Results 1 to 48 of 48
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,041

    Smile Outside Magazine Urges End to Wilderness Bicycle Ban!

    The March 2010 issue of <i>Outside</i> magazine contains a strong and emphatic endorsement of ending the no-bikes-in-Wilderness rules, which were mysteriously put into effect by the Forest Service around 1982, perhaps because the Wilderness Society or Sierra Club got to someone in the government bureaucracy. Before then, trail cyclists rode in Wilderness without any documented problem. See http://www.wildernessbicycling.org

    A few excerpts from this fine editorial . . . .

    It starts out, "The government's ban on bicycles in wilderness areas is dead wrong." A great opening!

    "At some point," it continues, "nearly every new mountain biker makes the same sad discovery: Bicycles are banned from . . . Wilderness. . . . And with every new Wilderness designation, someone else's favorite trail gets closed to bikes forever."

    "[T]he authors of the Wilderness Act never meant to ban" trail bicycling.

    Now, "Forest Service proposals in Montana could ban bikes from any areas that might theoretically be designated as Wilderness. Cyclists in that state might soon lose portions of four national forests based on some bureaucrat thinking those areas should one day become Wilderness."

    Buy the March issue of <i>Outside</i> and read the whole thing!

    If you feel like it, write a letter to the editor supporting the pro-bicycle editorial.

    Then, photocopy the article and send copies of it, with a cover note, to:

    1. Your U.S. senators and your representative (congressperson);

    2. Michelle Obama. She just began a drive to reduce obesity in young people. You could point out that the federal government is an impediment to kid-friendly means of attaining physical fitness because of its Wilderness bicycle ban.

    We don't have <i>Debrett's Correct Form</i> in this country (as far as I know) but I found a website that supplies an apparently correct form of envelope address and salutation for the First Lady:

    "<b>Envelope, official</b>:

    <i>Mrs. Obama
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20500</i>

    <b>Letter salutation</b>:

    <i>Dear Mrs. Obama:</i>"

    Best investment of $1.76 (44˘ x 4 letters) ever!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    27
    Wow, thanks for bringing this to our attention. What an opportunity for us to siege them with some letters following this publicity. Could you imagine being able to ride the Colorado Trail from start to finish, no bike detours?! Giving me freakin goosebumps.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: imtnbke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,041
    You're welcome! I've ridden parts of the Colorado Trail and Continental Divide Trail that are legal to ride near Lake City and they're incredible. (Check out my reviews of Snow Mesa and Pole Creek Mountain on the Front Range trail reviews page.) To be able to ride more of these high-altitude wonders would be fabulous.

  4. #4
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,932
    With Outside magazine on our side, nothing can stop us!
    the drugs made me realize it's not about the drugs

  5. #5
    drinks from the fountain
    Reputation: tmosebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    391
    Never gonna happen. The equestrian and Sierra Club lobby is WAY too strong.
    Personally I think some wilderness should be bike free. ( and horse free! )
    I doubt National Parks would be included. But... can you imagine RMN with all the Front Range traffic?
    pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

  6. #6
    Living the High Life
    Reputation: Ithnu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4,535
    Quote Originally Posted by tmosebar
    Never gonna happen. The equestrian and Sierra Club lobby is WAY too strong.
    Personally I think some wilderness should be bike free. ( and horse free! )
    I doubt National Parks would be included. But... can you imagine RMN with all the Front Range traffic?
    Can you imagine how trails would be better if bikes were spaced out over all trails?

    What about all the volunteer work cyclists do for current trails in Jeff Co, that would only extend to wilderness areas. Avid cyclists are very pro wilderness, lots of groups are and all should learn to share.

    Can you imagine the Front Range without horses? (Or at least horses with poop bags, come on!)

    Can you imagine a big spicy fajita burrito with a giant beer?

    All of these things can happen.
    You have just been mentally Rick Roll'd. Yup you're thinking about it right now aren't you? Don't fight it.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,510
    Thanks!!!

