Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 324
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,096
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    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.


    .
    It doesn't matter how many pro groups there are. Or even that in this case they are correct. The environmental groups have the upper hand in this scenario because the government has to fund those groups' lawsuits against itself. It's wrong and backwards but that's how it works.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  2. #202
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    It doesn't matter how many pro groups there are. Or even that in this case they are correct. The environmental groups have the upper hand in this scenario because the government has to fund those groups' lawsuits against itself. It's wrong and backwards but that's how it works.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    My understanding is that the groups have to fund their own lawsuit. Not that I am worried about it one bit.

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

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,096
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    My understanding is that the groups have to fund their own lawsuit. Not that I am worried about it one bit.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    They do and they don't. They are remakarkably successful at recovering attorney's fees in most instances. Quite often the attorney works for free until the fee is recovered. Then you have to look into the collusion aspect of sue and settle.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  4. #204
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    They do and they don't. They are remakarkably successful at recovering attorney's fees in most instances. Quite often the attorney works for free until the fee is recovered. Then you have to look into the collusion aspect of sue and settle.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Fair enough but they have to win. Good luck on this one.

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

  5. #205
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,096
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Fair enough but they have to win. Good luck on this one.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    They do not have to win is the problem. If the agency they are suing had the ruling foisted on them and it is contrary to how they feel it should be enforced they can just reach a settlement. In essence it allows both the defendant and the plaintiff to collude and legislate from the bench.

    It is then up to the other groups to counter-sue without the deck being stacked for them.

    It's a crappy reality and is one of the reasons any ally that can be found should be welcomed.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    193
    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.

    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.
    I said this in an earlier post. I am an avid hiker as well. One of my favorite places to go is Mt. Whitney. Even with the lottery system, and they only allow 100 people to enter the portal per day. The trail up to Whitney is covered in Wag bags, trash everywhere, and stinks of urine. People are even throwing their wag bags in the streams and lakes up there. No bikes allowed anywhere near the portal.

    With my experience, Unless human behavior changes, it doesn't matter how many folks travel into an area.

    If HR1349 passes. This initiative would give the power to the local land managers to select bike friendly trails with-in the wilderness areas. If they do not want us in a certain area they have that power to stop us too. Most land managers I have met know what they are doing. You just need to trust them to make the right decision.

    I feel reopening the Colorado and Continental Divide trails is not going to make a huge difference. There are already countless 1000 lbs horses and 2000 lbs cows trampling those trails and they crap everywhere and displace soil. What are 200 lbs mountain bikers going to do in comparison on those two trails?

  7. #207
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    I said this in an earlier post. I am an avid hiker as well. One of my favorite places to go is Mt. Whitney. Even with the lottery system, and they only allow 100 people to enter the portal per day. The trail up to Whitney is covered in Wag bags, trash everywhere, and stinks of urine. People are even throwing their wag bags in the streams and lakes up there. No bikes allowed anywhere near the portal.

    With my experience, Unless human behavior changes, it doesn't matter how many folks travel into an area.
    I get the feeling most people arguing for access as what any 'real' mountain biker would want have been entirely oblivious to what you're talking about. Perhaps they've never even been to such a place to see it for themselves.

    Now then, any reason to walk now that it's past time to run?

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    I can't wait to ride Mt rose wilderness. I heard it is pretty good too.
    Oh, you wouldn't like it up there, biggest joke of a Wilderness Area I've ever been too. From the Wilderness, you can look down on:

    2 Railroad Tracks with constant traffic
    1 Interstate Freeway with 100s of cars at any given moment
    1 US Highway
    4 State Highways
    Thousands of Homes
    Dozens of Boats

    The above is exactly what I think of when someone mentions "pristine wilderness".

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    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.
    Unless you're on old wooden skis with leather straps, then your modern ski equipment most certainly is providing a "mechanical advantage".
    Guess that just makes you a big 'ol hypocrite. Who'd have thought?

  10. #210
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    "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
    Big shocker. The wildernuts that have managed to appropriate the public lands for themselves don't like the change. Good news, they only hold sway over Democrats.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    I get the feeling most people arguing for access as what any 'real' mountain biker would want have been entirely oblivious to what you're talking about. Perhaps they've never even been to such a place to see it for themselves.

    Now then, any reason to walk now that it's past time to run?
    I hope I do not flogged for saying this, but it's the truth:

    I have been running for our sport for as long as I can remember. I can say "Been there done that". In my quest to help my fellow riders I have dealt with MTB hating politicians such as the individual on the sub-committee, reviewing HR1349, from Hawaii. Too going through the long process to get approval to build a trail, build the trail, only to have it taken away from us later.

    I have scene several trails shut down to mountain biking and it was our own undoing, because mountain bikers refuse to tread lightly.

    Bottom line here is this: A lot of you guys already know this, but if you don't, pay attention. If HR 1349 passes, we will all need to be good stewards, we will need to prove to the land managers that we as a mountain biking community can be responsible, tread lightly, clean up after ourselves, and use proper trail etiquette with other users especially with-in the wilderness areas.

    If we as a community can not do this then all our efforts are moot.

    I am not kidding. It is one thing to bitch about access, but it is another to prove we can be trusted with it. A big part of gaining access is building a trusting relationship with the land managers. Once we lose access because we broke the sacred trust with the land managers it is almost impossible to get it back.

    The land managers know what they are doing, and they know whats best for their area of responsibility. If we can do what I said earlier then the odds of winning back lost access improves significantly. If we don't, then don't start crying a river. We all lose.

    Cheers

  12. #212
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,863
    ^ Well of course mt bikers need to be good stewards... but why are mt bikers always held to the highest standard of LNT, courtesy, etc? Why do we fear we may lose our access because a couple dumbsh#ts were rude to hikers or skidded through a switchback... when we can all go backpacking and forget to put out our illegal campfire and accidentally burn the entire forest down... and not get prohibited as a user group?

