Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 314
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LarryFahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,996

    Imba, the people you pay to advocate against us.

    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/
    Hubbard Bike Club

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    522
    There's got to be a motive for this. Maybe it's part of their overall strategy to start pushing ebikes onto trails?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: injected59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    165
    I don’t understand. What’s Imba’s motive or agenda by doing this. Do they have something to gain by conceding? Does IMBA feel by conceding it will make mountain bikers look like superior conservationists and Gov will just grant us more trail access as a reward for our good behavior? Look at the NRA (and I don’t agree with a lot of what they do anymore), they fight tooth and nail on everything. The only thing they’ve conceded on was most recent w Vegas and “looking at” the legality of bump stocks. Give the government an inch and they’ll take a mile. I think IMBA needs to speak up on this very thread and clarify their true motives and explain their concerns. Also could someone explain their mention about possible land seizure in their statement.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,832
    From a political point of view, it was a complete blunder. If IMBA was against it, they just should have kept their mouth shut, not supported it, and not alienated their members. If they think that by not supporting legislation that they're gaining influence with other orgs and agencies, that would only be short lived or non existent. I don't see a quid pro quo working out here. Even if it was a losing battle, they should have supported it as a symbolic gesture, anyone they are already working with to gain access in a piecemeal fashion would have recognized it as just that.

  5. #5
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,545
    I think if you look at the overall political landscape in america right now, realistically, you'd realise what was said is most likely very true and the republicans would use this bill to piggyback and remove restrictions so that they can mine/log/frack the crap out of the wilderness and make their friends a crap load of $$$.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  6. #6
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,690
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    I think if you look at the overall political landscape in america right now, realistically, you'd realise what was said is most likely very true and the republicans would use this bill to piggyback and remove restrictions so that they can mine/log/frack the crap out of the wilderness and make their friends a crap load of $$$.
    Dontcha think if it was that simple, big oil, etc. would be funding STC up the wazoo? Ha!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    Dontcha think if it was that simple, big oil, etc. would be funding STC up the wazoo? Ha!
    Buying the politicians directly is a lot easier when you have big oil money.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: injected59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    165
    Whatever the matter, is it that hard for IMBA to throw out a social media post saying hey guys and gals here’s what’s going to happen today and this is why were doing it. We just wanted you to know first hand before things got out of control on the forums


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    208
    I'm sure IMBA is probably being told to bend over or else by the Sierra Club and their lackeys. I'm still no going to renew and hope that some other group emerges as a voice for mountain bikers.

  10. #10
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,009
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    I think if you look at the overall political landscape in america right now, realistically, you'd realise what was said is most likely very true and the republicans would use this bill to piggyback and remove restrictions so that they can mine/log/frack the crap out of the wilderness and make their friends a crap load of $$$.
    Yes first step we designate bicycles as non-motorized, next come bulldozers.

    I have no choice but to renew as my local club is a charter organization of IMBA. I need that membership for local advocacy and rides... If I had my choice I would not support IMBA any longer. STC has my full support.

  11. #11
    Short-Change-Hero
    Reputation: gregnash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4,954
    I would be interested in reading their testimonial at this point and see exactly what was said. It is very easy to take things out of context that may have been explained further in the testimony, HOWEVER, it does seem at first glance like they are doing a complete 180. Looks like this may also have a lot to do with their organizational leadership changes last year.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: injected59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    165
    What’s keeping STC from selling memberships. I see they have a donate button. If IMBA doesn’t WOW me by renewal time I will just donate to STC instead.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Hardtail Steel Forever
    Reputation: jestep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,282
    Maybe they should have kept quiet, but I and a bunch of people I know don't want bikes in wilderness areas.
    WTB: Med Bontrager Ti Lite, PM Me...

  14. #14
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,152
    Quote Originally Posted by jestep View Post
    Maybe they should have kept quiet, but I and a bunch of people I know don't want bikes in wilderness areas.
    Fair enough, but the flip side is that I don’t want Wilderness areas where we’ve been riding for decades. And that happens.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonaid View Post
    There's got to be a motive for this. Maybe it's part of their overall strategy to start pushing ebikes onto trails?
    I suspect their motive is political. Today this country is very divided on politics. If a member of on political party proposes something the member in the other quickly assumes it is bad rather than looking at the actual merits of the idea.

    IMBA should not be and never be aligned to any political party. They should be aligned to riding bikes. Liberals Ride bikes, Communists ride bikes, Conservatives ride bikes, Libertarians ride bikes. So do a lot of non-political people too.

    IMBA should not be tied to the Sierra club or any other club unless our interest specifically align. Now the idea proposed as a remember it was not a blanket allowance on bikes in wilderness, but a measure of local control. So local authorities could then be free to make the call on specific trails and the suitability for bikes. In my experience most wilderness areas are so remote that very people are around so a bike here and there won't be noticed. Or wilderness areas are somewhat arbitrarily limiting so 2 feet over some magic line bikes are bad, but on the the other side they are ok with no real basis in reality of the land.

    I personally am not a fan of massive trail building in wilderness as the idea is to mimimize the impact, but allowing bikes on trails that exist seems pretty harmless.