    I hope to look back one day at the wilderness act and chuckle like i do now when i buy beer on sunday. Stupid law and there is so much gray area in the definition that it should be redone and allow bicycles.

    I wanted to ride the colorado trail from waterton to durango and then found out i have to go out on the highway and ride my bike for sections because of some stupid law that was passed a long time ago????
    LAME!

    I am such a threat to equestrians and other hikers????????
    Come on!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by imtnbke
    The March 2010 issue of <i>Outside</i> magazine contains a strong and emphatic endorsement of ending the no-bikes-in-Wilderness rules, which were mysteriously put into effect by the Forest Service around 1982, perhaps because the Wilderness Society or Sierra Club got to someone in the government bureaucracy. Before then, trail cyclists rode in Wilderness without any documented problem. See http://www.wildernessbicycling.org

    A few excerpts from this fine editorial . . . .

    It starts out, "The government's ban on bicycles in wilderness areas is dead wrong." A great opening!

    "At some point," it continues, "nearly every new mountain biker makes the same sad discovery: Bicycles are banned from . . . Wilderness. . . . And with every new Wilderness designation, someone else's favorite trail gets closed to bikes forever."

    "[T]he authors of the Wilderness Act never meant to ban" trail bicycling.

    Now, "Forest Service proposals in Montana could ban bikes from any areas that might theoretically be designated as Wilderness. Cyclists in that state might soon lose portions of four national forests based on some bureaucrat thinking those areas should one day become Wilderness."

    Buy the March issue of <i>Outside</i> and read the whole thing!

    If you feel like it, write a letter to the editor supporting the pro-bicycle editorial.

    Then, photocopy the article and send copies of it, with a cover note, to:

    1. Your U.S. senators and your representative (congressperson);

    2. Michelle Obama. She just began a drive to reduce obesity in young people. You could point out that the federal government is an impediment to kid-friendly means of attaining physical fitness because of its Wilderness bicycle ban.

    We don't have <i>Debrett's Correct Form</i> in this country (as far as I know) but I found a website that supplies an apparently correct form of envelope address and salutation for the First Lady:

    "<b>Envelope, official</b>:

    <i>Mrs. Obama
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20500</i>

    <b>Letter salutation</b>:

    <i>Dear Mrs. Obama:</i>"

    Best investment of $1.76 (44˘ x 4 letters) ever!

  8. #8
    rubber side down
    Reputation: russman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    458
    Quote Originally Posted by Ithnu
    Can you imagine how trails would be better if bikes were spaced out over all trails?

    What about all the volunteer work cyclists do for current trails in Jeff Co, that would only extend to wilderness areas. Avid cyclists are very pro wilderness, lots of groups are and all should learn to share.

    Can you imagine the Front Range without horses? (Or at least horses with poop bags, come on!)

    Can you imagine a big spicy fajita burrito with a giant beer?

    All of these things can happen.
    Hope and Change, man! Hope and Change!

  9. #9
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,860
    I think I'll raise a pint to the idea.

  10. #10
    Your bike is incorrigible
    Reputation: Guyechka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,159
    I've thought of Outside as the mag for yuppie outdoor wannabes for some time now. It seems strange they would run an article like this.

  11. #11
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Guyechka
    I've thought of Outside as the mag for yuppie outdoor wannabes for some time now. It seems strange they would run an article like this.
    In this it's like every other bike, ski, or outdoor magazine nowadays.

  12. #12
    Your retarded
    Reputation: Nickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Ithnu
    Can you imagine how trails would be better if bikes were spaced out over all trails?
    Exactly. Can you imagine how much less frequently user conflicts, and even any encounters with other users, would occur?

    Can you imagine how much opposition would be lost and how much advocacy that would be gained by allowing bicycles? The majority of our user group would be pro-Wilderness, rather than opposing or being on the fence like it is currently.
    A trail that’s too difficult wouldn’t exist because it’d never be used. But, trails can exist that’re too difficult for you.