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    Emotions.
    Ding! We have a winner.

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,893
    Do people hate IMBA now?

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    Do people hate IMBA now?
    Just mountain bikers, looking through this thread the hikers love them.

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    ^ Well of course mt bikers need to be good stewards... but why are mt bikers always held to the highest standard of LNT, courtesy, etc? Why do we fear we may lose our access because a couple dumbsh#ts were rude to hikers or skidded through a switchback... when we can all go backpacking and forget to put out our illegal campfire and accidentally burn the entire forest down... and not get prohibited as a user group?
    Unfortunately, no matter what, we will always have folks who go in to our beloved mountains who have failed to evolve like the rest of us.

    The land managers understand this. Some land managers will look the other way on certain issues especially when they know the mountain biking community is cleaning and repairing the trails. Saves them money, but it is apart of trust building. One of there biggest concerns is safety. Land managers are extremely familiar with the speed and the distance we can cover in a short period of time. One of there biggest concerns with mountain biking is a horse getting spooked and the rider gets knocked down/injured or a mountain biker hitting a hiker. This is why we must always yield the right of way to everybody else.

    I have scene hikers get hit by irresponsible bikers. If you hit a hiker you will get F@cked in court.

    I was blown away by this story my buddy told me not long ago. He went on vacation in San Francisco. He decided to go for a ride in the Golden Gate Recreation area. He was traveling down this trail when he was stopped and ticked for speeding on the trails. The ranger was using LIDAR of all things. He was busted for going 22 mph in a 15 mph. My buddy was blown away. He had to show his drivers licence. The ticket required a mandatory court appearance

    My understanding from what my buddy told me. The area has scene a dramatic increase with hikers getting hit by bikers. So the powers that be, initiated the speed limits instead of closing the trails.

    To some this may sound crazy, but it is the world we live in.

    If HR1349 passes, we will all need to be on our best behavior. No matter what.

  17. #217
    _CJ
    _CJ is offline
    membership renounced
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    He was traveling down this trail when he was stopped and ticked for speeding on the trails. The ranger was using LIDAR of all things. He was busted for going 22 mph in a 15 mph.
    I wouldn't be opposed to a 5mph speed limit....in the presence of other trail users. Hell, I abide by that on all the trails I ride already, but that's not how those things ever work out. They just become revue generation systems, which of course wouldn't allow for such a sensible requirement as "in the presence of other trail users". It would just be barney fife hiding in the bushes with his radar gun, waiting to write a ticket to justify his salary.

    The whole MTB's are too fast argument is ridiculous anyhow. For sure, horses can outrun me on the trail, and there's no shortage of trail runners who are faster than me, especially within the confines of an unrefined wilderness area type trail, but I don't hear anyone complaining about them, or suggesting they should be banned. If this doesn't pass, I'm almost certainly going to be getting into trail running, and specializing in wilderness area running. Maybe even start a new club....Mountain bikers running in wilderness club.

    None of these arguments make any sense from a 30 thousand foot perspective though. Looking at the big picture, it's clearly nothing more than selfishness and prejudice on the part of those who object.


    .

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    I wouldn't be opposed to a 5mph speed limit....in the presence of other trail users. Hell, I abide by that on all the trails I ride already, but that's not how those things ever work out. They just become revue generation systems, which of course wouldn't allow for such a sensible requirement as "in the presence of other trail users". It would just be barney fife hiding in the bushes with his radar gun, waiting to write a ticket to justify his salary.

    The whole MTB's are too fast argument is ridiculous anyhow. For sure, horses can outrun me on the trail, and there's no shortage of trail runners who are faster than me, especially within the confines of an unrefined wilderness area type trail, but I don't hear anyone complaining about them, or suggesting they should be banned. If this doesn't pass, I'm almost certainly going to be getting into trail running, and specializing in wilderness area running. Maybe even start a new club....Mountain bikers running in wilderness club.

    None of these arguments make any sense from a 30 thousand foot perspective though. Looking at the big picture, it's clearly nothing more than selfishness and prejudice on the part of those who object.


    .
    In some of my earlier post I did talk about my experiences dealing with uneducated hikers who trash the place. If they ban hikers, then everyone gets the boot.

    I do agree with you about Barney justifying his job. Unfortunately, a rider, or several riders did something stupid in that area to cause the land manager to take this drastic step.

    I posted this comment before: If we lose access because we broke the sacred trust with the land manager, it is almost impossible to get it back.

    To most other trail users, one bad apple in the apple barrel spoils the whole barrel. Gratefully the land managers are smarter than that and they know only a small percentage of mtbers are a-holes. But it only takes one a-hole to start a war which we would ultimately lose in most cases.

    Cheers,

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeffreyjhsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    248

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,433
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    In some of my earlier post I did talk about my experiences dealing with uneducated hikers who trash the place. If they ban hikers, then everyone gets the boot.

    I do agree with you about Barney justifying his job. Unfortunately, a rider, or several riders did something stupid in that area to cause the land manager to take this drastic step.

    I posted this comment before: If we lose access because we broke the sacred trust with the land manager, it is almost impossible to get it back.

    To most other trail users, one bad apple in the apple barrel spoils the whole barrel. Gratefully the land managers are smarter than that and they know only a small percentage of mtbers are a-holes. But it only takes one a-hole to start a war which we would ultimately lose in most cases.

    Cheers,
    You mean like these guys? I have a hard time seeing mtn bikers going out of their way to trash an arch site. Most of us just want to ride our bikes. Generally bikers don't stray far from a trail. I'd argue that keeping users on the trail minimizes damage to the rest of the resource but yeah the one bad apple applies to all user groups.