    Then again maybe IMBA does not want to support place where there not many IMBA "Standard" trails. I would guess that 99% of wilderness trails would not meet IMBA standards. I personally don't care about that.
    Joe
    '12 Santa Cruz Highball 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5",Vassago Verhauen SS 29" XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  16. #16
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,488
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Fair enough, but the flip side is that I don’t want Wilderness areas where we’ve been riding for decades. And that happens.
    I'm guessing the chances of new Wilderness areas (or expansion of existing ones) in the next 3 years are between 0 and 5%.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I'm guessing the chances of new Wilderness areas (or expansion of existing ones) in the next 3 years are between 0 and 5%.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    What about after 3 years? It not good to rely on the whims of any president to protect what you hold dear. As soon as there is a new President things change. The founding fathers put law making in the hands of congress not the president. They did that for a reason. They did not want that power in the hands of one man. Sadly over the years congress has freely given the president more and more power.

    There has been talk about reducing the size of national monuments. Well when congress gives the President the power to do that on his whim then they better be ready to have his whim change as well. Congress should have been the ones to declare monuments. Then you would not have people as upset by some rogue president declaring them one day and then another rogue president erasing them the next.
    Joe
    '12 Santa Cruz Highball 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5",Vassago Verhauen SS 29" XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  18. #18
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I'm guessing the chances of new Wilderness areas (or expansion of existing ones) in the next 3 years are between 0 and 5%.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    That doesn’t really matter here. I’m more troubled by R1’s unwritten policy of managing RWAs as WAs. No legislation required, just a Supervisor’s decision.

  19. #19
    WillWorkForTrail
    Reputation: Cotharyus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by injected59 View Post
    What’s keeping STC from selling memberships. I see they have a donate button. If IMBA doesn’t WOW me by renewal time I will just donate to STC instead.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The STC was never set up to be a membership organization or a general advocacy group. Their sole purpose and reason for existing is to have the Wilderness Act recognized for what was intended when it was written, not what it's been reinterpreted as since. Hence, donating money to help them get the right lobbyists in the right doors, but they have no use for membership.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: injected59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Cotharyus View Post
    The STC was never set up to be a membership organization or a general advocacy group. Their sole purpose and reason for existing is to have the Wilderness Act recognized for what was intended when it was written, not what it's been reinterpreted as since. Hence, donating money to help them get the right lobbyists in the right doors, but they have no use for membership.
    I was just thinking from the power by numbers aspect to help push through legislation


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDwayyo View Post
    Yes first step we designate bicycles as non-motorized, next come bulldozers.

    I have no choice but to renew as my local club is a charter organization of IMBA. I need that membership for local advocacy and rides... If I had my choice I would not support IMBA any longer. STC has my full support.
    My local chapter broke away from IMBA but even before that they had a donate option for those that wanted all their money to go to their trails. Maybe make the suggestion to your local chapter? I'd rather reward my local trail builders than some national group that is in opposition to something I believe in.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    108
    Here’s IMBA’s response to the criticism they are getting:

    https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bamwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,026
    "In 2016, IMBA’s board of directors reaffirmed our position on this issue, which is to respect both the Act and the federal land agency regulations that bicycles are not allowed in existing, Congressionally designated Wilderness areas."

    You can still respect the act and the agencies WHILE advocating to allow non-motorized use.....DAVE. Oh, unless you get funded by motorized interests now. I see.....


    edit: However much I want to add to the pile on, some decent points were made also.
    Such as not pissing off agencies....They do a lot of good, etc.....Letting STC fight this battle alone to stay in good standing with the big dogs.
    Keep trying to do the awesomest thing you've ever done.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bamwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,026
    Keep trying to do the awesomest thing you've ever done.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I'm guessing the chances of new Wilderness areas (or expansion of existing ones) in the next 3 years are between 0 and 5%.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    How about Wilderness Study Areas?

    That's likely the biggest threat to access.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,039
    IMBA to me is sometimes analogous to the AMA. Ostensibly the AMA looks after physician's interests but their agenda and beliefs are so out of sync with mine that I never joined and throw all of their mailers and membership requests directly into the trash.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95124 View Post
    Here’s IMBA’s response to the criticism they are getting:

    https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness
    Wow, that is as weak and as vague as possible. Basically patting the members on the head and saying “we know what we’re doing, you wouldn’t understand little fella”. I’m done with them under current leadership, they are not working aggressively for expanded access, which is what I would be paying for.

  28. #28
    nimble biker
    Reputation: Picard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,596
    I will never join IMBA now that I am aware of this issue.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: injected59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    165
    Almost 1000 views already on this thread. I suspect some within IMBA are monitoring this as it progresses.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  30. #30
    inebriate savant
    Reputation: jasonmason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDwayyo View Post
    Yes first step we designate bicycles as non-motorized, next come bulldozers.

    I have no choice but to renew as my local club is a charter organization of IMBA. I need that membership for local advocacy and rides... If I had my choice I would not support IMBA any longer. STC has my full support.
    This is part of the problem. You absolutely have a choice. You can still go help on trail days, participate in events, and make your voice heard without contributing to your local IMBA chapter. Donate the money that would have been your renewal, and in conversation make certain that they know you did.
    "When life gives you lemons...say f@%k it, and bail"

  31. #31
    _CJ
    _CJ is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95124 View Post
    Here’s IMBA’s response to the criticism they are getting:

    https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness
    Jesus, what a bunch of political doublespeak BS. I'm not a violent person, but reading that just makes me want to punch them in the face.

