Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 314
  1. #101
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: AshevilleMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,709
    Re-opened. Keep it clean guys.

  2. #102
    Loves moped riders
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,344
    Lots of asses being made of u and me here.

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by bamwa View Post
    Except they take 20% off the top. Had I known that I would have just donated directly. I will do that from now on especially since they are acting very political and not supporting my views.

  4. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    The recent expansion of the Bob Marshall eliminated bike access to an amazing backcountry loop on the Rocky Mountain Front. The last time I rode (and pushed my bike) up one of the headwaters drainages comprising the route, there were cattle grazing in the stream. That watershed is now in Wilderness, but (riparian) grazing is still allowed, with the resulting bank trampling and overwidening. Any discussion of soil dislocated by MTB tires is laughable in that context.
    Yeah, I've read about that. Beef lobbiest can persuade access. Equestrian lobbiest can persuade access, But ours chooses to not try. Even though there is proof that biking and hiking have the same impact. While larger non native animals have more.

  5. #105
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    165
    My experience with wilderness areas is that I like them and the idea of them as they exist. I'm surrounded by huge tracts of public land with varying limitations on user access. The WA portion of this public land stands in contrast to most of the other areas because there is a general lack of trails. I like this. There are amazing basins, isolated alpine lakes and remote peaks that have no trails to them. You are required to navigate the natural terrain to get to these places and there is something special about that. I think these areas also allow game animals, especially animals who are more sensitive to human intrusion such as sheep and wintering elk and deer herds, to be less impacted and stressed due to relative inaccessibility. These WA areas also provide excellent opportunity for remote Backcountry skiing with no snowcats or snowmobiles permitted and can make for Super committing paddling experiences since there are few to no options for take out. Personally, I'd prefer to see the use of livestock restricted in WAs as well, but I have also read compelling arguments for them being allowed.

    Anyway, I am an avid Mtn biker, but am also a general proponent of public lands, game habitat preservation, Backcountry hunter and Backcountry snowboarder. I think having a certain percent of public land being WAs brings a valuable set of diversity to the public lands offerings and I don't think it places unreasonable burden on mountain bikers as a user group. Keep in mind that there are ORV forums levying the some complaints and hiking forums complaining about having to share existing trail networks with Mtn bikes. IMHO, there are other and more worthwhile battles to be fought other than access to WAs and I personally will likely never support or get behind lobbying efforts to change that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #106
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,162
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    Personally, I'd prefer to see the use of livestock restricted in WAs as well, but I have also read compelling arguments for them being allowed.
    Id love to see what those are. Grazing results in significant effects on the landscape, even changing fire behavior. It seems inconsistent to cherish a landscape free of human influence but tolerate commercial grazing of it.

    Im all for conservation and land protection, but frankly, the idea of capital W Wilderness is a quasi-religion made possible by the eradication of native populations. There is considerable archaeological evidence of longstanding human presence and use of even alpine landscapes in the West.

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    My experience with wilderness areas is that I like them and the idea of them as they exist. I'm surrounded by huge tracts of public land with varying limitations on user access. The WA portion of this public land stands in contrast to most of the other areas because there is a general lack of trails. I like this. There are amazing basins, isolated alpine lakes and remote peaks that have no trails to them. You are required to navigate the natural terrain to get to these places and there is something special about that. I think these areas also allow game animals, especially animals who are more sensitive to human intrusion such as sheep and wintering elk and deer herds, to be less impacted and stressed due to relative inaccessibility. These WA areas also provide excellent opportunity for remote Backcountry skiing with no snowcats or snowmobiles permitted and can make for Super committing paddling experiences since there are few to no options for take out. Personally, I'd prefer to see the use of livestock restricted in WAs as well, but I have also read compelling arguments for them being allowed.

    Anyway, I am an avid Mtn biker, but am also a general proponent of public lands, game habitat preservation, Backcountry hunter and Backcountry snowboarder. I think having a certain percent of public land being WAs brings a valuable set of diversity to the public lands offerings and I don't think it places unreasonable burden on mountain bikers as a user group. Keep in mind that there are ORV forums levying the some complaints and hiking forums complaining about having to share existing trail networks with Mtn bikes. IMHO, there are other and more worthwhile battles to be fought other than access to WAs and I personally will likely never support or get behind lobbying efforts to change that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    If bikes are regulated to staying on the trail, and if bikers could access the same trials horses can. It would be fair. But also trekking on areas that have no trail have more of an eviromental impact then staying on the trail.

    The bottom line is that if the area is for recreational enjoyment, it shouldn't matter how people enjoy the access this enjoyment as long as the trails don't change. But many people complain because of the sight of people enjoying an area differently. Where I live there have been technical trails filled in and smoothed out because of the horse causing areas not to be able to dry out.

    If the area is blocked off for environmental preservation, then no one should be able to access it.

  8. #108
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    After thinking about this for a short while, I came up with an analogy.

    Our bodies are in a constant state of decay and reconstruction. It rebuilds itself to be more efficient at the more common tasks that is demanded of it, and lets other less utilized parts of the body waste away. Are trails kind of like this too?

    What if high quality trails were located very close to you, with enough diversity and room to expand to account for a growing number of daily users and natural progression of rider skill levels? How many and how often would people drive their car 3+ hours, with part of the route through narrow winding roads, to get to wilderness? What if this wilderness adventure thing were like a scheduled permit based thing with groups going out, rather than individuals going whenever they want? Wouldn't these individuals be a burden on public services overseeing the land?

    It's sad to see some loss of trail, but why not stop dwelling on that and instead seek to build better trails that better suits people's modern tastes, in an even better location? If people don't want glorified fireroads, get involved and design & build trails that aren't so.

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation: @Ride@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    - The amendment is 1 sentence
    - The person who introduced it is anti-environmental
    ...
    I highly, HIGHLY, doubt that the person who introduced it is "anti" environmental. I do not consider myself an environmentalist, but those who do aren't more "environment" than me, nor am I "anti" environmental.

  10. #110
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    I dunno why I edited that word, but I did just now in order to clear up that I meant to say they oppose the policies of environmentalists. xD

    Didn't realize there were semantics regarding what was anti-environment. Negligence or not supporting/taking action to protect the environment isn't anti-environment? Supporting activities, esp at industrial/commercial scale, that destroy the environment is or isn't? Seems the same to me. Just people set the severity level higher or lower, in order to not put negative classifications on people they care about.

    In the end, I only pointed it out to say that I question judging based on titles. That's just arrogance, another one of the ugly sides of humans, thinking that titles and associations demand a certain level of respect.

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,450
    if you have been involvolved in the wilderness debate for awhile, you are wondering why all the uproar on imba. this has been there stance for over 10 years. nothing new here, same shit different day for imba.

  12. #112
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Id love to see what those are. Grazing results in significant effects on the landscape, even changing fire behavior. It seems inconsistent to cherish a landscape free of human influence but tolerate commercial grazing of it.

    Im all for conservation and land protection, but frankly, the idea of capital W Wilderness is a quasi-religion made possible by the eradication of native populations. There is considerable archaeological evidence of longstanding human presence and use of even alpine landscapes in the West.
    I should clarify. I meant horses. I'm not a fan of grazing, particularly domestic sheep. Those "land maggots" have a big impact and have killed off a number of wild sheep by passing a flu along. Several state game agencies have had to eradicate and restock big horn sheep who have contracted disease from domestic sheep. As a hunter, it's frustrating to have a Basin full of elk scouted out only to return and be greeted by a pack of Great Pyrenees and 1,000 head of sheep. Sheep grazers have gotten away with land overuse for quite some time.