    Name:  hiker vandalism.jpg
Views: 521
Size:  83.4 KB

  21. #221
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    You mean like these guys? I have a hard time seeing mtn bikers going out of their way to trash an arch site.
    This is a known issue with life.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

  22. #222
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,053
    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.
    Let's go with, human powered. No motorized vehicles.

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,053
    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.
    And the whole mechanized travel thing. Sure bikes. But oar locks, ski bindings and snowshoes bindings are all mechanized travel too. The whole idea behind wilderness WAS for people to enjoy, under their own power. To explore, etc. Seems the bikepacker would be a perfect fit. Get them away from the trail heads where all the hikers/ dog walkers/ day trippers congregate.

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    And the whole mechanized travel thing. Sure bikes. But oar locks, ski bindings and snowshoes bindings are all mechanized travel too. The whole idea behind wilderness WAS for people to enjoy, under their own power. To explore, etc. Seems the bikepacker would be a perfect fit. Get them away from the trail heads where all the hikers/ dog walkers/ day trippers congregate.
    So are canoes and kayaks, hell, you could argue a walking stick is a mechanical assistance.

  25. #225
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    And the whole mechanized travel thing. Sure bikes. But oar locks, ski bindings and snowshoes bindings are all mechanized travel too. The whole idea behind wilderness WAS for people to enjoy, under their own power. To explore, etc. Seems the bikepacker would be a perfect fit. Get them away from the trail heads where all the hikers/ dog walkers/ day trippers congregate.
    You weren't convinced by the use of upper case letters?

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

  26. #226
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    The whole MTB's are too fast argument is ridiculous anyhow. For sure, horses can outrun me on the trail, and there's no shortage of trail runners who are faster than me, especially within the confines of an unrefined wilderness area type trail, but I don't hear anyone complaining about them, or suggesting they should be banned.
    Really? Are you sure you are mountain biking?

  27. #227
    _CJ
    _CJ is offline
    membership renounced
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffreyjhsu View Post
    Up to 4500 signatures already. Going to be hard for IMBA to ignore.


    .

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,893
    Do they ban horses and joggers?

    Sent from my F3213 using Tapatalk

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    Up to 4500 signatures already. Going to be hard for IMBA to ignore.


    .
    Well, since they basically wrote a response saying they didnít give a crap what mountain bikers thought and that they know best....I donít think they will care. They will care when membership takes a hit and chapters pull out.

  30. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Haymarket View Post
    Well, since they basically wrote a response saying they didnít give a crap what mountain bikers thought and that they know best....I donít think they will care. They will care when membership takes a hit and chapters pull out.
    Yeah, unless they're getting funds from other than membership. If everyone that doesn't approve of how the are represented pulls out.

  31. #231
    _CJ
    _CJ is offline
    membership renounced
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Haymarket View Post
    Well, since they basically wrote a response saying they didnít give a crap what mountain bikers thought and that they know best....I donít think they will care. They will care when membership takes a hit and chapters pull out.
    Yup, and the clock hasn't stopped ticking....

    https://www.timeanddate.com/countdow...=0&min=0&sec=0

    (fyi: March 1st is National Self Injury Awareness Day)


    .

  32. #232
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,389
    This article helps to see the issue from a non-mountain biker perspective... Though I still disagree with much of their viewpoint:

    GOP lures some mountain bike groups in its push to roll back protections for public land - LA Times

  33. #233
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDwayyo View Post
    This article helps to see the issue from a non-mountain biker perspective... Though I still disagree with much of their viewpoint:

    GOP lures some mountain bike groups in its push to roll back protections for public land - LA Times
    So misleading.

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

  34. #234
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    So are canoes and kayaks, hell, you could argue a walking stick is a mechanical assistance.
    I agree, ban the walking sticks.

    Burn all the forests too, or it'll be easy to find more contraband.

  35. #235
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    I agree, ban the walking sticks.

    Burn all the forests too, or it'll be easy to find more contraband.
    I agree. One surprising finding after adoption of illegally built technical trails like Hangover and HiLine in Sedona is that hikers are now hitting them pretty hard. They pound the outside edges into submission with their trekking poles leading to sloughing and failure of the edge of the tread. There's not much holding those trails to the cliff side. Far more damage is incurred than the passage of bike tires. Who knew?

    Also of note with regards to IMBA is first they canceled the charter of the Sedona Mountain Bike Club when the members didn't toe the line and play nice with FS closures. More recently the Verde Valley Cyclists Coalition (now the only biking advocate in Sedona) canceled their IMBA affiliation status.

  36. #236
    _CJ
    _CJ is offline
    membership renounced
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDwayyo View Post
    This article helps to see the issue from a non-mountain biker perspective... Though I still disagree with much of their viewpoint:

    GOP lures some mountain bike groups in its push to roll back protections for public land - LA Times
    pffft, more like Democrats refuse to hear mountain biker pleas for help.


    .

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    13
    This article makes a pretty good argument that the spirit of the original Wilderness Act included bikes.

    Blast From the Past: By Law, Mountain Bikes in Wilderness ‚Äď Dirt Rag

    The article summarizes a paper published in a scholarly law review on this very subject with interesting historical evidence.

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    I agree. One surprising finding after adoption of illegally built technical trails like Hangover and HiLine in Sedona is that hikers are now hitting them pretty hard. They pound the outside edges into submission with their trekking poles leading to sloughing and failure of the edge of the tread. There's not much holding those trails to the cliff side. Far more damage is incurred than the passage of bike tires. Who knew?