    I especially like the part where they say they didn't have an "agreement" with STC, it was only a "memorandum of understanding", so it doesn't matter that they made a 180 and stabbed the STC in the back.

    And "This is not black and white and it’s far from over – no matter the outcome of HR 1349." was a good one too. So, when HR1349 passes, they're STILL not going to support it?!?!

    WTF is wrong with these people? Do they somehow believe the people managing wilderness areas are going to suddenly just throw open the gates, and roll in the bulldozers and build a bunch of lift serviced downhill parks when this passes? Of course not. At best, we have years of negotiating for a minuscule number of miles to be opened up in WA's. The BIG impact will be that mountain bikes will no longer be instantly banned in wilderness study areas with the stroke of some anti-bike manager's pen.

    My suspicion is that this is ALL about politics. With IMBA being based in Boulder, and being so closely tied to the Sierra Club, they probably can't see past this being introduced by a Republican. Cause you know, all Republicans are evil, and everything they want to do is an affront to all that is good and decent.....which is of course ridiculous. But I get it. They're brainwashed party loyalists, and they sit around in their little echo-chamber telling each other how smart they are, and how the little people (IMBA membership) aren't capable of understanding the broader implications of such actions, which again, is just ridiculous.

    Seriously, it's time to cut these people off. They've finally revealed themselves for what they are.


    .

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: @Ride@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Haymarket View Post
    Wow, that is as weak and as vague as possible. Basically patting the members on the head and saying “we know what we’re doing, you wouldn’t understand little fella”. I’m done with them under current leadership, they are not working aggressively for expanded access, which is what I would be paying for.
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    Jesus, what a bunch of political doublespeak BS. I'm not a violent person, but reading that just makes me want to punch them in the face.

    I especially like the part where they say they didn't have an "agreement" with STC, it was only a "memorandum of understanding", so it doesn't matter that they made a 180 and stabbed the STC in the back.

    And "This is not black and white and it’s far from over – no matter the outcome of HR 1349." was a good one too. So, when HR1349 passes, they're STILL not going to support it?!?!

    WTF is wrong with these people? Do they somehow believe the people managing wilderness areas are going to suddenly just throw open the gates, and roll in the bulldozers and build a bunch of lift serviced downhill parks when this passes? Of course not. At best, we have years of negotiating for a minuscule number of miles to be opened up in WA's. The BIG impact will be that mountain bikes will no longer be instantly banned in wilderness study areas with the stroke of some anti-bike manager's pen.

    My suspicion is that this is ALL about politics. With IMBA being based in Boulder, and being so closely tied to the Sierra Club, they probably can't see past this being introduced by a Republican. Cause you know, all Republicans are evil, and everything they want to do is an affront to all that is good and decent.....which is of course ridiculous. But I get it. They're brainwashed party loyalists, and they sit around in their little echo-chamber telling each other how smart they are, and how the little people (IMBA membership) aren't capable of understanding the broader implications of such actions, which again, is just ridiculous.

    Seriously, it's time to cut these people off. They've finally revealed themselves for what they are.


    .
    ^all of that. Screw imba.

    Too much mention of " politically divisive times" in that response as well. They are basically saying "we are political activists and this doesn't support our agenda".

  33. #33
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,152
    The underlying message is that they’re focused on new stacked loop systems in suburban settings and avoiding backcountry access issues. From my perspective as someone who’s chosen to live in a small western city surrounded by USFS lands, they’re at best irrelevant.

  34. #34
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,690
    They want to keep their seat at the table... but most of their guests have left the table out of disgust.

  35. #35
    _CJ
    _CJ is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95124 View Post
    Here’s IMBA’s response to the criticism they are getting:

    https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness
    "We know that mountain bikers won’t always agree with our approach, and may choose not to support us. That’s okay. IMBA will continue to work for the long-term gains of mountain biking, just as we have for three decades."

    In other words...."we don't care what you think, we don't need you, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out".

    Kinda makes you wonder where their funding really comes from. Is Sierra Club shoveling money in the back door? Is it the corporate money that really keeps them afloat? Democratic party slush fund? Do they even need members? Are their membership numbers even real?

  36. #36
    I have Flat Pedal shame.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    606
    - Remember that the former Chair thought IMBA was stupid so he quit and joined STC,
    - Remember that half the IMBA board quit because they thought this stance was stupid.
    - Remember that the other Chair was fired for being stupid.
    - Remember that the new Chair was supposed to be the savior of all and fix this mess, but is also stupid.
    - Remember that IMBA is stupid, and if you support them...
    We don't ride to add days to our life, we ride to add life to the days we have left here.

  37. #37
    That makes me smart
    Reputation: Finch Platte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    14,074
    Even Subaru bailed.

    Sorry, but I work on my local trails. My IMBA $ goes towards beer.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,462
    I sent IMBA a strongly worded (yet respectful) email, expressing my shock at its decision. I suggested they just quit after this. And why not, IMBA effectively killed the bill. Now the Sierra Club will use IMBA's position against advancement.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95124 View Post
    Here’s IMBA’s response to the criticism they are getting:

    https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    965
    I fail to see how supporting the Bill hurts IMBA's influence or alienates agencies and land managers. I also fail to see how opposing it increases IMBA's influence or ingratiated it with agencies and land managers.