  13. #113
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    If bikes are regulated to staying on the trail, and if bikers could access the same trials horses can. It would be fair. But also trekking on areas that have no trail have more of an eviromental impact then staying on the trail.

    The bottom line is that if the area is for recreational enjoyment, it shouldn't matter how people enjoy the access this enjoyment as long as the trails don't change. But many people complain because of the sight of people enjoying an area differently. Where I live there have been technical trails filled in and smoothed out because of the horse causing areas not to be able to dry out.

    If the area is blocked off for environmental preservation, then no one should be able to access it.
    So, you'd be ok with motorcycles on wilderness area singletrack?

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    So, you'd be ok with motorcycles on wilderness area singletrack?
    At the heart of it, this is the issue. Where do you draw the line for what constitutes appropriate recreation on Wilderness Areas? Would everyone that is advocating for bicycles passionately support Ebike riders that want access? Then it's a motorized bike, so now the internal combustion crowd has a viable argument. First, motorcycles, then ATVs. All can claim "It's not fair I can't recreate the way I want to, where I want to."

    It's a slippery slope premise, but a very real concern that allowing bikes will be a precedent that will enable a variety of new user groups to seek, and gain, access to Wilderness Areas.

  15. #115
    zon
    zon is offline
    Scofflaw Mountain Biker
    Reputation: zon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by jestep View Post
    More people = less pristine.
    Oh so it's not bikes,, you just want to eliminate people from your private playground. Got it.


    .
    ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ


    .

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: donutnational's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    307
    Imba, the people you pay to advocate against us.-img_0395.jpg
    I hope this gets sorted out so my grandkids can ride legally in the wilderness, I'm getting older and I just have to pick my spots and times wisely or else I'll never get to do it. On a side note I've met horses many times in places where bikes weren't allowed, never once have I had a bad reaction. Maybe we need to enlist them into the fight against those who would love to see bikes and horses banned.

  17. #117
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    At the heart of it, this is the issue. Where do you draw the line for what constitutes appropriate recreation on Wilderness Areas? Would everyone that is advocating for bicycles passionately support Ebike riders that want access? Then it's a motorized bike, so now the internal combustion crowd has a viable argument. First, motorcycles, then ATVs. All can claim "It's not fair I can't recreate the way I want to, where I want to."

    It's a slippery slope premise, but a very real concern that allowing bikes will be a precedent that will enable a variety of new user groups to seek, and gain, access to Wilderness Areas.
    I agree. And given that designated wilderness areas make up about 1/6th of total public land (and less than 2% of the lower 48 public land), I really don't see the need for Mtn bikers as a user group to be cry babies about it because, as you point out, every user group is going to want their piece of the candy store as well. Really, what's so bad about having some public land set aside for wilderness designation? If this were an aggressive takeover of public land with cyclists losing trail access left and right, maybe I'd find some sympathy, but, cry me a river, you have to reroute some portions of the CT or the divide trail all the while having access to hundreds of millions of acreage of public lands open to bicycles? In the grand scheme of things to care about when it comes to public land, this really seems petty, if not entirely childish to me.

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    So, you'd be ok with motorcycles on wilderness area singletrack?
    No, I had it in my my post. Edited it and forgot to put it back. Out under own power.

  19. #119
    Hardtail Steel Forever
    Reputation: jestep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,289
    Quote Originally Posted by zon View Post
    Oh so it's not bikes,, you just want to eliminate people from your private playground. Got it.


    .
    Bikes would significantly increase the number of people in wilderness areas, potentially by multiple factors, I'd argue double digits in some areas, it's pretty obvious cause and effect in relation to the statement of less pristine. People make shit less pristine, period. And I'm 18 hours from the nearest WA at this point, not my playground...
    WTB: Med Bontrager Ti Lite, PM Me...

  20. #120
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,974
    Quote Originally Posted by jestep View Post
    More people = less pristine.
    Then close them to people. Win-win, right?

  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    At the heart of it, this is the issue. Where do you draw the line for what constitutes appropriate recreation on Wilderness Areas? Would everyone that is advocating for bicycles passionately support Ebike riders that want access? Then it's a motorized bike, so now the internal combustion crowd has a viable argument. First, motorcycles, then ATVs. All can claim "It's not fair I can't recreate the way I want to, where I want to."

    It's a slippery slope premise, but a very real concern that allowing bikes will be a precedent that will enable a variety of new user groups to seek, and gain, access to Wilderness Areas.
    There is nothing slippery about selfpowered. IMBA might be advocating ebikes. But almost every mountain biker doesn't want them on the trails.

  22. #122
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,255
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    I agree. And given that designated wilderness areas make up about 1/6th of total public land (and less than 2% of the lower 48 public land), I really don't see the need for Mtn bikers as a user group to be cry babies about it because, as you point out, every user group is going to want their piece of the candy store as well. Really, what's so bad about having some public land set aside for wilderness designation? If this were an aggressive takeover of public land with cyclists losing trail access left and right, maybe I'd find some sympathy, but, cry me a river, you have to reroute some portions of the CT or the divide trail all the while having access to hundreds of millions of acreage of public lands open to bicycles? In the grand scheme of things to care about when it comes to public land, this really seems petty, if not entirely childish to me.
    Vbraker: It's not a slippery slope. It's all about human powered locomotion.

    101: The 2% is a stupid number usually used by disingenuous people who think that very small number somehow bolster their otherwise weak argument.

    There is no good rationale for restricting cyclists from Wilderness. If the goal is purely conservation, then kick out everyone, however, Wilderness legislation was passed with both conservation and recreation in mind. At the heart, this is about a couple user groups who simply don't want to share their taxpayer funded playground with others.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  23. #123
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,255
    IMBA should have STFU and let the pros deal with the legislative agenda. Their contribution was detrimental to the cause. Dave Wiens inane justification made things worse, and they're back pedaling some more. Their whole justification is that the Federal Agencies won't like them if IMBA supports bikes in Wilderness. Last time I checked, the Federal Agencies were simply in charge of applying the law, not enacting it. I don't really care if the BLM likes HR 1349 or not.

    Bottom line: IMBA got itself in a lose lose situation. If HR 1349 passes, they'll be on the wrong side of history. If it doesn't, they'll be traitors for ever. Either way, I ain't giving a dime to IMBA until the Board and Wiens are fired. It's bad enough we have to fight the wildernuts. We apparently have to watch our back now too.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  24. #124
    zon
    zon is offline
    Scofflaw Mountain Biker
    Reputation: zon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    IMBA should have STFU and let the pros deal with the legislative agenda. Their contribution was detrimental to the cause. Dave Wiens inane justification made things worse, and they're back pedaling some more. Their whole justification is that the Federal Agencies won't like them if IMBA supports bikes in Wilderness. Last time I checked, the Federal Agencies were simply in charge of applying the law, not enacting it. I don't really care if the BLM likes HR 1349 or not.

    Bottom line: IMBA got itself in a lose lose situation. If HR 1349 passes, they'll be on the wrong side of history. If it doesn't, they'll be traitors for ever. Either way, I ain't giving a dime to IMBA until the Board and Wiens are fired. It's bad enough we have to fight the wildernuts. We apparently have to watch our back now too.
    Well said.


    .
    ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ


    .