    Also of note with regards to IMBA is first they canceled the charter of the Sedona Mountain Bike Club when the members didn't toe the line and play nice with FS closures. More recently the Verde Valley Cyclists Coalition (now the only biking advocate in Sedona) canceled their IMBA affiliation status.
    I said it in jest, but I go hiking about 3 times a year were the trail has a lot of scrambling. No way a bike could go (this is why we hike it) metal poles do a lot of damage.

  39. #239
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,909
    My hiking sticks have rubber tips.

  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation: iliketexmex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    512
    Imba, the people you pay to advocate against us.-image.jpeg

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dpca10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    316
    At the last board meeting of Silicon Valley Mtb (an imba chapter in the Bay Area). It was discussed whether we should drop out of imba. For now we are remaining part, but none of the board was in favor of imbaís position and apparently no chapter in California as far as we know. We made it very clear we supported STCís agenda and have given money to support them. Itís sad that IMBAís actions might sour enthusiasm for local groups.

  42. #242
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Dpca10 View Post
    Itís sad that IMBAís actions might sour enthusiasm for local groups.
    Very. At least in our area, it feels like we just got over some of the hurdles associated with getting the local club behind becoming a charter organization for IMBA... And now we are back to square one, people want out.

  43. #243
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    I agree. One surprising finding after adoption of illegally built technical trails like Hangover and HiLine in Sedona is that hikers are now hitting them pretty hard. They pound the outside edges into submission with their trekking poles leading to sloughing and failure of the edge of the tread. There's not much holding those trails to the cliff side. Far more damage is incurred than the passage of bike tires. Who knew?
    Seems like your efforts would be better placed on hiking forums if this is what you're pushing.

    Or is this just some of the whataboutism that's so hot right now?

  44. #244
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Seems like your efforts would be better placed on hiking forums if this is what you're pushing.

    Or is this just some of the whataboutism that's so hot right now?
    I was merely pointing out that trekking poles can be considered a mechanical advantage and can cause resource damage. Guess I'll have to look up 'whataboutism'. What's your beef?

  45. #245
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    I was merely pointing out that trekking poles can be considered a mechanical advantage and can cause resource damage. Guess I'll have to look up 'whataboutism'. What's your beef?
    Zowie generally disapproves of discussion, so he spends his time browsing discussion forums discussing how others are wasting their time discussing.

  46. #246
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    I was merely pointing out that trekking poles can be considered a mechanical advantage and can cause resource damage. Guess I'll have to look up 'whataboutism'. What's your beef?
    My point was merely that if you're pointing out resource destruction due to trekking poles, it would be better placed on a hiking forum where it may at least ostensibly result in a reduction of resource destruction, not on a MTB forum in order to change the subject to "What about" hikers, they're worse.

    As to "Discussion" as per Dwayyo's insightful and on topic reply, I think it's wonderful, when it happens.
    Pretty rare.

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    My point was merely that if you're pointing out resource destruction due to trekking poles, it would be better placed on a hiking forum where it may at least ostensibly result in a reduction of resource destruction, not on a MTB forum in order to change the subject to "What about" hikers, they're worse.

    As to "Discussion" as per Dwayyo's insightful and on topic reply, I think it's wonderful, when it happens.
    Pretty rare.
    What I posted is germane to the discussion. IMO, perhaps not yours. The thread is about IMBA and what they are advocating for and whether or not they have the best interest of the mtn bike community in mind.

    Personally I don't mind not riding in wilderness. It's the non-wilderness closures that are bothersome to me. Also, only one human powered mechanized use is banned in wilderness - bikes. Plenty others still exist - skis, oar rafts, rock climbing equipment, and dare I say it ...spring operated hiking poles. If the wilderness groups want to "protect" wilderness, why aren't they trying to ban the other mechanical uses? Perhaps the mechanical debate will make the general public realize how stupid it is. If skiing and rock climbing were banned from wilderness would that alter public opinion?

    Anyhow, remind me exactly what you have contributed in this thread?

  48. #248
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    What I posted is germane to the discussion. IMO, perhaps not yours. The thread is about IMBA and what they are advocating for and whether or not they have the best interest of the mtn bike community in mind.

    Personally I don't mind not riding in wilderness. It's the non-wilderness closures that are bothersome to me. Also, only one human powered mechanized use is banned in wilderness - bikes. Plenty others still exist - skis, oar rafts, rock climbing equipment, and dare I say it ...spring operated hiking poles. If the wilderness groups want to "protect" wilderness, why aren't they trying to ban the other mechanical uses? Perhaps the mechanical debate will make the general public realize how stupid it is. If skiing and rock climbing were banned from wilderness would that alter public opinion?

    Anyhow, remind me exactly what you have contributed in this thread?
    Just trying to help, pointing out poor propaganda that weakens the argument.
    You may want to realize that if you argue a point on poor data, you're making the other side's argument for them.

    P.S. Your interpretation of current WA law is incorrect.

  49. #249
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    Does the wilderness act even need to be amened to be reinterpreted by those enforcing it? xD

    Should pro-conservation activists be worried about having an outdoorsy community opposing new wilderness? How big is mtn biking in the US, and is it still growing?

  50. #250
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryFahn View Post
    No more love for imba. Don't take our money to be our voice and then turn around and speak against what 96% of riders want. Ttyl, Fahn


    https://www.singletracks.com/blog/tr...es-wilderness/
    I am done with IMBA. After 15 years or so. Unless they change their policy.

  51. #251
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Just trying to help, pointing out poor propaganda that weakens the argument.
    You may want to realize that if you argue a point on poor data, you're making the other side's argument for them.
    Making an argument to someone with an opposing viewpoint and discussing on a discussion board of mostly like-minded folk are completely different forms of dialogue and require different levels of attention to one's logic... Particularly when noting that he ended his post with 'who knew?' implying a casual supposition rather than a piece of 'data.'