  13. #13
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickle
    Exactly. Can you imagine how much less frequently user conflicts, and even any encounters with other users, would occur?

    Can you imagine how much opposition would be lost and how much advocacy that would be gained by allowing bicycles? The majority of our user group would be pro-Wilderness, rather than opposing or being on the fence like it is currently.
    Bingo. Apparently the hiker-only & equestrian user groups don't get this.

    I'm a hiker... and a biker... and I will OPPOSE all Wilderness designation until bikes are allowed.

  14. #14
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,538
    I wouldn't worry too much about Wilderness Areas getting clogged with bikes... there are plenty of non-Wilderness trails easily accessed from the Front Range that get a tiny fraction of the traffic that trails like Apex get.

    And National Parks are different than Wilderness Areas, right? So I'd assume that the two would be handled separately.


    edit.. and I'll be buying a copy of this issue of Outside Magazine (I think the only place I've ever seen this mag is in doctor / dentist waiting rooms), maybe a bump in this month's circulation will motivate them towards more support for mountain biking.

  15. #15
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,860
    Quote Originally Posted by topmounter
    <snip>
    And National Parks are different than Wilderness Areas, right?
    Sometimes. Some National Park land IS designated Wilderness. Other is not. It's complicated.

  16. #16
    Living the High Life
    Reputation: Ithnu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4,535
    I like Outside magazine, I've been getting it for a few years now. I like it to give me a perspective of how outsiders view my 2 favorite sports (bikes and boards) based on how they discuss them in their mag. I then apply this knowledge to the other sports they cover and can get a feel for them without having to buy multiple magazines.

    Their fitness/workout/diet articles are decent. I compare those to Decline Magazine and usually use something that's a bit of both.
    You have just been mentally Rick Roll'd. Yup you're thinking about it right now aren't you? Don't fight it.

  17. #17
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Ithnu
    I like Outside magazine
    Your standards are pretty low.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kosayno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    990
    Being able to ride the whole CT without detours Where do I sign up?

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ithnu
    Can you imagine how trails would be better if bikes were spaced out over all trails?

    What about all the volunteer work cyclists do for current trails in Jeff Co, that would only extend to wilderness areas. Avid cyclists are very pro wilderness, lots of groups are and all should learn to share.

    Can you imagine the Front Range without horses? (Or at least horses with poop bags, come on!)

    Can you imagine a big spicy fajita burrito with a giant beer?

    All of these things can happen.
    This is how I feel as an off-roader, 4WD's that is. There's plenty of a** holes in the 4wd group as well as in MTB'ing to ruin it for all. Hikers get all the sympathy so they are perfect to the city bound environmentalist with lots of $$ to donate. I wouldn't get too happy about this article as the Sierra club extremists will have it their way no matter what an article says.

    FWIW. I love taking my family off-road over passes in the summer, as well as the extreme trails in my rockcrawler. I do clean up after my self, and others who left behind trash whether I'm in our 4wd's or when I'm on bike.

    I picked up a couple pieces of trash out at the reservoir when riding my new bike Saturday at the South shore trails so there is no perfect whether it's hikers, bikers, or off-roaders. The off-roaders that piss me off are the ATVers because there is a huge amount of them that are not educated about proper trail etiquette, and clean up skills.

    As well there are 4WDrivers that are trashy people as well.

    Sorry about the rant, but I know how much Mountain bikers hate off-roaders, and I can't totally blame them. I do come from all backgrounds and have seen bad apples from every group.

    L8rz

    Chris

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sbsbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,172
    I fully support a summer of civil disobeadance with regards to the wilderness ban on bikes. Untill the USFS has examples of riders that want and DO ride on these banned trails will we be able to show how bikes can belong inside wilderness areas without causing damage and trail conflict.