  25. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by tim208 View Post
    if you have been involvolved in the wilderness debate for awhile, you are wondering why all the uproar on imba. this has been there stance for over 10 years. nothing new here, same shit different day for imba.
    The new thing here is that previously IMBA didn't support Wilderness access but didn't advocate against it either. Now they are actively advocating against access.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  26. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,038
    What we need is an organization that fights for the ability to let the land owners decide on a case by case basis.

  27. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,168
    Well the Bill got voted down. Not sure what the next move is. I guess IMBA is happy about this?

  28. #128
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    What we need is an organization that fights for the ability to let the land owners decide on a case by case basis.
    You mean the individual area manager of the WA would determine if bikes would be allowed? If memory serves, this legislation was proposed and rejected in 2015.

  29. #129
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    At the heart, this is about a couple user groups who simply don't want to share their taxpayer funded playground with others.
    And ATV advocates might say the same thing if bikes were added to WA user groups.

    Current users of WAs that I can think of:

    Backpackers
    Day hikers
    Climbers
    Paddlers
    Bird watchers
    Hunters
    Fishermen
    Car Campers
    Equestrians
    Christmas Tree cutters (with permit)
    XC skiers
    Backcountry/downhill skiers & snowboarders
    Snowshoers
    Runners
    Dog walkers

    Now, if we simply added cyclists to this list, how would it not any longer be "about a couple user groups who simply don't want to share their taxpayer funded playground with others"? Does 17 user groups make it fair to all? Is that the magic number? Should we make it wheelchair accessible, too?

    Also, I listed 16 user groups, which is more than a "couple". Since you dismissed my 2% number as a logical fallacy, I'll do the same: people who use the word "couple" to misrepresent a number actually well in the teens likely don't have a good argument to begin with, else they would use hard numbers instead of "a couple."

  30. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    You mean the individual area manager of the WA would determine if bikes would be allowed? If memory serves, this legislation was proposed and rejected in 2015.
    Yes, this needs to be revisited. Most know, at least on the East Coat, that the bikes are the ones that will clean the trails. Leave them out and you're paying the Rangers to do it.

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,168
    Quote Originally Posted by LaXCarp View Post
    Well the Bill got voted down. Not sure what the next move is. I guess IMBA is happy about this?
    Well apparently they took a 2nd vote and the billed passed...!?

  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: the_joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by LaXCarp View Post
    Well apparently they took a 2nd vote and the billed passed...!?
    Holy ******* ****
    2008 BMC Fourstroke 19-559 ISO (RIP in peace)
    2017 BMC Speedfox 25-622 ISO
    2017 Salsa Timberjack 40-584 ISO

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation: armii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    584
    From what I see it is just now in sub-commitee, it has not been voted on. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ouse-bill/1349

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: the_joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by armii View Post
    From what I see it is just now in sub-commitee, it has not been voted on. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ouse-bill/1349
    Check the STC facebook page
    2008 BMC Fourstroke 19-559 ISO (RIP in peace)
    2017 BMC Speedfox 25-622 ISO
    2017 Salsa Timberjack 40-584 ISO

  35. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation: @Ride@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    594
    Imba, the people you pay to advocate against us.-screenshot_20171213-113400.jpg

    Excellent

  36. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: @Ride@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    594
    May have been unduly restrictive..."The manual is being revised to reflect these changes"

    Just like that, the stroke of a pen!

  37. #137
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken in KC View Post
    You can't volunteer at a trail if you're not a dues paying member of your club (and an IMBA member by proxy)? That doesn't make sense to me.

    Certainly the LM has volunteers outside of the mountain biking organization?
    To be a trail liaison, since the LM has an MOU with the local club, not to volunteer at a trail work day... Why do I have to keep repeating myself to be understood?

  38. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation: watermonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    990
    Quote Originally Posted by @Ride@ View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot_20171213-113400.jpg 
Views:	87 
Size:	67.5 KB 
ID:	1172180

    Excellent
    Ummmmm.....WOW!?!?!?! Does this mean what we think this means?
    I would advise not taking my advice.

  39. #139
    Probably drunk right now
    Reputation: Ken in KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,750
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDwayyo View Post
    To be a trail liaison, since the LM has an MOU with the local club, not to volunteer at a trail work day... Why do I have to keep repeating myself to be understood?
    Because it doesn't make sense to me and it seems restrictive. Our local group is structured in a similar way:

    Trail Manager: Is the primary contact with the Land Manager. Is a bonafide representative of the local advocacy group. May be responsible for multiple trails, depending on how many of them are managed by the LM. They are usually a Trail Steward for a trail.

    Trail Steward: Is responsible for managing a single trail system. They usually are but don't have to be an official member of the advocacy group but recognize their authority through the MOU. Note: This mostly applies to multi-use trails that allow equestrian riding. We don't make the equestrian Trail Steward join a mountain biking group in order to help care for and manage a trail. Same thing with runners. They are also an official volunteer for the LM in a separate agreement signed with them.

    They have authority to work unsupervised, make design and reroute decisions and are responsible for leading public trail work days.

    There may be more than 1 Trail Steward for any given trail. In that case, there is a lead Steward for the trail.

    Volunteers: Not required to be a member of any group. Are not authorized to make any changes to a trail unless authorized by a Trail Steward. Must sign a liability waiver with the LM for any volunteer work. Are covered under the LM's workers comp insurance and the trail advocacy group's GL insurance.
    JPark - 3.5- don't listen to dremer

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation: @Ride@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by watermonkey View Post
    Ummmmm.....WOW!?!?!?! Does this mean what we think this means?
    I don't know how all that works on that level, but the letter seems clear enough to me...they made a case that the law/act was being mis-used and it looks like the proper authority is adjusting the rule book language to make up for an overly resrictive historical abuse.

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: twd953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    603
    Before everyone gets too excited thinking you'll be riding in your local WA tomorrow, remember this was just a house committee vote.

    The bill now has to go to the full house vote, and if passed, on to a senate committee. If it makes it past the senate committee it goes to a full senate vote, and the back to another committee to reconcile differences between the house and senate versions if any. Then, on to the President to be signed or vetoed.

    Then, if it is signed into law, the federal agencies tasked with implementing and enforcing those laws will have to write or amend regulations that dictate how the law is to be implemented.

    What I'm not clear on, is how that will happen. My understanding of what STC was fighting for was to remove the blanket ban, and allow decisions to be made on a case by case basis.

    But, the text of the HR 1349 quoted below is pretty simple in that it only says that provisions of the Wilderness Act shall not prohibit bicycle use in any Wilderness areas.

    "This bill amends the Wilderness Act to declare that provisions of such Act prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles, aircraft, or other forms of mechanical transport shall not prohibit the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized bicycles, strollers, wheelbarrows, survey wheels, or game carts within any wilderness areas."

    There is no shortage of examples of trails on federal lands outside of Wilderness areas where biking is not allowed, so it's not like this is a silver bullet that will permanently open all trails to bikes inside Wilderness much less outside of it.

    The question is whether this is to be interpreted as the status quo bikes not allowed until such time that decisions can be made about allowing them in specific areas? Or will it mean that the ban is lifted until land managers make specific decisions that they are closed to bikes?

    I would suspect it will be more the former, rather than the latter, and that the decisions to open specific wilderness areas will be fought hard by the anti-bike crowd. I can see a future of Environmental Impact statements and lawsuits.

  42. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by @Ride@ View Post
    I don't know how all that works on that level, but the letter seems clear enough to me...they made a case that the law/act was being mis-used and it looks like the proper authority is adjusting the rule book language to make up for an overly resrictive historical abuse.
    It looks like it's dated to 1982. I wouldn't put too much stock in a letter that old.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jahkneefive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    I think I've made it pretty clear I am a mountain biker, so why would I advocate for anti mountain bike activity?