    But that's what I've come to expect from you; ignoring the discussion to point out some pedantic flaw in an 'argument' that no one presented as an argument in the first place. Kudos to your Intro to Logic professor.

  52. #252
    mtbr member
    Reputation: @Ride@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Just trying to help, pointing out poor propaganda that weakens the argument.
    You may want to realize that if you argue a point on poor data, you're making the other side's argument for them.

    P.S. Your interpretation of current WA law is incorrect.
    He had a great point, not propaganda, and your post was way outta left field.

  53. #253
    _CJ
    _CJ is offline
    membership renounced
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,066
    Cross posting this here from a regional discussion.....

    Based on IMBA's 2015 annual report
    https://issuu.com/imbapublications/d..._annual_report
    it looks like membership contributions are only a drop in the bucket. Total revenue of $6.1 million with only $1.4 coming from memberships. No wonder they don't care what their membership thinks. Seems a boycott of companies who support IMBA is going to be needed to sink that ship, but from all appearances, that would mean just not buying anything from anyone. IMBA is more an industry trade association than member supported advocacy group. They don't need to care about the wishes of individual members.

    What's really needed now is a new advocacy group for mountain bikers, by mountain bikers, and funded by mountain bikers.....no for-profit industry money accepted.


    .

  54. #254
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDwayyo View Post
    Making an argument to someone with an opposing viewpoint and discussing on a discussion board of mostly like-minded folk are completely different forms of dialogue and require different levels of attention to one's logic... Particularly when noting that he ended his post with 'who knew?' implying a casual supposition rather than a piece of 'data.'

    But that's what I've come to expect from you; ignoring the discussion to point out some pedantic flaw in an 'argument' that no one presented as an argument in the first place. Kudos to your Intro to Logic professor.
    You may repeat or compliment false or anecdotal statements just like everyone else who's got an axe to grind as far as any topic goes.

    It's rather telling when you attack me for pointing it out.

  55. #255
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    You may repeat or compliment false or anecdotal statements just like everyone else who's got an axe to grind as far as any topic goes.

    It's rather telling when you attack me for pointing it out.
    Again, kudos to your Intro to Logic professor but perhaps you should have spent more time socializing with other humans and you'd be able to be a part of the discussion with the rest of us.

    Now I'm off to find out if this site has an ignore or block feature that will allow me to enjoy my time on this site without getting a logic lecture every time your ego needs a boost... With a little luck, I won't see your asinine, pseudo-intellectual response.

  56. #256
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDwayyo View Post
    Again, kudos to your Intro to Logic professor but perhaps you should have spent more time socializing with other humans and you'd be able to be a part of the discussion with the rest of us.
    So if I agree with you guys that's how we have a good discussion?

    If that is what you enjoy here, you have fun with it.

    As an apologetic bit of rich content:

    Hey guys, can you imagine a mountain biker ever damaging the trail?
    I can't LOL!

  57. #257
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,389
    It worked!

    Quote Originally Posted by dv8zen View Post
    Should pro-conservation activists be worried about having an outdoorsy community opposing new wilderness? How big is mtn biking in the US, and is it still growing?
    I have to admit I do worry that dividing outdoor enthusiasts into more specific groups and pitting them against each other may hurt overall conservation efforts, but as has been said I don't think that's a reason to roll over and play dead when we feel we are being unjustly discriminated against.

    Mountain biking is definitely growing, but I don't think we have nearly the financial support that wildernuts, equestrians and other more generic outdoor hobbyists have. It's not about raw numbers, it's about the money those numbers can pull together to lobby for their cause.

  58. #258
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,909
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDwayyo View Post
    ...and other more generic outdoor hobbyists...
    Who do you mean by that?

  59. #259
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Who do you mean by that?
    I meant that mountain biking is super specific. Despite what bike manufacturers might want us to believe, we are all just mountain bikers and we are a fairly esoteric group... Compare that to 'hikers' which is pretty much just anybody who walks in the woods (bird-watchers, photographers, hobby geologists, bushcrafters, etc.); those are really just 'generic outdoor hobbyists' however from a lobbying standpoint they are one voice; hikers.

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDwayyo View Post
    I meant that mountain biking is super specific. Despite what bike manufacturers might want us to believe, we are all just mountain bikers and we are a fairly esoteric group... Compare that to 'hikers' which is pretty much just anybody who walks in the woods (bird-watchers, photographers, hobby geologists, bushcrafters, etc.); those are really just 'generic outdoor hobbyists' however from a lobbying standpoint they are one voice; hikers.
    This is why I believe that the decision shouldn't be federal law. We may be a smaller group. But if we're the ones doing most of the train work. Then the land managers won't have to.

  61. #261
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    Cross posting this here from a regional discussion.....

    Based on IMBA's 2015 annual report
    https://issuu.com/imbapublications/d..._annual_report
    it looks like membership contributions are only a drop in the bucket. Total revenue of $6.1 million with only $1.4 coming from memberships. No wonder they don't care what their membership thinks. Seems a boycott of companies who support IMBA is going to be needed to sink that ship, but from all appearances, that would mean just not buying anything from anyone. IMBA is more an industry trade association than member supported advocacy group. They don't need to care about the wishes of individual members.

    What's really needed now is a new advocacy group for mountain bikers, by mountain bikers, and funded by mountain bikers.....no for-profit industry money accepted.


    .
    I use to work in the industry. I have reached out to many of my factory buddies to spread the word with-in the factory realm. Many of my friends had no idea what IMBA did. Most of them were blown away when I told them. Hopefully, my buddies can spread the word to their friends in other companies to cut their sponsorship funding.