    Agencies and land managers follow what they believe the law to be. If the law is changed to make clear there is no blanket ban on bikes and that decisions on access are made locally, that should not alienate them. If the agencies or land managers have said they oppose the Bill, we, as citizens and users, ought to know about it.

    Speakng against the Bill may please those who oppose bikes, but it will not make them like bikes or drop opposition to bikes in other places. In fact, I could forgive IMBA's opposition if there was some quid pro quo, but there does not seem to be.

    I realize IMBA does a lot of good, but it's opposition to the Bill may be a deal-breaker.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LarryFahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,996
    As far as "opening it up to bulldozers" and stuff, this is what I found.
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ouse-bill/1349

    One thing that I'm vaguely familiar with is several years ago, Montana lost hundreds of miles of trails due to an area becoming a "Wilderness study" area. To the best of my knowledge, some/all of these trails were built by riders and bicycle clubs.

    Thats a kick in the balls... And for imba- our political voice- to turn their backs on the riders, builders and local shops... Is the biggest kick in the balls to us.

    I supported imba for 7 years. I even did their work on my end. When we were losing trails to timbering, "I" was imba. But one year I couldn't afford a "$45 pair of socks", Ya know? But I still did my advocating. I worked with The Nature Conservancy to open up 2,250 acres to mountain biking. A first!

    I haven't been part of imba (basically meaning that I haven't thrown $45 to them with nothing to show) in 10 years. But I support them. Until now.

    How can you not support us as riders, and then go and turn your backs on a group that's advocating for the same sport and paid for by the same members that support you! 96% of riders want these areas opened!

    Ttyl, Fahn
    Hubbard Bike Club

  42. #42
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,690
    Maybe IMBA would support STC if STC advocated for ebikes in Wilderness.

  43. #43
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,009
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonmason View Post
    This is part of the problem. You absolutely have a choice. You can still go help on trail days, participate in events, and make your voice heard without contributing to your local IMBA chapter. Donate the money that would have been your renewal, and in conversation make certain that they know you did.
    No, I'm a trail liaison for a local trail system that I love dearly and it is my membership with the local club, which is an IMBA chapter, that allows me to do so. I cannot contribute in the way I'd like to (and do) without donating to IMBA.

  44. #44
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,152
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryFahn View Post
    One thing that I'm vaguely familiar with is several years ago, Montana lost hundreds of miles of trails due to an area becoming a "Wilderness study" area. To the best of my knowledge, some/all of these trails were built by riders and bicycle clubs.

    Thats a kick in the balls... And for imba- our political voice- to turn their backs on the riders, builders and local shops... Is the biggest kick in the balls to us.
    The WSA in the Bitterroot was news a few years ago, but the bigger issue is the Region’s policy of managing RWAs as WAs in order to eliminate a constituency that would oppose Wilderness designation. This was well-described in Bike’s recent Lines in the Dirt series.

    To IMBA’s credit, they buried an address to that and a few other things in the Q&A under their response. They describe their efforts to address that at the Secretary and Chief level; we’ll see if they have any luck. I give credit for that entirely to Melson. He’s out of Montana and is very familiar with the impacts. They also mention the proposed Recreation Not Red Tape Act, which I wasn’t previously familiar with.

    If they can deliver on those Federal level issues, then I’ll reevaluate my position.

  45. #45
    _CJ
    _CJ is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    931
    The countdown has begun for IMBA.

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

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    183
    Part of me says lame. But part of me thinks maybe IMBA should at a minimum try to get the trails back that mountain bikers used before the area was designated wilderness.

    I remember when I could ride the Colorado Trail unobstructed up to a few years ago. Now you must take lengthy detours around the newly designate wilderness areas. Same thing in the San Gabriel mountains near Los Angeles when you could ride from Pasadena to Palmdale on almost all single track. Well, Not any more, because of areas that were recently designated as wilderness. Which shut down all the trails in a huge section of that small mountain range.

    If they can at least accomplish this then I would be satisfied.

    As for pushing the E-bike issue. They are motorized and not 100% human powered. I think IMBA has their prioritize mixed up on this issue. I wonder how much money the bike manufactures are paying them to fight for the legalization of a motorized bicycle, to turn their backs on what they have been fighting for for all these years. I am blown away. The real winner here on e-bikes is the manufactures who stand to make or lose millions on the new market with the new concept.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: @Ride@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    591
    I am on the fence with this issue. Part of me says lame. But part of me thinks maybe IMBA should at a minimum try
    Good edit. I really don't see a fence for mountain bikers to be on.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by @Ride@ View Post
    Good edit. I really don't see a fence for mountain bikers to be on.
    Weird. I did edit that part out. Oh well

    Cheers

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,745
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    Part of me says lame. But part of me thinks maybe IMBA should at a minimum try to get the trails back that mountain bikers used before the area was designated wilderness.

    I remember when I could ride the Colorado Trail unobstructed up to a few years ago. Now you must take lengthy detours around the newly designate wilderness areas. Same thing in the San Gabriel mountains near Los Angeles when you could ride from Pasadena to Palmdale on almost all single track. Well, Not any more, because of areas that were recently designated as wilderness. Which shut down all the trails in a huge section of that small mountain range.