    I'm not really sure how my desire to keep wilderness areas in as natural a state as possible is selfish? Selfish implies I want it all to myself, and I don't. I spend a handful of days in wilderness areas each year, and simply have no desire to ride my bike there, as I have seen the impact of bikes on trails I've been riding for 30 years. It's not strip mining, but it's not insignificant.
    So lets point out your hypocracy here.

    1. First you say you want to keep wilderness areas in as natural state as possible, but then say you visit said areas a few days a year. If you were true to your convictions you wouldn't enter the area period as THAT is the way to keep it in as natural a state as possible.

    2. Which leads off point #2 You claim not to be selfish, but you point blank say YOU want to enjoy the areas as a hiker, but don't want to share with other recreational activities. That's the definition of selfish.

    The fact you even mention strip mining shows me what kind of mental prejudice you associate with the term mountain biking.

    Hikers don't care about the wilderness condition, they care about being able to enjoy it as they see fit. So if mountain biking disrupts or lowers the enjoyment then it clearly must also be bad for the wilderness itself. I mean geez the earthworm really notices the difference between being rushed by a boot and a tire....

    While I may not agree with TRUE SC members, at least I can appreciate their conviction. COMPLETE hands off of wilderness areas, no exceptions. I don't agree with it, but hell I get it they REALLY want to preserve nature. Its the luke warm hikers that do it to SELFISHLY restrict access to their own recreational desires that drive me to anger.

    So lets just be clear here. This fight isn't about preserving nature, its about preserving a particular recreational activity that deems bikes as a nusance to them enjoying nature. Whats next gonna ban runners? Slow paced walking only? I mean runners could be a danger they might run into a bear and bruise it or hit a branch with such astounding velocity that it breaks and forever damages the tree.

  44. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: @Ride@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    It looks like it's dated to 1982. I wouldn't put too much stock in a letter that old.
    I missed that date why the f*** would it be on their webpage it was that old.

  45. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,450
    Quote Originally Posted by jestep View Post
    More people = less pristine.

    I take it you have not floated the middle fork of the salmon river. 100 miles of whitewater in the heart of the frank church river of no return wilderness, which is over 2,000,000 acres.

    10,000 people a year float on this river. I have a picture of the put in with close to 60 boats sitting there. wilderness is not always empty. The summer time and the fall hunting season sees a lot of activity in wilderness areas. There is so much use on the 4 main Idaho wilderness multi day trips you have to apply in a lottery. wilderness just means no roads, not no people.

  46. #146
    TrinityRiverKerplunk
    Reputation: unicrown junkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    836
    Dave, how could you?!

    Oh well, this reaffirms my decision to keep donating cash to Evergreen up here in Washington, and so glad I didn't join IMba back in '89 or 90 when they first popped onto the scene.

    IMBA is going to do what it wants regardless of how the general membership feels, this is classic old-school politics like so many others have said. Take the money and run to DC, spend it wining and dining your congressman or even better your own lobbyist gets to keep the cash in their own pocket. Nothing gets changed and people keep donating moolah to IMBA, they like that, a lot in fact.
    Good friction shifting is getting hard to find nowadays....

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation: the_joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by @Ride@ View Post
    I missed that date why the f*** would it be on their webpage it was that old.
    FAQ/Resources — Sustainable Trails Coalition
    2008 BMC Fourstroke 19-559 ISO (RIP in peace)
    2017 BMC Speedfox 25-622 ISO
    2017 Salsa Timberjack 40-584 ISO

  48. #148
    One ring to mash them all
    Reputation: the one ring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by tim208 View Post
    river of no return wilderness
    I guess they didn't name it strongly enough to keep out the masses
    \(_o)/

  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by unicrown junkie View Post
    Dave, how could you?!

    Oh well, this reaffirms my decision to keep donating cash to Evergreen up here in Washington, and so glad I didn't join IMba back in '89 or 90 when they first popped onto the scene.

    IMBA is going to do what it wants regardless of how the general membership feels, this is classic old-school politics like so many others have said. Take the money and run to DC, spend it wining and dining your congressman or even better your own lobbyist gets to keep the cash in their own pocket. Nothing gets changed and people keep donating moolah to IMBA, they like that, a lot in fact.
    My money goes to EMBA too. They are pretty awesome.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by twd953 View Post
    I would suspect it will be more the former, rather than the latter, and that the decisions to open specific wilderness areas will be fought hard by the anti-bike crowd. I can see a future of Environmental Impact statements and lawsuits.
    Ugh, yeah I think you're right here. I can definitely see that happening.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  51. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    184
    I just finished watching the hearing with Mr. Stolls testimony on HR 1349.

    I am not going to mention names directly because the senators cronies my google the politians name and find this forum.

    In the hearing the Senator known as the "Senior Member" of the committee is from Hawaii. Another clue is this individual is the only female present on the committee.

    I use to help out several mountain bike advocacy groups when I lived in the Aloha state. I have ran into this senator several times, and I have even shook her hand when she was apart of the Hawaii State senate. I'm telling you right now. I will not be surprised if she tries to block HR 1349. I am saying this because of my past experiences dealing with the same cronies from which she is affiliated with, in Hawaii.

    She worries me.

  52. #152
    Loves moped riders
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,344
    This is like a dive bar filled with drunkards trying to figure out who farted.

  53. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    This is like a dive bar filled with drunkards trying to figure out who farted.
    LMAO!!! Hilarious

  54. #154
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,830
    So glad to see HR1349 moving along.

    I feel like I'm watching IMBA implode.

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

  55. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dseybert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    153
    edit

  56. #156
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,162
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    I just finished watching the hearing with Mr. Stolls testimony on HR 1349.

    I am not going to mention names directly because the senators cronies my google the politians name and find this forum.

    In the hearing the Senator known as the "Senior Member" of the committee is from Hawaii. Another clue is this individual is the only female present on the committee.

    I use to help out several mountain bike advocacy groups when I lived in the Aloha state. I have ran into this senator several times, and I have even shook her hand when she was apart of the Hawaii State senate. I'm telling you right now. I will not be surprised if she tries to block HR 1349. I am saying this because of my past experiences dealing with the same cronies from which she is affiliated with, in Hawaii.

    She worries me.
    Good call. If a staffer googles HR 1349 theyll never figure out which senator youre discussing.

  57. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dseybert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    My experience with wilderness areas is that I like them and the idea of them as they exist. I'm surrounded by huge tracts of public land with varying limitations on user access. The WA portion of this public land stands in contrast to most of the other areas because there is a general lack of trails. I like this. There are amazing basins, isolated alpine lakes and remote peaks that have no trails to them. You are required to navigate the natural terrain to get to these places and there is something special about that. I think these areas also allow game animals, especially animals who are more sensitive to human intrusion such as sheep and wintering elk and deer herds, to be less impacted and stressed due to relative inaccessibility. These WA areas also provide excellent opportunity for remote Backcountry skiing with no snowcats or snowmobiles permitted and can make for Super committing paddling experiences since there are few to no options for take out. Personally, I'd prefer to see the use of livestock restricted in WAs as well, but I have also read compelling arguments for them being allowed.