    I've asked over on the building/advocacy forum what the FS would do if you are caught and noone seems to know what the penalty is for "tresspassing" onto closed trails or if/when cited for this enfringment if a legal appeal to the law could be pushed through the courts.

    It's time for us to move from the back of the bus, and someone will get a nightstick to the head for pushing the boundries of access, i'm willing, I just want some insight about how hard it'll hurt. Anyone know what'll hapen and what advice can you share to those willing to civililly disobey this outdated law and push this issue to the headlines?

  21. #21
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,538
    Add a 3rd wheel to your bike and you're legal... the ban is specifically on "bicycles".

  22. #22
    Thread Terrorist
    Reputation: IndecentExposure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,854
    Quote Originally Posted by topmounter
    Add a 3rd wheel to your bike and you're legal... the ban is specifically on "bicycles".
    Good point! When I walk my bike, Its called a 'walker'... I can even put tennis balls on the handlebars.
    Golden Bike Park Group

    Peak Cycles Gravity Team & Bikeparts.com
    Trestle Bike Park

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gotdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,314

    it's way more complicated than that (and than it should be)

    Quote Originally Posted by topmounter
    Add a 3rd wheel to your bike and you're legal... the ban is specifically on "bicycles".
    ...^ this statement ^ however, is false. the $million buzzword is "mechanized"...

    edit: fwiw, bikes were not specifically included in that category until some 20 years after the wilderness act was passed. that's the frustrating part of the argument-- was it the intention of the wilderness act to exclude bikes? of course not, there was no (thriving) MTB scene back in 1964...

  24. #24
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,895
    Quote Originally Posted by sbsbiker
    I've asked over on the building/advocacy forum what the FS would do if you are caught and noone seems to know what the penalty is for "tresspassing" onto closed trails or if/when cited for this enfringment if a legal appeal to the law could be pushed through the courts.
    Up to $5000 and or 6 months in jail.

    Changing the law would be up to Congress, not the FS. If you are setting out to change the wilderness act I really think you would be better off with the FS as your friend not enemy.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pulser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by sbsbiker
    I fully support a summer of civil disobeadance with regards to the wilderness ban on bikes. Untill the USFS has examples of riders that want and DO ride on these banned trails will we be able to show how bikes can belong inside wilderness areas without causing damage and trail conflict.

    I've asked over on the building/advocacy forum what the FS would do if you are caught and noone seems to know what the penalty is for "tresspassing" onto closed trails or if/when cited for this enfringment if a legal appeal to the law could be pushed through the courts.

    It's time for us to move from the back of the bus, and someone will get a nightstick to the head for pushing the boundries of access, i'm willing, I just want some insight about how hard it'll hurt. Anyone know what'll hapen and what advice can you share to those willing to civililly disobey this outdated law and push this issue to the headlines?

    Do a search for Vally Forge. When i lived in pa we had a lot of problems from this. We use to ride illegal trails all the time. The one time i got caught the Park Guard told me this time I get a warning. After that they would star confiscating bikes.

    I was really pissed at the encounter becasue the trails were technically off federal property. And we had been riding the trails for years. There was a story about some really stupid guys that got caught mountain biking below the rim of the Grand Canyon when the Federal Government shut down a bunch of years ago and they lost there bikes too.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pulser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by gotdirt
    ...^ this statement ^ however, is false. the $million buzzword is "mechanized"...

    edit: fwiw, bikes were not specifically included in that category until some 20 years after the wilderness act was passed. that's the frustrating part of the argument-- was it the intention of the wilderness act to exclude bikes? of course not, there was no (thriving) MTB scene back in 1964...

    Know any mountain bikers with lots of money and time? Could be a good supreme court case.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sbsbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,172
    "Changing the law would be up to Congress, not the FS. If you are setting out to change the wilderness act I really think you would be better off with the FS as your friend not enemy."