    Other than that. Calling up IMBAs sponsors and pleading with them to cut off funding is about all we can do.

    I recently spoke with a good friend of mine from CORBA and he told me that at this time they do not want to completely cripple IMBA. At this time, they want to remove to head of the snake and replace it with a new head with elected members which can be voted out if they don't do what they promise too.

  62. #262
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    This is why I believe that the decision shouldn't be federal law. We may be a smaller group. But if we're the ones doing most of the train work. Then the land managers won't have to.
    Not following the logic

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

  63. #263
    _CJ
    _CJ is offline
    membership renounced
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    I use to work in the industry. I have reached out to many of my factory buddies to spread the word with-in the factory realm. Many of my friends had no idea what IMBA did. Most of them were blown away when I told them. Hopefully, my buddies can spread the word to their friends in other companies to cut their sponsorship funding.

    Other than that. Calling up IMBAs sponsors and pleading with them to cut off funding is about all we can do.

    I recently spoke with a good friend of mine from CORBA and he told me that at this time they do not want to completely cripple IMBA. At this time, they want to remove to head of the snake and replace it with a new head with elected members which can be voted out if they don't do what they promise too.
    yeah, I think I saw a petition to that effect....San Diego, and LA IMBA chapters apparently want a president and board of mountain bikers, elected by mountain bikers, serving mountain biker's interests instead of the current board comprised of corporate donors.

    Somebody else pointed out that there must have been a vote that took place within the board at IMBA, and that the members should be privy to who voted which way. Which companies, specifically, voted to undermine the STC's efforts. That would make for a pretty tidy boycott list.

    But, I have to agree, a house cleaning and restructuring as is being proposed by the SoCal groups would be a fantastic alternative to destroying IMBA completely.


    .

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    yeah, I think I saw a petition to that effect....San Diego, and LA IMBA chapters apparently want a president and board of mountain bikers, elected by mountain bikers, serving mountain biker's interests instead of the current board comprised of corporate donors.

    Somebody else pointed out that there must have been a vote that took place within the board at IMBA, and that the members should be privy to who voted which way. Which companies, specifically, voted to undermine the STC's efforts. That would make for a pretty tidy boycott list.

    But, I have to agree, a house cleaning and restructuring as is being proposed by the SoCal groups would be a fantastic alternative to destroying IMBA completely.


    .
    Absolutely, restructuring IMBA will be easier than starting a new organization from scratch.

    I have been hearing something about a plan B. I do not know all the specs to comment about it.

  65. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bamwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,094
    Anyone have a change of heart on this yet? I may have slightly. IMBA should have stayed out of this but.....maybe we shouldn't be riding everywhere. Even if minimal, there are impacts that wildlife may feel with trails running through their woods. Tread get compressed by rider weight. Maybe ants can't tunnel across. Maybe riders will get further that most and leave gu wrappers or a stray deuce here and there. Maybe human scent alone keeps animals from doing their thing. I'm not being anti biker or anything but usually after I'm firm on something my mind still likes to understand both sides.
    Keep trying to do the awesomest thing you've ever done.

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by bamwa View Post
    Anyone have a change of heart on this yet? I may have slightly. IMBA should have stayed out of this but.....maybe we shouldn't be riding everywhere. Even if minimal, there are impacts that wildlife may feel with trails running through their woods. Tread get compressed by rider weight. Maybe ants can't tunnel across. Maybe riders will get further that most and leave gu wrappers or a stray deuce here and there. Maybe human scent alone keeps animals from doing their thing. I'm not being anti biker or anything but usually after I'm firm on something my mind still likes to understand both sides.
    No, If somever place is protected from everyone for some reason sure. But if you can ride a horse on a trail. I feel a bike or a wheel chair should be able to be used on the trail.

  67. #267
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    No, If somever place is protected from everyone for some reason sure. But if you can ride a horse on a trail. I feel a bike or a wheel chair should be able to be used on the trail.
    You want the trails widened and smoothed?

  68. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    You want the trails widened and smoothed?
    Never said that. Most trails commonly used by horses are wide enough for a wheel chair If we start splitting hairs. Allowing self powered wheeled transportation doesn't just benifit bikers.

  69. #269
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    You want the trails widened and smoothed?
    Never said that. Most trails commonly used by horses are wide enough for a wheel chair If we start splitting hairs. Allowing self powered wheeled transportation doesn't just benifit bikers. There are people who will ride a wheel chair onot some rough stuff.

  70. #270
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    Most trails commonly used by horses are wide enough for a wheel chair.
    Where do you live?

  71. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Where do you live?
    Mid Atlantic

  72. #272
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    410
    Really, Imba should be taking a position like the NRA does. Advocate for access everywhere. It is a simple policy and it would work. There are going to be groups against us that prohibit access anyway. When we start restricting ourselves then it will only make it worse. If a area is sensitive enough then a environmental group will take the call and stop access.
    I don't encourage or support the NRA but look at what they do for their members. Imba is trying to decide what is right for us. Not supporting access, making groomers. I will not renew my membership.

  73. #273
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,909
    Quote Originally Posted by rlee View Post
    Advocate for access everywhere.
    Like everywhere everywhere? Yellowstone, Arches, Yosemite, The Grand Canyon, Zion, Mesa Verde, etc?

  74. #274
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Like everywhere everywhere? Yellowstone, Arches, Yosemite, The Grand Canyon, Zion, Mesa Verde, etc?
    There is plenty of room in Yosemite

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

  75. #275
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    Never said that. Most trails commonly used by horses are wide enough for a wheel chair If we start splitting hairs. Allowing self powered wheeled transportation doesn't just benifit bikers.
    (1) IN GENERAL Ė Congress reaffirms that nothing in the Wilderness Act prohibits wheelchair use in a wilderness area by an individual whose disability requires its use. The Wilderness Act requires no agency to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation or to construct any facilities or modify any conditions of lands within a wilderness area to facilitate such use.

    https://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes...heelchairs.pdf

  76. #276
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,909
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    There is plenty of room in Yosemite
    Do you think the mountain bike community should push for a blanket permit?