    Anyway, I am an avid Mtn biker, but am also a general proponent of public lands, game habitat preservation, Backcountry hunter and Backcountry snowboarder. I think having a certain percent of public land being WAs brings a valuable set of diversity to the public lands offerings and I don't think it places unreasonable burden on mountain bikers as a user group. Keep in mind that there are ORV forums levying the some complaints and hiking forums complaining about having to share existing trail networks with Mtn bikes. IMHO, there are other and more worthwhile battles to be fought other than access to WAs and I personally will likely never support or get behind lobbying efforts to change that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Your argument misses the point. No one is saying we should be building trails across the desolate basins, alpine lakes, or remote peaks. We are not advocating for breaking up the natural terrain any further or attempting to make anything more easily accessible (eg by car/lift/snowcat/snowmobile/shuttle.) What we are saying is that where there already exists a trail that is accessible by hiker or horses, the local land manager should be able to evaluate that trail for the potential to let MTBs on it, and if they decide it is acceptable, then it shall be so. I don't see how this conflicts with your view of how wilderness areas should be managed.

  58. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Good call. If a staffer googles HR 1349 theyll never figure out which senator youre discussing.
    Maybe I could have been a little less specific with the description.

    But the bottom line is this. The individual came from the same group that is anti-everything on public lands unless they can gain revenue from it. My experience sitting across the table from these people in negotiation trying to get trail access on public lands and we would get shut down every time. Reason why, they would always ask the same question. How would the island benefit financially from mountain biking? How can we regulate and profit from the sport on public lands? There is no good response. They are anti-mountain bike

    There was some really nice trails on Oahu public land before the current regime took over there. The same regime this politician came from. But now, if a tree fell and we would request to do trail maintenance to remove it. They would not authorize us to use a chainsaw without a permit. When we would request a permit to use a chainsaw we would get rejected,"Stating the removal of the tree would take away from the hiking experience." They know we need that tree cleared to ride that trail.

    Well when you have 40 trees laying across the trail things get very clear they do not want us there.

    Gratefully, negotiations with some private land owners went well, allowing mountain biking on there land so as long as no one gets stupid or tears up there property.

  59. #159
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken in KC View Post
    Because it doesn't make sense to me and it seems restrictive. Our local group is structured in a similar way:

    Trail Manager: Is the primary contact with the Land Manager. Is a bonafide representative of the local advocacy group. May be responsible for multiple trails, depending on how many of them are managed by the LM. They are usually a Trail Steward for a trail.

    Trail Steward: Is responsible for managing a single trail system. They usually are but don't have to be an official member of the advocacy group but recognize their authority through the MOU. Note: This mostly applies to multi-use trails that allow equestrian riding. We don't make the equestrian Trail Steward join a mountain biking group in order to help care for and manage a trail. Same thing with runners. They are also an official volunteer for the LM in a separate agreement signed with them.

    They have authority to work unsupervised, make design and reroute decisions and are responsible for leading public trail work days.

    There may be more than 1 Trail Steward for any given trail. In that case, there is a lead Steward for the trail.

    Volunteers: Not required to be a member of any group. Are not authorized to make any changes to a trail unless authorized by a Trail Steward. Must sign a liability waiver with the LM for any volunteer work. Are covered under the LM's workers comp insurance and the trail advocacy group's GL insurance.
    OK, so in that structure I'm a trail manager except only for one system (the only one that land manager has control over). The difference is our local club has the MOU and part of the reason they got it was because they have their own liability insurance and procedures to offer to the land manager... Therefore I must be a member of that club in order to be an 'agent of the MOU' for lack of a better term.

    I don't see it as unusual and it really doesn't bother me, but it does force me to support a group I would not otherwise support (IMBA.) My local club I have no problem supporting, if I could I'd only donate to them... But as far as I'm aware that's not an option.

  60. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by jahkneefive View Post
    So lets point out your hypocracy here.

    1. First you say you want to keep wilderness areas in as natural state as possible, but then say you visit said areas a few days a year. If you were true to your convictions you wouldn't enter the area period as THAT is the way to keep it in as natural a state as possible.

    2. Which leads off point #2 You claim not to be selfish, but you point blank say YOU want to enjoy the areas as a hiker, but don't want to share with other recreational activities. That's the definition of selfish.

    The fact you even mention strip mining shows me what kind of mental prejudice you associate with the term mountain biking.

    Hikers don't care about the wilderness condition, they care about being able to enjoy it as they see fit. So if mountain biking disrupts or lowers the enjoyment then it clearly must also be bad for the wilderness itself. I mean geez the earthworm really notices the difference between being rushed by a boot and a tire....

    While I may not agree with TRUE SC members, at least I can appreciate their conviction. COMPLETE hands off of wilderness areas, no exceptions. I don't agree with it, but hell I get it they REALLY want to preserve nature. Its the luke warm hikers that do it to SELFISHLY restrict access to their own recreational desires that drive me to anger.

    So lets just be clear here. This fight isn't about preserving nature, its about preserving a particular recreational activity that deems bikes as a nusance to them enjoying nature. Whats next gonna ban runners? Slow paced walking only? I mean runners could be a danger they might run into a bear and bruise it or hit a branch with such astounding velocity that it breaks and forever damages the tree.
    Let's make this clear, so you and every other mountain biker that thinks they are being singled out and discriminated against because of their chosen form of recreation.

    You are allowed to go in to Wilderness Areas.

    You are allowed to go in to Wilderness Areas.

    YOU ARE ALLOWED TO GO IN WILDERNESS AREAS.

    Just not with your bike.

    I encourage all those that so actively advocating for bikes in Wilderness to explore these areas without their bikes.

  61. #161
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    Let's make this clear, so you and every other mountain biker that thinks they are being singled out and discriminated against because of their chosen form of recreation.

    You are allowed to go in to Wilderness Areas.

    You are allowed to go in to Wilderness Areas.

    YOU ARE ALLOWED TO GO IN WILDERNESS AREAS.

    Just not with your bike.

    I encourage all those that so actively advocating for bikes in Wilderness to explore these areas without their bikes. Perhaps then, you'll understand my point of view.
    You really think people haven't? I don't know many mountain bikers that aren't also hikers and backpackers, if any.

    This bill seeks to allow local managers of each individual wilderness area to permit bikes, not permit bikes in a blanket sense. So let's say the bill passes and only 1% of wilderness areas actually move forward with allowing bikes. Would that be such an issue for you?

    No one is arguing (to my knowledge) that bikes should have access to all wilderness areas, but under current law bikes have access to zero wilderness areas. Would you not agree that there may be a few which could allow bikes in a properly regulated and managed way without negative impacts?

  62. #162
    wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,194
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    I encourage all those that so actively advocating for bikes in Wilderness to explore these areas without their bikes.
    Nobody here is asking for permission to ride their bikes in every wilderness area.

    Nobody here is asking for permission to build trails all throughout every wilderness area.

    Nobody here is asking for permission to ruin the land you love so much.

    All we are asking for is that the individual wilderness areas have the ability to grant access on a case by case basis.

    Having bikes is certain areas of certain parks will not change your hiking experience.
    Rigid SS 29er
    Fat Lefty
    SS MonsterCross
    SS cyclocross
    all steel

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  63. #163
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    Nobody here is asking for permission to ride their bikes in every wilderness area.

    Nobody here is asking for permission to build trails throughout any wilderness area.

    Nobody here is asking for permission to ruin the land you love so much.

    All we are asking for is that the individual wilderness areas have the ability to grant access on a case by case basis.

    Having bikes is certain areas of certain parks will not change your hiking experience.
    Wow, very similar to my post. Seems like either that's a logical approach or we are both just similarly bat**** insane.