    If they can at least accomplish this then I would be satisfied.
    IMBA doesn't appear to fully acknowledge the scale of trail access losses to WSA's and full Wilderness designations. I don't think that they understand the magnitude of the problem that these access issues pose for so many bikers.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  50. #50
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    IMBA doesn't appear to fully acknowledge the scale of trail access losses to WSA's and full Wilderness designations. I don't think that they understand the magnitude of the problem that these access issues pose for so many bikers.
    Eric Melson does. I know him and I know the issues he’s worked on here in Montana. I’m glad IMBA brought him into his role. How the executive leadership at IMBA values, prioritizes, and supports his efforts is another question.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.

    All the arguments in the world about how mountain biking has the same or less impact than other forms of recreation don't change the fact that it does have an impact.

    If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    Weird. I did edit that part out. Oh well

    Cheers
    You are right. No fence here, people.

    I just like most of my fellow riders are tired of getting the short end of the stick. I do feel like the IMBA buddy F@ck the mountain biking community.

    I am good friends with the CORBA president. CORBA is the very first Bicycle Advocacy group before IMBA. I reached out to him, hoping to here back from him soon. I can imagine he would be disappointed considering all he stands for.

    Cheers,

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: @Ride@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.

    All the arguments in the world about how mountain biking has the same or less impact than other forms of recreation don't change the fact that it does have an impact.

    If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.
    It's IMBA as in International Mountain Biking Association. It's not a political environmental activist advocate organization.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LargeMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.

    All the arguments in the world about how mountain biking has the same or less impact than other forms of recreation don't change the fact that it does have an impact.

    If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.
    So, you are okay with designating entire areas as Wilderness and keeping you out of the same trails you built and have used for 20 plus years. Has nothing to do with conservation but everything to do with control. How about we designate the entire state of CA as Wilderness, you okay with that?

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3
    I have been done with IMBA and redirected my funds to STC for a couple of years now.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,745
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Eric Melson does. I know him and I know the issues he’s worked on here in Montana. I’m glad IMBA brought him into his role. How the executive leadership at IMBA values, prioritizes, and supports his efforts is another question.
    Yeah, I've heard of Eric's tremendous efforts. My post was more directed at the executive leadership.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,745
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.

    All the arguments in the world about how mountain biking has the same or less impact than other forms of recreation don't change the fact that it does have an impact.

    If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.
    If that's how you feel, then Wilderness areas should also be closed to foot, canoe, and horse traffic. All of those activities have impacts too.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    24
    20 or 30 years ago, I never believed I'd be against wilderness designations because I believed the powers that be would stick to wilderness as defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act, i.e. “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” I've seen a lot of the desert closed off as "wilderness" that is not even close to falling under that definition. And the Wilderness Study Areas - what a bad joke. I've been giving some money to STC for a couple years and thought STC and IMBA had worked out their differences when there was a change at the top of IMBA a while back. But now this crap.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    229
    Pulled my money from IMBA a while ago and have been giving to local groups which are far more affective in the Bay Area.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.

    All the arguments in the world about how mountain biking has the same or less impact than other forms of recreation don't change the fact that it does have an impact.

    If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.
    On top of mountain biking, I am also an avid hiker and backpacker, and I believe in saving something for future generations.

    This is what makes me crazy, For example: I have climbed Mt. Whitney several times. That trail is covered in trash and wag bags. Folks are even throwing there wag bags into the Lone Pine Creek, Lakes and ponds. Leaving trash everywhere. The Forestry Service only allows a certain amount of hikers to enter the Whitney Portal per day. I heard the number is 100 per day. Even with that it does not matter. The trail gets trashed. No bikes allowed in the Whitney Portal.

    I have scene trails get shut down and wilderness areas established for a lizard who was never impacted by mountain bikers because the trail we road did not interfere with the lizard, or its water or food sources. The trail did not come with-in 5 miles of the animal or any of its migratory patterns. There are trails near the lizard but those trails where already designated "No Bikes". Yet they established a wilderness that covered almost 75 square miles and gave us the boot. Yet, hikers can still go in there and they are trashing that area. Guess what no bikes allowed.

    The majority of Mountain Bikers understand what "Tread Lightly" means and to be a good steward to the environment. Unfortunately, there will always be that dude in Brojamas. I feel it is wrong to punish or hold the majority back because of the 1% who do not understand proper trail etiquette.

    I feel there is a double standard.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anustart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    7
    With the way the sport is sold to us riders and the non-riding public, let me say, thank you IMBA. There are too many jackasses out there creating a bad imagine of what mountain bikers are and what we do to the trail. No one wants to be hiking into the wilderness for a relaxing long weekend or epic week loop with their 60 pounds of kit and get blasted around a blind corner by some screwball jamming to Metallica or Eminem on their iPhone at 35 miles per hour.

    I'd rather us fight for what we have and expand trails on that land than create more adversaries.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by LargeMan View Post
    So, you are okay with designating entire areas as Wilderness and keeping you out of the same trails you built and have used for 20 plus years. Has nothing to do with conservation but everything to do with control. How about we designate the entire state of CA as Wilderness, you okay with that?
    California is Environmental Extremism Central. I would not be surprised if that happened for real.

