting Permissions

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