  64. #164
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,255
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    Let's make this clear, so you and every other mountain biker that thinks they are being singled out and discriminated against because of their chosen form of recreation.

    You are allowed to go in to Wilderness Areas.

    You are allowed to go in to Wilderness Areas.

    YOU ARE ALLOWED TO GO IN WILDERNESS AREAS.

    Just not with your bike.

    I encourage all those that so actively advocating for bikes in Wilderness to explore these areas without their bikes.
    Thanks for making clear that this is all about you and how you want to enjoy a public trail. Selfish, selfish I say.

    I can't wait to ride Mt rose wilderness. I heard it is pretty good too.

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

  65. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Thanks for making clear that this is all about you and how you want to enjoy a public trail. Selfish, selfish I say.

    I can't wait to ride Mt rose wilderness. I heard it is pretty good too.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Selfish? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  66. #166
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,255
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    Selfish, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
    Look it up buddy, you actually may learn something. You are one of those wildernuts who has drank the koolaid for too long. You are incapable of looking at the issue rationally. Does not matter, Congress is going to fix this decades old injustice and there is nothing you can do about it.

    Happy trails!

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

  67. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Look it up buddy, you actually may learn something. You are one of those wildernuts who has drank the koolaid for too long. You are incapable of looking at the issue rationally. Does not matter, Congress is going to fix this decades old injustice and there is nothing you can do about it.

    Happy trails!

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    The basic argument for mountain bikers in Wilderness boils down to "because I want to ride my bike there". Nothing about how it can benefit anyone besides themselves as a user group.

    Despite some sort of manufactured self loathing perception, the argument against mountain bikes is not because of a negative experience it has on other user groups. There is a greater concern that it will add that many more users to the mix in areas that were created with the objective that man would have as little of an impact as possible, and yes, I like that. It sure would be great if these places would remain that way for future generations.

    But, hey, so long as you get to ride there.

    I'll make sure my representative in Congress knows how I feel if it comes to a vote.

  68. #168
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    The basic argument for mountain bikers in Wilderness boils down to "because I want to ride my bike there". Nothing about how it can benefit anyone besides themselves as a user group.
    Not true at all. You know what benefits wilderness areas? More people who care about them and want to see them stay protected. Allowing a new user group, in a carefully thought out and managed way, access widens the public support for those areas. In a time when the concept of federal protection of wild lands is under siege that's a good thing.

    I like your little threat about contacting congress... Guess what? Everyone else in this thread will too, how do those numbers play out again?

  69. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    The basic argument for hikers in Wilderness boils down to "because I want to hike there". Nothing about how it can benefit anyone besides themselves as a user group.
    See how this works?

    If you are going to apply this to one user group, then you could easily apply it to all user groups.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  70. #170
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,255
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    The basic argument for mountain bikers in Wilderness boils down to "because I want to ride my bike there". Nothing about how it can benefit anyone besides themselves as a user group.

    Despite some sort of manufactured self loathing perception, the argument against mountain bikes is not because of a negative experience it has on other user groups. There is a greater concern that it will add that many more users to the mix in areas that were created with the objective that man would have as little of an impact as possible, and yes, I like that. It sure would be great if these places would remain that way for future generations.

    But, hey, so long as you get to ride there.

    I'll make sure my representative in Congress knows how I feel if it comes to a vote.
    Funny how your reasoning keeps shifting. First, it was "I don't want to share". Now, it's the slippery slope argument. Clearly, you're grasping at straws on this one.

    Easy for everyone to see how the wildernuts have zero reasonable argument. Good news is that the wildernuts don't vote Republican and Congress knows it.

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

  71. #171
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,756
    I am done with IMBA, who has pretty much zero presence in New England and hasn't for about 5 years. It's too bad, as in the past we had at least 3 visits from their Trail Care Crews, who were all great people and did great work. Philip Keyes is NEMBA's executive director and is a strong supporter of STC (web site: Sustainable Trails Coalition ). The divide got bigger when IMBA started their own chapter program (none in N.E.) and we are not affiliated anymore.

    Hundreds of miles of singletrack has been lost in Idaho & Montana due to Wilderness or proposed W designations. In our neck of the woods, miles of old logging railroad beds are off limits to bikes because of this. All STC is advocating is that local land managers (not Congress in DC) decide whether bikes are allowed in Wilderness or not on a case-specific basis. Seems reasonable to me. From STC's site:
    "As a reminder to those who may not know the legislative history of the Wilderness Act, here is the original regulation that was enacted in 1966 to support the Wilderness Act, and how it addressed bicycles:

    "Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water, on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device."

    36 CFR 293.6(a) (1973), formerly 36 CFR 251.75 (1966)

    Clearly bikes were originally allowed, and should never have been banned."


    Many years ago I rode various sections of the Tahoe Rim Trail. On one section I hit the Mt. Rose Wilderness boundary. The beautiful singletrack I was on did not change in the least, except there was a big steel sign planted that said I was not allowed to go any further. I went a little farther anyway, and there was no difference - no impact, no change in the fine trail or wildflowers. It pissed me off that someone could ride a horse past this sign but I couldn't ride my bike.

    Support the STC!

  72. #172
    _CJ
    _CJ is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    There is a greater concern that it will add that many more users to the mix in areas that were created with the objective that man would have as little of an impact as possible
    Ya know, he has a point there. Bikes aren't the problem, it's too many people. And since hikers and horse riders have had their turn for the past 30 or so years, I say it's our turn. Bikes only in wilderness for the next 30 years, then we can talk about it some more.

    (not really, just demonstrating how stupid his argument is)


    .

  73. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    177
    It's a little funny and ironic that people are pointing out that this move is indicative of specific political alignments. IMBA has had a particular political bent for years. They are no different that the rest of the arse-holes in the capital. "Give us your money, feelings and party comes first, country and resources second, and....wait, what comes third again? OH! Right, the constituents we are paid by to represent their interests". They have basically said, in these divisive times....we wanna be divisive and alienating too!

    Screw 'em.

  74. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    Wilderness areas should also be closed to foot, canoe, horse traffic and bikes.
    I MTB, and I have many more places that I can MTB that are great without having to set foot/tire in Wilderness areas.

    On the flip: I believe that all trails in the wilderness should remain and allow multi-use. However, I'm firmly against any new trails in old growth being built.
    Goodbye '95 ZJ. Just so you know, transfering box of left behind womens panties to next truck. Thank you ZJ!

  75. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Funny how your reasoning keeps shifting. First, it was "I don't want to share". Now, it's the slippery slope argument. Clearly, you're grasping at straws on this one.

    Easy for everyone to see how the wildernuts have zero reasonable argument. Good news is that the wildernuts don't vote Republican and Congress knows it.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    Please feel free to point out that I don't want to share access to Wilderness areas. I do have multiple reasons behind why I don't believe Wilderness should be open to mountain bikes, and that isn't one of them. You are more than welcome, in fact, I encourage, visiting any Wilderness area on foot, on horseback, on skis, etc. Just not on a bike, the same way you're not allowed to drive a car on a bike path.

  76. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    Please feel free to point out that I don't want to share access to Wilderness areas. I do have multiple reasons behind why I don't believe Wilderness should be open to mountain bikes, and that isn't one of them. You are more than welcome, in fact, I encourage, visiting any Wilderness area on foot, on horseback, on skis, etc. Just not on a bike, the same way you're not allowed to drive a car on a bike path.
    There are trails, that are for foot traffic only. The land managers can keep it that way. But if a horse is allowed on a trail, no non emotional reason a bike cannot. In my experience bikers are the ones that end up fixing erosion issues from horse traffic.