  63. #63
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,250
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    The majority of Mountain Bikers understand what "Tread Lightly" means and to be a good steward to the environment.

    ...1% who do not understand proper trail etiquette.
    Ha ha.

  64. #64
    _CJ
    _CJ is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.
    Which has nothing to do with the Wilderness Act of 1964.

    Perhaps you should start your own group, and lobby congress to establish new "nature preservation areas", instead of trying to pervert existing laws in an attempt to steal public lands to satisfy your own selfish desires.


    .

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    Which has nothing to do with the Wilderness Act of 1964.

    Perhaps you should start your own group, and lobby congress to establish new "nature preservation areas", instead of trying to pervert existing laws in an attempt to steal public lands to satisfy your own selfish desires.


    .
    The Wilderness Act, signed into law in 1964, created the National Wilderness Preservation System and recognized wilderness 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.” The Act further defined wilderness as "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

    Lots more here: https://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    If that's how you feel, then Wilderness areas should also be closed to foot, canoe, and horse traffic. All of those activities have impacts too.
    All those user groups accessed that terrain the same way 200 years ago. You're not putting that genie back in the bottle.

  67. #67
    _CJ
    _CJ is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    The Wilderness Act, signed into law in 1964, created the National Wilderness Preservation System and recognized wilderness 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.” The Act further defined wilderness as "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

    Lots more here: https://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm
    Two things are painfully clear here.

    1. You have a superficial understanding of the Wilderness Act, at best.
    2. You're trolling this thread with a fake ID.

    What's not clear is if you're a regular member of this forum, or if you're a Sierra Club / IMBA board member who came here to derail the discussion.....or both?

    Thankfully, you have no power to change the course of Congress from righting the wrongs perpetrated by you and your kind all those years ago.


    .

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    568
    IMBA's been circling the drain for awhile now in their little Boulder Bubble.

    They're so irrelevant now, I don't even care what they do anymore.

  69. #69
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,250
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    Two things are painfully clear here.

    1. You have a superficial understanding of the Wilderness Act, at best.
    Can you explain the Wilderness Act?

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Can you explain the Wilderness Act?
    "wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use."

    (it's not terribly long, you can find it at Wilderness.net - 1964 Wilderness Act )

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    Two things are painfully clear here.

    1. You have a superficial understanding of the Wilderness Act, at best.
    2. You're trolling this thread with a fake ID.

    What's not clear is if you're a regular member of this forum, or if you're a Sierra Club / IMBA board member who came here to derail the discussion.....or both?

    Thankfully, you have no power to change the course of Congress from righting the wrongs perpetrated by you and your kind all those years ago.


    .
    Nope, not a regular member of the forum, nor a member of Sierra Club / IMBA, just a long time mountain biker with access to the internet. Does that mean I don't get to have an opinion? Or substantiate it with evidence? Or reach out to my Congressional representatives to request that they don't change the current law?

    If you really think you understand the Wilderness Act at a higher level, by all means, please share. Point out why you think it requires "righting the wrongs" and the negative effects, besides not being able to ride your bike in Wilderness areas.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by the one ring View Post
    And who the **** carries 60 lbs of kit for a long weekend? That is so 1970s…
    LMAO!!! My Backpacking kit base weight is 6 pounds.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    besides not being able to ride your bike in Wilderness areas.
    And also not ride in the wilderness study areas which IMO is even more bogus as local managers can lock bikes out with the stroke of a pen.

    Also, have you read what STC is actually trying to do? Not trying to open all wilderness as you seem to think but allowing individual trails to be evaluated on a case by case basis for use by mountain bikes



    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    586
    IMBA as in International? As in e-bikes are saving the euro bike market? Uhm.. yeah.
    I like bikes

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,085
    I am a long time granola crunching tree hugger. I will always support anything that protects wildlife and ecosystems against the continuous onslaught of humanity. That said, even I think that there ought to be a little bit more leeway in allowing mountain bikes in wilderness areas. When I lived in Colorado I was hiking a section of the Colorado Trail and encountered a mountain biker walking his bike through a wilderness area in an attempt to comply with the law. Whether or not pushing a bike is legal in wilderness areas, it was absolutely silly. Riding the bike would not have impacted anything at all. Not the wildlife, not my hiking experience, nothing.

    The idea that DH bros are the problem is a red herring. I like to let it rip downhill no matter what kind of bike I am riding. But most wilderness areas are going to be deep in the back country where caution dictates a very controlled descent since help is far away if you crash hard.

  76. #76
    _CJ
    _CJ is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor29 View Post
    When I lived in Colorado I was hiking a section of the Colorado Trail and encountered a mountain biker walking his bike through a wilderness area in an attempt to comply with the law.
    The mere possession of a wheel inside WA boundaries is a "crime", and people have been ticket for it. I recall seeing an article about some hikers using some sort of backpack supported by a wheel, and some Barney Fife wrote them a ticket for it, even though they were legitimately disabled. It's but one example of what's wrong with the current interpretation of the WA.

    There were discussions of what "mechanized" meant at the time, and in the example of a horse and buggy, the buggy was not to be banned from wilderness areas "because it doesn't have a motor". Pretty clear example of the intent of the act.