  77. #277
    inebriate savant
    Reputation: jasonmason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Haymarket View Post
    Well, since they basically wrote a response saying they didnít give a crap what mountain bikers thought and that they know best....I donít think they will care. They will care when membership takes a hit and chapters pull out.
    Color me skeptical on that front.

    While there was a lot of talk a couple weeks ago, I have yet to see a chapter actually have the balls to rescind their chapter status from IMBA. I doubt you'll actually see many, if any, actually do so.

    Which, in a nutshell, is why so many people here (myself included) are reticent to support local groups.
    "When life gives you lemons...say f@%k it, and bail"

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,433
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonmason View Post
    Color me skeptical on that front.

    While there was a lot of talk a couple weeks ago, I have yet to see a chapter actually have the balls to rescind their chapter status from IMBA. I doubt you'll actually see many, if any, actually do so.

    Which, in a nutshell, is why so many people here (myself included) are reticent to support local groups.
    hmm, I know of at least one that chapter here in Arizona that severed it's affiliation with IMBA in 2017 and with IMBAís current leadership vacuum there may be more to come.

  79. #279
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Do you think the mountain bike community should push for a blanket permit?
    What are you trying to get to with your question? I think that the bill is perfect and I hope it passes. There should be no blanket exclusion from Wilderness. That's what I think.

    My turn to ask question. Do you support the blanket ban on biking?
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  80. #280
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,909
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    What are you trying to get to with your question? I think that the bill is perfect and I hope it passes. There should be no blanket exclusion from Wilderness. That's what I think.

    My turn to ask question. Do you support the blanket ban on biking?
    I was trying to understand what you were getting at when you said that thereís plenty of room in Yosemite for bikes.

    Do I support or oppose the ban? Whether or not I get to bike in Wilderness areas falls really, really far down on my list of shit to be concerned about these days so honestly I donít really care if it passes or not. Itís low priority.

  81. #281
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    I was trying to understand what you were getting at when you said that thereís plenty of room in Yosemite for bikes.

    Do I support or oppose the ban? Whether or not I get to bike in Wilderness areas falls really, really far down on my list of shit to be concerned about these days so honestly I donít really care if it passes or not. Itís low priority.
    Interesting way of avoiding answering what was a very simple question. So, if you don't care about the Wilderness issue, why are you posting in this thread?
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  82. #282
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,909
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Interesting way of avoiding answering what was a very simple question. So, if you don't care about the Wilderness issue, why are you posting in this thread?
    Itís a distraction (as is using mtbr at all) for me from all the other crap going on right now.

    Status quo would be fine with me. Change would be fine with me too.

  83. #283
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Itís a distraction (as is using mtbr at all) for me from all the other crap I have to deal with right now.

    Status quo would be fine with me. Change would be fine with me too.
    Maybe you'd be more engaged if your favorite trail was confiscated for Wilderness Study Area.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  84. #284
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,909
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Maybe you'd be more engaged if your favorite trail was confiscated for Wilderness Study Area.
    Maybe, but there are still more important things (health, finances, illness, death) going on right now in my life than riding bikes. Riding bikes is playtime.

  85. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bamwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,094
    I didn't bump this to get y'all splitting hairs and making up words to put in other's mouths.

    Yes if a trail is there and horses and hikers are allowed and it doesn't harm wildlife in any way go for it. I'd even like to see some trails here "Yellowstone, Arches, Yosemite, The Grand Canyon, Zion, Mesa Verde" that allow bikes. Seeing how you can only ride the North Rim of the Grand Canyon seems like a jip to me. I was just noticing while rolling some corridors locally that yes trails do have an impact on the terrain. Whether or not birds, deer and snakes care is another story.

    My point is we as mountain bikers are not lilly white and there may be some bad apples out there that may leave litter, or punctured tubes, or zoom hikers without saying good day, or bring out IMBA approved ebikes on nonmotorized trails. On the other hand any user group can have it's idiots as well.

    But yeah, it should be up to land managers. The smart ones will realize that we as a group are an asset to parks willing to pay in gate fees and volunteer work. Feds need to realize this asap. No reason we can have trails in Big Bend State Park but not Big Bend National Park next door. It just isn't fair. If only there was a mtb group to voice our opinions!
    Keep trying to do the awesomest thing you've ever done.

  86. #286
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Maybe, but there are still more important things (health, finances, illness, death) going on right now in my life than riding bikes. Riding bikes is playtime.
    Then, I suggest you go back to your super important activities and let involved people discuss the amendment to the Wilderness Act.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  87. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    410
    I don't think bikes belong everywhere. And there are a lot of organizations that won't let us go where we want.
    IMBA needs to advocate for access everywhere, and knowing that they won't get it. But still advocate for it. The percentage they get will be lets say 20%. But if they only ask for 20% then they will end up with 5%.
    Other organizations operate this way. The sierra club wants us to have 0%. We need 100% and we'll end up in the middle somewhere.

  88. #288
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,909
    Not intentionally trying to put words in anyoneís mouth but you guys do give a person things to think about, hence my questions seeking clarification on your viewpoints. It appears the questioning irritates you though so Iíll stop. Carry on.

  89. #289
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bamwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,094
    Not all your questions are bad but dude, this:
    "You want the trails widened and smoothed?"

    In response to this:
    "I feel a bike or a wheel chair should be able to be used on the trail."

    Is exactly what's called putting words in one's mouth.