    I'm seeking to change the interpretation of "mechainzed travel" to not include bikes. Not rewrite the wilderness act. If you have read any of the legal agruements against bikes as mechanized you'll find the first wilderness act sought to prevent people from being ferried into wilderness areas with mechanized transportation vehicles, not to prevent human powered travel. You can't get a change in the interpretation of a law without a case to present, and IMBA is too far in bed with the Serria Club to even broach the topic.

    This thread up on the Advocacy board is a good discussion of the WA topic;
    Mountain Bike Access going backwards? and what to do about it

  28. #28
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,895
    As currently written the wilderness act specifically mentions bikes. You would have to get congress to rewrite the act in addition to changing the accepted definition of "mechanized travel".

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    865
    While I enthusiastically support the preservation of natural areas, as a mountain biker I cannot support the wilderness designation as it bars mountain bike use. I'm writing this to urge changing the wilderness designation to allow mountain bikes, and to say that until that designation is changed, I will oppose any new wilderness designations.

    I believe the intent of the original wilderness act was to bar motorized access to land rather than human powered access. Mountain bikes didn't exist when the original bill was drafted, and so no provision was made for them.

    There is controversy about the impact that mountain bikes can have on trails. From my personal experience I have found that bikers and hikers have a similar impact, and both less than equestrians. The exclusion of mountain bikers is arbitrary and harmful to the cause of wilderness preservation.
    What I sent to Mark Udall, who recently introduced a bill designating parts of the san juan mountains as wilderness:

    http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=322

  30. #30
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Ansible
    What I sent to Mark Udall, who recently introduced a bill designating parts of the san juan mountains as wilderness:

    http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=322
    Yup - I sent to Udall AND Bennet. I'm going to send to my rep in the House of Reps as well.

  31. #31
    Living the High Life
    Reputation: Ithnu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4,535
    We need some one high up in government who's a mt biker? The former president George Bush is a mountain biker. Some one send him a letter. Don't bring his politics into this; if he really is a mountain biker he might care about something like this.

    Hmmm.... same magazine: http://outside.away.com/outside/decision04/index_2.html
    You have just been mentally Rick Roll'd. Yup you're thinking about it right now aren't you? Don't fight it.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pulser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Ithnu
    We need some one high up in government who's a mt biker? The former president George Bush is a mountain biker. Some one send him a letter. Don't bring his politics into this; if he really is a mountain biker he might care about something like this.

    Hmmm.... same magazine: http://outside.away.com/outside/decision04/index_2.html

    It would be really cool to have a former president working publicly on trail advocacy. Bush doesn't have much creditability on foreign policy and hes been kind of quiet. Maybe a little push in this direction could help.

  33. #33
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,895
    A suggestion to everyone contacting politicians. I suspect many of them support wilderness designations not because they are anti bike, but because they see wilderness as the only way to protect land from development, road building, extractive industries, etc.

    When typing that e-mail suggest the creation of a new land designation. One that provides the same protections to the land but does not unnecessarily restrict so many recreational activities.
    "Back country" has been thrown around before. It has a nice ring to it and conjures some of the same romantic notions as "wilderness".
    Last edited by Moustache rider; 02-18-2010 at 08:28 PM.

  34. #34
    Tre1nt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    418
    Keep in mind that Wilderness is inherently a political issue -- it's enacted by the Congress. We can debate all day about whether the bike ban is justifiable, but without significantly enhancing mountain biker's political influence our chances of altering the status quo is limited. The Wilderness Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wil...ited_States%29 has literally ten times the number of members that IMBA does, as well well as ten times the paid staff and ten times the financial resources. This despite the fact that there are millions of mountain bikers in the U.S. Full disclosure here -- I'm an IMBA staff member. I can tell you that we work hard here every day to increase our membership numbers. That is the key to increasing bike access. Politicians pay attention to voting power (even more than campaign dollars) and we need to strengthen our voice with increased membership numbers to win this fight.