    Then you have one of the original sponsors writing an objection to the banning of bicycles, saying that was never their intent.....but what does he know, right? Clearly, the selfish desires of special interest groups are more important.


    .

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor29 View Post
    I am a long time granola crunching tree hugger. I will always support anything that protects wildlife and ecosystems against the continuous onslaught of humanity. That said, even I think that there ought to be a little bit more leeway in allowing mountain bikes in wilderness areas. When I lived in Colorado I was hiking a section of the Colorado Trail and encountered a mountain biker walking his bike through a wilderness area in an attempt to comply with the law. Whether or not pushing a bike is legal in wilderness areas, it was absolutely silly. Riding the bike would not have impacted anything at all. Not the wildlife, not my hiking experience, nothing.

    The idea that DH bros are the problem is a red herring. I like to let it rip downhill no matter what kind of bike I am riding. But most wilderness areas are going to be deep in the back country where caution dictates a very controlled descent since help is far away if you crash hard.
    I Absolutely Agree with you!!!

    I remember when you could ride the entire Colorado Trail before the wilderness areas were established.

    Most of the DH guys are not going to go somewhere unless they can get shuttled to the top. There are few roads through wilderness areas.

    As a hiker, most trails I have hiked in the wilderness would prevent someone from just letting go of the brakes. Most trails are primitive and crude in the wilderness, compared to the standards of what most mountain bikers would ride anyways.

    There are trails such as the several sections of the Colorado Trail or the Burkhart trail in California which were open to mountain bikes before Wilderness areas were established. I hope to get that access back some day. Unfortunately, they also incorporated the Burkhart in to the PCT as well so double wammy on this trail.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    Clearly, the selfish desires of special interest groups are more important.


    .
    Kinda like STC, with their objective of opening trails within Wilderness Areas to mountain bikes?

    Or is the "selfish desires" description only limited to those that don't want you to do what you want to do?

    This is the flaw in logic that advocates for opening trails are bringing to the table. Because they have surrounded themselves with like thinkers, they somehow believe they hold a widely popular view. However, mountain bikers are a pretty insignificant portion of the overall population, and policies regarding land use have to look at the big picture. IMBA, because of an long history of dealing with these policies, understands this.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    I remember when you could ride the entire Colorado Trail before the wilderness areas were established.
    I've been riding MTBs for 30 plus years, and I'm pretty sure there have been sections of the Colorado trail that have been Wilderness for quite a bit longer than that. My first rides around Durango had to take in to account the Weminuche wilderness.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    I've been riding MTBs for 30 plus years, and I'm pretty sure there have been sections of the Colorado trail that have been Wilderness for quite a bit longer than that. My first rides around Durango had to take in to account the Weminuche wilderness.
    You are right. That Weminiche wilderness was there, but it wasn't until the 1993 expansion that mountain bikers got the pinch.

    It was in 1993 when the Wilderness areas in the Rockies was expanded and when things started to get stupid. I think that was almost 140 miles of the Colorado trail
    closed with-in the Lone Creek area alone, and no real bypass was established.

    My buddies bike packed the Colorado Trail last year and it took them four extra days to find a way around the Lone Creek wilderness alone. They said the last time they Bike packed that section it was open to bikes.

    Pure craziness

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    What about after 3 years? It not good to rely on the whims of any president to protect what you hold dear. As soon as there is a new President things change. The founding fathers put law making in the hands of congress not the president. They did that for a reason. They did not want that power in the hands of one man. Sadly over the years congress has freely given the president more and more power.

    There has been talk about reducing the size of national monuments. Well when congress gives the President the power to do that on his whim then they better be ready to have his whim change as well. Congress should have been the ones to declare monuments. Then you would not have people as upset by some rogue president declaring them one day and then another rogue president erasing them the next.
    On the other hand, a president can't just increase the size of national monument on a whim, either, like President Obama did. You can't have it both ways just because on one occasion the President exercises dictatorial powers in a manner of which you approve.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    With the increasing negative impact of human activities on the natural world, the primary objective of the Wilderness designation should be conservation and preservation, with recreation a distant second, if a concern at all. I'm for any policies that limit, either directly or indirectly, the amount of humans that have access to the few remaining places in the country that still remain close to their natural state.

    All the arguments in the world about how mountain biking has the same or less impact than other forms of recreation don't change the fact that it does have an impact.

    If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.
    Jesus. Mountain biking does not have an impact on the environment. It shifts a few pounds of dirt here and there and maybe you run over some grass or something but this is not "impact."

    As long as you let the marxists who direct the environmental activists to define the terms of the debate you will never win.

    "Impact." Good Lord.
    Last edited by AshevilleMTB; 12-12-2017 at 02:21 PM.

  83. #83
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,152
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    If that means that some dude in Brojamas and body armor can't get sick footy with his GoPro while he pursues a Strava downhill KOM in these areas, IMBA probably made the right call.
    Straw man. Clearly you disapprove of this behavior under any circumstances, so why stop at Wilderness?

    Anyplace with sufficient remoteness to justify Wilderness designation is backcountry exploration riding on primitive trails.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: @Ride@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    591
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to _CJ again.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    Jesus. Mountain biking does not have an impact on the environment. It shifts a few pounds of dirt here and there and maybe you run over some grass or something but this is not "impact."