  77. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    Ya know, he has a point there. Bikes aren't the problem, it's too many people. And since hikers and horse riders have had their turn for the past 30 or so years, I say it's our turn. Bikes only in wilderness for the next 30 years, then we can talk about it some more.

    (not really, just demonstrating how stupid his argument is)


    .
    Just because you don't understand an argument, doesn't make it stupid.

    But let's take your example...If we apply the exaggerated notion of "turn" to wilderness access, and switch off access to horses and hikers and switch it on for bikes, I'll still be able to visit Wilderness because I'm mountain biker.

    Now, think about it, since that isn't the case, are you not able to visit wilderness areas? It's a yes or no question, and there is only one right answer. I'll give you a hint. You have feet, making you a hik_r if you want to walk somewhere in the woods, thus allowing you to go to a wilderness area if you desire.

  78. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,853
    How is it OK for horses and skis, but not a bicycle again?

  79. #179
    no batteries required
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    The basic argument for mountain bikers in Wilderness boils down to "because I want to ride my bike there". Nothing about how it can benefit anyone besides themselves as a user group.

    Despite some sort of manufactured self loathing perception, the argument against mountain bikes is not because of a negative experience it has on other user groups. There is a greater concern that it will add that many more users to the mix in areas that were created with the objective that man would have as little of an impact as possible, and yes, I like that. It sure would be great if these places would remain that way for future generations.

    But, hey, so long as you get to ride there.

    I'll make sure my representative in Congress knows how I feel if it comes to a vote.





    All most people want is to be able to connect already existing routes that are interrupted by wilderness areas. Thanks for the histrionics and hand ringing with the inference that mountain bikers are going to descend on the wilderness like a plague of locusts, nothing could be further from the truth but don't let levity and facts get in the way of of your hyperbole.
    Nothing that's worth anything is ever easy - M. Hall

  80. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by d365 View Post
    How is it OK for horses and skis, but not a bicycle again?
    Emotions.

  81. #181
    Loves moped riders
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,344
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    Ya know, he has a point there. Bikes aren't the problem, it's too many people. And since hikers and horse riders have had their turn for the past 30 or so years, I say it's our turn. Bikes only in wilderness for the next 30 years, then we can talk about it some more.

    (not really, just demonstrating how stupid his argument is)


    .
    This actually sounds pretty smart, compared to the rest of the thread.

  82. #182
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by d365 View Post
    How is it OK for horses and skis, but not a bicycle again?
    In short, the difference is that the first two aren't (or, rather do not meet the definition of) Mechanized means of travel.

  83. #183
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,255
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    Please feel free to point out that I don't want to share access to Wilderness areas. I do have multiple reasons behind why I don't believe Wilderness should be open to mountain bikes, and that isn't one of them. You are more than welcome, in fact, I encourage, visiting any Wilderness area on foot, on horseback, on skis, etc. Just not on a bike, the same way you're not allowed to drive a car on a bike path.
    Contradiction and stupid analogy don't bother you I see. I have noticed that wildernuts don't seem to have a good grasp of logic.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  84. #184
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,255
    So will the purists stop going to wilderness areas that allow bikes since our presence will ruin their enjoyment?

  85. #185
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    In short, the difference is that the first two aren't (or, rather do not meet the definition of) Mechanized means of travel.
    The Wilderness bill itself clarifies what it means by mechanized. "Non-living" power source.

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

  86. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Contradiction and stupid analogy don't bother you I see. I have noticed that wildernuts don't seem to have a good grasp of logic.
    Please feel free to point out that I don't want to share access to Wilderness areas.
    Mountain bikers are people, and people have access to Wilderness areas.

    Are you a people?

  87. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    363
    Until a few years ago, I, like many mountain bikers, was ok with bikes not being allowed in existing Wilderness. There where a few cases where Wilderness, unnecessarily blocked of connectivity, but there where lots of places out side of Wilderness to build trails.

    Then Boulder White Clouds happened. IMBA was at the table with the conservation groups and a deal was cut to preserve the area as a monument, which would have allowed mountain biking to continue on hundreds of miles of trail historically open to bikes. But the Conservation community was also at work behind the scenes and was able to convince Republican Legislators that dedicating the land as a Wilderness would allow them to claim a win, by not allowing Obama to sign the area as a Momentum. Currently there is proposed Wilderness in North Carolina where another coalition agreed on a Wilderness plan that avoided mountain bike trails. Then the Wilderness Society backed out of the deal when an Wealthy donor put pressure on them to no work with recreational groups.

    This Bill isn't aimed at getting access to all the existing Wilderness. Its about not having to fight the environmental groups tooth and nail over every new Wilderness proposal. It is going to get harder and harder to dedicate more Wilderness with out impacting existing mountain bike trails.

    So this is less about getting access to all existing Wilderness and more about not having to fight against the well funded environment groups every over every future Wilderness proposal.

    I find it funny that the Environmental groups who where happy to use Republican legislators to stick it to mountain bikers on Boulder White Clouds, are now objecting to HR1349 because of the poor environmental record of its Republican sponsors.

    If you value Wilderness, you should support this bill because it would allow mountain biker to become proponents of Wilderness.

  88. #188
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Silentfoe View Post
    The Wilderness bill itself clarifies what it means by mechanized. "Non-living" power source.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    (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.

    (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.

    -the definition you are referring to:

    Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by flotation and is propelled by a ***nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device****."

    Some argue that the words of this 1966 regulation allow bicycles and that prohibition of bicycles in wilderness came only much later, after the Forest Service revised its definition. But it is the unambiguous words of the ***statute***, --not the regulations---, that declare that there shall be no other form of mechanical transport. Agency error in interpreting the plain meaning of the words in the statute does not change that. Supreme Court precedents set down the canons of statutory construction in such matters:

    "If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 -43 (1984), rehearing denied, 468 U.S. 1227 (1984).

  89. #189
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    (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.

    (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.

    -the definition you are referring to:

    Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by flotation and is propelled by a ***nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device****."

    Some argue that the words of this 1966 regulation allow bicycles and that prohibition of bicycles in wilderness came only much later, after the Forest Service revised its definition. But it is the unambiguous words of the ***statute***, --not the regulations---, that declare that there shall be no other form of mechanical transport. Agency error in interpreting the plain meaning of the words in the statute does not change that. Supreme Court precedents set down the canons of statutory construction in such matters:

    "If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 -43 (1984), rehearing denied, 468 U.S. 1227 (1984).
    Yep. Thanks.

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

  90. #190
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,255
    Bla bla . All semantic and no substantive argument.

  91. #191
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Bla bla . All semantic and no substantive argument.
    I suppose we'll see how it shakes out. If there is a vote and bikes are approved for WAs, it's safe to assume that influential entities will sue, however If legislation to amend and allow bikes is shot down, I don't foresee any major players filing suit.

    If there are lawsuits filed over "living power" wording of the wilderness act, which appears to be the meat & potatoes of the pro bike argument, and Since "living power" is not defined but the Wildness Act of 1966, the determining factor will be precedent. I cited some potentially relative precedent above. I suppose I would be interested to see cited precedent that would argue the other way. People can make assumptions about that definition all they want, but in a lawsuit based around this, precedent is really what matters and that most likely is even a moot point if this legislation is shot down (yet) again.