    He is talking about people's freedom of access and you are talking about trail work. Come on now.
    Keep trying to do the awesomest thing you've ever done.

  90. #290
    _CJ
    _CJ is offline
    membership renounced
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,066
    Not all wheelchairs have four wheels. Some, specifically made for more primitive trails only have one....but are currently illegal in WA.

    Attachment 1176930

  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    Not all wheelchairs have four wheels. Some, specifically made for more primitive trails only have one....but are currently illegal in WA.

    Attachment 1176930
    these are cooll. There are 3 wheeled ones with levers and chain drive. So the person can selfpropel it. These are illegal as well. I don't feel the need to respond to smoothing trails or regular wheel chairs are legal comments. When we are talking about actual wheel chais made for rough trails.

  92. #292
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    these are cooll. There are 3 wheeled ones with levers and chain drive. So the person can selfpropel it. These are illegal as well. I don't feel the need to respond to smoothing trails or regular wheel chairs are legal comments. When we are talking about actual wheel chais made for rough trails.
    I don't know how many times I have to say this.

    WHEELCHAIRS ARE NOT ILLEGAL IN WAs.

    I posted a link 2 pages back to the USFS website. The ADA brought this into compliance. Making the case for bikes via wheelchairs is a fallacy.

  93. #293
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    I don't know how many times I have to say this.

    WHEELCHAIRS ARE NOT ILLEGAL IN WAs.

    I posted a link 2 pages back to the USFS website. The ADA brought this into compliance. Making the case for bikes via wheelchairs is a fallacy.
    Does not change the overall narrative.

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

  94. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,454
    Quote Originally Posted by bamwa View Post
    Anyone have a change of heart on this yet? I may have slightly. IMBA should have stayed out of this but.....maybe we shouldn't be riding everywhere. Even if minimal, there are impacts that wildlife may feel with trails running through their woods. Tread get compressed by rider weight. Maybe ants can't tunnel across. Maybe riders will get further that most and leave gu wrappers or a stray deuce here and there. Maybe human scent alone keeps animals from doing their thing. I'm not being anti biker or anything but usually after I'm firm on something my mind still likes to understand both sides.
    My take is that there are areas and trails that have been used by mountain bikers for decades with very little resource degradation or user conflicts. Then these areas that have been used by us for decades suddenly become off-limits due to Wilderness designation or Wilderness Study Area designation. This continued loss of access for no compelling reason pushed me towards the Wilderness access issue.

    Also worth consideration is the potential for full support for new Wilderness areas from mountain bikers if our access is not going to be eliminated. I know I'd be pushing hard for more land protection if I weren't going to lose trail access.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  95. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,454
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Not intentionally trying to put words in anyoneís mouth but you guys do give a person things to think about, hence my questions seeking clarification on your viewpoints. It appears the questioning irritates you though so Iíll stop. Carry on.
    Nat, I've had a few enjoyable exchanges with you on this subject and value your input. I like to give these matters a lot of thoughtful consideration and you've helped me do that.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  96. #296
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Does not change the overall narrative.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    You are correct that it does not change the overall narrative. However, making the round about implication that the USFS is discriminating against wheelchairs therefore bikes should also be allowed doesn't do much to show that the Bikes in WAs narrative is overall informed.

    The Bikes in WAs narrative managed to muster up a measly few thousand signatures and apparently, at least some of the group still thinks that wheelchairs are disallowed despite the amount of available information that has been made available to the public. If you are looking to impress the public with numbers and knowledge, then the campaign may have already failed.

    I'm kinda over this whole WA debate. I'll just go with however it shakes out, but, I am entirely unimpressed with the Mtn Bike community's approach to this argument.

  97. #297
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by 101 View Post
    You are correct that it does not change the overall narrative. However, making the round about implication that the USFS is discriminating against wheelchairs therefore bikes should also be allowed doesn't do much to show that the Bikes in WAs narrative is overall informed.

    The Bikes in WAs narrative managed to muster up a measly few thousand signatures and apparently, at least some of the group still thinks that wheelchairs are disallowed despite the amount of available information that has been made available to the public. If you are looking to impress the public with numbers and knowledge, then the campaign may have already failed.

    I'm kinda over this whole WA debate. I'll just go with however it shakes out, but, I am entirely unimpressed with the Mtn Bike community's approach to this argument.
    Let's hear your argument since you seem to be that much smarter.

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

  98. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonmason View Post
    Color me skeptical on that front.

    While there was a lot of talk a couple weeks ago, I have yet to see a chapter actually have the balls to rescind their chapter status from IMBA. I doubt you'll actually see many, if any, actually do so.

    Which, in a nutshell, is why so many people here (myself included) are reticent to support local groups.
    I am affiliated with several local groups. The groups I am affiliated with want IMBA restructured at this point. If IMBA refuses then there is a plan "B" in the works. As for what plan "B" is? The details are still being worked out. Either way, with what I have been told is the head of the snake will be removed and replaced one way or another.

  99. #299
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,704
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    hmm, I know of at least one that chapter here in Arizona that severed it's affiliation with IMBA in 2017 and with IMBAís current leadership vacuum there may be more to come.



    Yep...
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  100. #300
    101
    101 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    Let's hear your argument since you seem to be that much smarter.

    Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
    I'm just fine with WAs as they presently exist.
    I use public lands extensively for a variety of purposes and pursuits. The accessibility of public land was the primary reason I moved to Durango and the Weminuche (one of the CO Trail re routes) in particular is very special to me. If it's opened up to bikes, so be it and I'll be one of the firsts in their on a bike, but I'm not interested in pursuing it nor am I interested in aligning myself with the Mtn Bike community on this subject matter.

Page 3 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: 7

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.