  35. #35
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Moustache rider
    <snip>
    When typing that e-mail suggest the creation of a new land designation. One that provides the same protections to the land but does not unnecessarily restrict so many recreational activities.
    "Back country" has been thrown around before. It has a nice ring to it and conjures some of the same romantic notions as "wilderness".
    I think the preferred term currently is "Companion Designation"?

  36. #36
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,895
    "Back country" would be a Companion designation. You could have more than one kind with different rules depending upon how fine you want to slice it.
    For example,
    One Companion designation that allows motorized travel and another that doesn't.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pulser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark E
    Keep in mind that Wilderness is inherently a political issue -- it's enacted by the Congress. We can debate all day about whether the bike ban is justifiable, but without significantly enhancing mountain biker's political influence our chances of altering the status quo is limited. The Wilderness Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wil...ited_States%29 has literally ten times the number of members that IMBA does, as well well as ten times the paid staff and ten times the financial resources. This despite the fact that there are millions of mountain bikers in the U.S. Full disclosure here -- I'm an IMBA staff member. I can tell you that we work hard here every day to increase our membership numbers. That is the key to increasing bike access. Politicians pay attention to voting power (even more than campaign dollars) and we need to strengthen our voice with increased membership numbers to win this fight.
    Have you guys ever thought about contacting former President Bush? Hes about the most high profile politician that mountain bikes. If you guys could get him to work with you it would be a big help. I don't think hes going to make trail advocacy his out of office legacy or any thing. But having some one like him on your side would go along way to changing minds in Congress.

  38. #38
    Living the High Life
    Reputation: Ithnu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4,535
    Quote Originally Posted by pulser
    Have you guys ever thought about contacting former President Bush? Hes about the most high profile politician that mountain bikes. If you guys could get him to work with you it would be a big help. I don't think hes going to make trail advocacy his out of office legacy or any thing. But having some one like him on your side would go along way to changing minds in Congress.
    How does one even begin to just email an ex president?
    You have just been mentally Rick Roll'd. Yup you're thinking about it right now aren't you? Don't fight it.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pulser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Ithnu
    How does one even begin to just email an ex president?

    I have no idea but they do have political contacts.

  40. #40
    Tre1nt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    418
    Yes, we have. But in the current political climate it's not clear how far his influence will go. We do our best to keep all channels open though.

  41. #41
    still riding
    Reputation: Shrederland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    125
    when I was a firefighter, we couldn't even bring our chainsaws into the wilderness to fight fire. whatupwitdat?

  42. #42
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Shrederland
    when I was a firefighter, we couldn't even bring our chainsaws into the wilderness to fight fire. whatupwitdat?
    The real question is if it's "real" wilderness why the f**k would they bother fighting a fire??

  43. #43
    still riding
    Reputation: Shrederland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    125
    bad management policies(IE yellowstone)

  44. #44
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,544
    My read of the opinion piece, after ranting for a bit about the unjustness of the wilderness bike ban, the author pretty much acknowledges that it's highly unlikely to change and goes on to endorse the concept of companion designations/buffers to core wilderness that would allow mtbs for new wilderness proposals which is pretty much what IMBA is advocating.

  45. #45
    mtbmike
    Reputation: mtbmike1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    304

    BMA Teams With Other Colorado MTB Clubs on Land Protection

    From our most recent newsletter.... You can expect a grassroots effort to get this done:

    Mountain bikers across the nation are scrambling to react to Wilderness proposals that threaten our historical access to the places we love. Most mountain bikers support strong protection for public lands -- we value the opportunity to ride in beautiful places and we want to see them preserved. We do not think, however, that public lands generally need to be protected from bicycling.

    Not everyone agrees. Many proponents of Wilderness designations, including some of the backers of the Hidden Gems proposal in Colorado, argue that Wilderness is the best way to ensure adequate environmental protection and thus bicycling access must be sacrificed.