    On a side note, I live and recreate in an area that would likely be greatly impacted by a change that allowed bikes in WAs, and if it were indeed approved for the Weminuche Wilderness Area, since the CO Trail runs through that area as well as the Continental Divide trail and the already heavily impacted Chicago Basin, i expect there would be a significant increase in summer month usage. The Forrest service proposed moving to a permit system for Chicago Basin but the remoteness of the basin would require an annual estimated budget of $50,000, which the Forrest service lacks. During July, Chicago Basin resembles a music festival. I worked for the railroad that runs through that WA and it's not uncommon to drop off 100 backpackers and pick up another 100 backpackers daily during peak summer, with 200-400 people camped out in the Basin The amount of urine attracts goats who then displace the soil to get to the ammonia.

    The Cascade Trail to Animas River Trail to Needleton drainage to the Continental divide Trail to the Co Trail would, at 40 miles, no doubt make for a much coveted day trip on bikes, especially since one could bike Cascade Trail to Needleton flagstop in roughly the same time that a person can get to Needleton on the train. The same loop would also make for a popular overnight bikepacking trip. Granted, the season is short, but it's also very, very intense with human traffic. Winter and spring skiing as well as Fall hunting, fishermen and boating numbers are micro-fractional when compared to hiker numbers, but, add in bikes, especially given their popularity in the region and the fact that it is a bike destination, where a person hiking back down from, say, engineer Mtn, may very well encounter 100+ Mtn bikes coming up the Pass Trail (I've seen this myself, once even an entire wedding party of 40-50 people on bikes in a single file group) and all 3 points of access will be instantly as popular for biking as every other world class alpine trail in the San Juan range. That combined with the pre existing backpacker popularity of Chicago Basin (you are required to pack your poop out -are Mtn bikers going tompack their poop out?) will make for a zoo. IMHO, having taken thousands of people in and out of that area, as well as transported 100s of bikes and cyclists through the WA, at peak season, the WA gives hikers a place to go and hike world class alpine trails in a mountain range where otherwise, Mtn bikes unofficially rule the trails June-Sept. certainly, I contribute to that, but I feel like the WA offers a concession that creates more of an alliance than it divides. That's just perception, however and it's just my perception at that, but it is based on interacting and conversing with thousands, yes, thousands of users on the train from all over the world coming here to bike, hike, hunt, fish and raft in the San Juan range. If there is an amendment to open that WA up to bikes, I'll probably be on of the first to knock that trail off the bucket list, but, I do think the change will have consequences long term, I am decidedly against the proposed change and I am unsure/unconvinced that there is existing precedent to allow for bikes in WAs.

    Other opinions exist. That one is mine.

  92. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by swiftfixbike View Post
    I just came here to say.. 1 Whoever is running imba pr needs to be fired.
    2 Imba trails by large suck and are just glorified fire roads.
    3 Support your local trail builders.
    4 Support STC or don't.
    5 Imba should not be based in Boulder if they care about policy they should be in DC.
    6 We as members should of demanded elections.
    Northwest Arkansas is a prime example of points 1 and especially 2. We built miles of trail for the Summit. Now that it is over there is a massive effort to go back and make that trail rowdier and much more fun to ride. Can't wait for Outerbike.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  93. #193
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,255
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    I suppose we'll see how it shakes out. If there is a vote and bikes are approved for WAs, it's safe to assume that influential entities will sue, however If legislation to amend and allow bikes is shot down, I don't foresee any major players filing suit.

    Other opinions exist. That one is mine.
    There is nothing to sue over. Congress can pass, amend an act all they want. And hikers have no constitutional monopoly over wilderness trails.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  94. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    There is nothing to sue over. Congress can pass, amend an act all they want. And hikers have no constitutional monopoly over wilderness trails.
    Unfortunately they can and the government has to pay for both sides of the case.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  95. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    I suppose we'll see how it shakes out....

    [long discussion about a particular crowded wilderness area]
    .
    Indeed, but that's not what is likely to happen--if that area is crowded, it wouldn't make sense to open it to bikes.

    The reason a lot of people care about this is the remote ones in ID and MT which had little traffic before, and even less now that bikes are prohibited with the creation of recent Wilderness Areas, or even worse Wilderness Study Areas.

  96. #196
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,255
    There will be no lawsuit.

  97. #197
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    There is nothing to sue over. Congress can pass, amend an act all they want. And hikers have no constitutional monopoly over wilderness trails.
    You can keep trying to diminish this all you want, but there's now over 150 various conservation groups opposing this bill. You can keep saying "hikers", but this may very well be the roots of a significant rift between the Mtn bike organizations and most everyone else short of motorized groups. If this is the sword you wish to fall on as a individual, community or organization, so be it, but this seems to quickly becoming Mtn bikers vs. everyone else and the internal Mtn bike community and organizational support is fractured at best.

  98. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation: @Ride@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    You can keep trying to diminish this all you want, but there's now over 150 various conservation groups opposing this bill. You can keep saying "hikers", but this may very well be the roots of a significant rift between the Mtn bike organizations and most everyone else short of motorized groups. If this is the sword you wish to fall on as a individual, community or organization, so be it, but this seems to quickly becoming Mtn bikers vs. everyone else and the internal Mtn bike community and organizational support is fractured at best.
    Is this like the 17 intelligence agencies that supported the democratic "russian interference" narrative until it was found to be a couple lackeys from 3 organizations?

    Oh, I wouldn't care if it was anyway. 150 environmental organizations holds about as much common sense as a thimble.

    Get outta here with that "everyone opposes it" BS.

  99. #199
    _CJ
    _CJ is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    there's now over 150 various conservation groups opposing this bill.
    I'm seeing this thrown around a lot lately, like some sort of threat. Do you really think there aren't a similar or greater number of pro-wheeled access groups? I founded one twenty years ago, and run it to this day. Hell, there's probably a couple dozen more in my city alone. All the regional MTB groups, hunters, groups representing the disabled, etc....yeah, this is probably going to get interesting.

    "non-living power source" is pretty self explanatory, and when you look at the statements of the authors of the bill, it's clear bicycles were never meant to be banned. It was the work of special interest. At the time bikes were banned, people weren't politically active like they are now, and I've seen evidence that it really came down to one letter from one woman.


    .

  100. #200
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    165
    "Non living power source" is not self explanatory because it is not defined. That is your assumption. Precedent is the only thing that matters. Often times, legal wording such as this is not defined for the specific purpose of allowing precedent to be set over time. For example, with regards to copyright law, the constitution does not define "fair use." Often times, copyright infringers will make assumptions about what is and what is not fair use, but precedent is all the actually matters. Fair use is a legal defense, not an affirmation.

    As for the 150 conservation groups, no doubt some are insignificant, but some of them Are also the most powerful lobbyist organizations in the conservation realm. And they are all aligned against this: wilderness groups, sierra club, hiker groups, hunting and fishing groups, equestrian groups etc.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. IMBA Comes Out Against STC's Bill: Step down Mike Van Abel
    By feral in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 08-31-2016, 06:41 AM
  2. what happens when you pay people unequal for the same job?
    By deke505 in forum Off Camber (off topic)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-11-2013, 06:31 AM
  3. Stuff you can't believe people pay so much money for
    By rockcrusher in forum Off Camber (off topic)
    Replies: 167
    Last Post: 05-30-2012, 04:01 PM
  4. Pay now, pay later?
    By Glynn Sluder in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-05-2011, 08:02 AM
  5. IMBA trail building videos and IMBA Trail Crew visit to SF
    By cabra cadabra in forum New Mexico
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-30-2011, 12:49 PM

Members who have read this thread: 614

Posting Permissions

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