    Here in Colorado, the Hidden Gems Wilderness campaign has ignited a coalition of bike clubs in Colorado to work toward a land protection bill that protects the land and still preserves important bicycling access.

    Wilderness has been a primary tool to protect public lands, but it's hardly the only one. Rather than focusing exclusively on Wilderness, we can also employ several types of "companion designations," powerful tools that protect the land but do not require an end to bicycle access. The options include National Scenic Areas, National Recreation Areas, National Conservation Areas, National Protection Areas, and other bicycle-friendly designations.

    We agree with Wilderness advocates that pristine lands need to be shielded from destructive activities, such as:

    - mining
    - water projects
    - Commercial logging
    - new roads

    Wilderness is simply not the only means for stopping those activities. BMA recognizes the importance of the companion designations strategy. We have joined IMBA, Summit Fat Tire Society, Roaring Forks Mountain Bike Association, Crested Butte Mountain Bike Association, EcoTrails for Eagle County, Trails 2000 and Gunnison Trails in a coordinated effort to create a land protection bill that uses companion designations, along with Wilderness designations, to protect the land and preserve recreation opportunities.

    It's an exciting process. We believe we can protect more land than the current Hidden Gems proposal calls for, and create a broader base of support at the same time.
    Why is BMA involved? Well, the bill needs to be introduced, or "carried", into Congress by a particular representative.

    That person is likely to be the Honorable Jared Polis, Boulder resident and friend of BMA. IMBA and their CO clubs have been working closely with his staff in Colorado and DC as they genuinely try to learn about trails mountain bikers care about protecting. You will be hearing more about this land protection campaign as the year progresses; right now it has the working name of "Protect It All". If we are successful, it will be a watershed moment in land protection, and serve as the model of land protection in the 21st Century for "at risk" lands all over the U.S.
    mtbmike
    Longmont Colorado

    The world is run by those that show up....

  46. #46
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,860
    This is good news.

    I shall send a note to Jared and commend him for his support. And I will also send my own representatives another note encouraging them to follow Jared's lead.

    I would also encourage every mountain biker viewing this thread to do the same.

  47. #47
    mtbmike
    Reputation: mtbmike1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    304

    This is what grassroots is all about....

    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles
    This is good news.

    I shall send a note to Jared and commend him for his support. And I will also send my own representatives another note encouraging them to follow Jared's lead.

    I would also encourage every mountain biker viewing this thread to do the same.
    The National Bike Summit is scheduled for March 9 - 11 in Washington DC. The Hidden Gems/Protect It All project looks to be the #1 'ask' from the Colorado contingent this year. We plan to rally a campaign to work our congressmen at the local level by visiting their district offices so they don't forget us and what we want.

    Info on the National Bike Summit is at imba.com.

    This project looks to be an important topic that will be front and center at the Colorado Bike Summit in Salida this April. yes, imba.com for more info.

    I am proud to be a part of this effort, as I am sick and tired of being in total react mode WRT Wilderness proposals. We are going on the offensive and saying, "Wilderness ain't good enuf!"

    My personal opinion: Wilderness Act isn't going to change for at least a generation. It's religion to many many people and having rational conversations with many of them is a fool's errand.
    mtbmike
    Longmont Colorado

    The world is run by those that show up....

  48. #48
    pain intolerant
    Reputation: jradin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    743
    I just sent the following message to Jared Polis via his website. Thanks for bringing this up.

    Regarding the Hidden Gems Wilderness proposal, I'm an avid hiker and mountain biker and support protection of our wild places. I'd like to commend you for working with the Boulder Mountain Bike association and other bicycling advocacy groups regarding an alternate designation for Hidden Gems. Restricting mountain bike access to trails in this area unfairly restricts a large and mobilized user group from enjoying the sport they love. Please continue your fight to find an alternative designation that will allow access for bicyclists. You have my support.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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