    As long as you let the marxists who direct the environmental activists to define the terms of the debate you will never win.

    "Impact." Good Lord.
    I knew I took an unpopular position, and expected opposing responses, but this one made me laugh out loud.

    Anyone that believes that advocating for the environment is somehow a Marxist action is not particularly adept at critical thought, nuance, or history.

    Yeah, riding bikes on dirt isn't the same as strip mining, but moving a a few pounds of dirt, or rolling over some grass, in an ecosystem that is ideally minimally affected by mankind's activities, that is an impact, regardless of how insignificant you think it is.

  86. #86
    zon
    zon is offline
    Scofflaw Mountain Biker
    Reputation: zon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    ,,,,

    My suspicion is that this is ALL about politics. With IMBA being based in Boulder, and being so closely tied to the Sierra Club, they probably can't see past this being introduced by a Republican. Cause you know, all Republicans are evil, and everything they want to do is an affront to all that is good and decent.....which is of course ridiculous. But I get it. They're brainwashed party loyalists, and they sit around in their little echo-chamber telling each other how smart they are, and how the little people (IMBA membership) aren't capable of understanding the broader implications of such actions, which again, is just ridiculous.
    ,,,

    .

    Ding ding ding,, we have a winner.


    .
    ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ


    .

  87. #87
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,690
    If you have time to post on MTBR today, you have time to contact committee member TODAY!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Double down and email the committee: <<<If you aren't from any committee member's state/district, use this!>>>
    https://naturalresources.house.gov/contact/

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

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

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

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    1
    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.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    ah yes, the old " I know you are, but what am I" argument.

    Contrary to your tired talking point, my only concern is with honoring the original intent of the WA.....which was to include bicycles, game carts, wheel barrows, buggies, etc.

    As an example, I don't really like horses on any single-track trails, but I tolerate them because they have a right to be there too. See how that works? I accept them as my equal on the trail, even though I don't like them being there. I yield right of way, smile, and say hello. No spike strips planted in the ground, no wires strung across the trail, no lobbying anyone to ban them. Pretty much the opposite of selfish intolerant people like you.


    .
    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.

    While it may get you all twitterpated by the evolution of the Wilderness Act to not allow mechanical assistance, it does NOT mean you are not allowed to go in to those areas. Laws change all the time, and at the heart of the WA is the desire to ensure that these areas remain pristine.

  90. #90
    zon
    zon is offline
    Scofflaw Mountain Biker
    Reputation: zon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,687
    Loosing long standing access to vast trail systems is a very real threat to mountain biking. As recently as 2015 when the White Cloud Wilderness was designated, one of the very best mountain bike destinations in Idaho was closed overnight with the stroke of a pen.
    What's ironic is at the time IMBA wrote the following article criticizing the move to close the trails. My how a couple of years can change the mission of IMBA.

    A STINGING LOSS IN IDAHO
    https://www.imba.com/blog/mark-eller/idaho-trails-lost



    .
    ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ


    .

  91. #91
    zon
    zon is offline
    Scofflaw Mountain Biker
    Reputation: zon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    If you have time to post on MTBR today, you have time to contact committee member TODAY!

    .....
    Done.

    .
    ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ


    .

  92. #92
    zon
    zon is offline
    Scofflaw Mountain Biker
    Reputation: zon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    ...

    While it may get you all twitterpated by the evolution of the Wilderness Act to not allow mechanical assistance, it does NOT mean you are not allowed to go in to those areas. Laws change all the time, and at the heart of the WA is the desire to ensure that these areas remain pristine.

    And how does allowing bike access make the WA less pristine?

    .
    ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ


    .

  93. #93
    Hardtail Steel Forever
    Reputation: jestep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,282
    Quote Originally Posted by zon View Post
    And how does allowing bike access make the WA less pristine?

    .
    More people = less pristine.
    WTB: Med Bontrager Ti Lite, PM Me...

  94. #94
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,009
    Quote Originally Posted by DethWshBkr View Post
    Hu?
    Leading rides. Which is far less of a concern (and occurrence) for me, however if you read my later comment I'm a trail liaison for a local trail system. If I stop paying my club dues, which in part go to IMBA, then I lose the ability to do either.

  95. #95
    Probably drunk right now
    Reputation: Ken in KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,750
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDwayyo View Post
    Leading rides. Which is far less of a concern (and occurrence) for me, however if you read my later comment I'm a trail liaison for a local trail system. If I stop paying my club dues, which in part go to IMBA, then I lose the ability to do either.
    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?
    JPark - 3.5- don't listen to dremer

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    365
    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.

    While it may get you all twitterpated by the evolution of the Wilderness Act to not allow mechanical assistance, it does NOT mean you are not allowed to go in to those areas. Laws change all the time, and at the heart of the WA is the desire to ensure that these areas remain pristine.
    It's pretty clear that many felt the consensus position was access to WAs, and many of those same people expected IMBA to represent that position. They did not, so quite a few of us are pissed and will move on to other avenues and organizations to achieve those ends. Are you here to just argue for the sake of arguing? This issue is not new, and you aren't changing any minds, no matter how much 'experience' you have.

    Maybe you need need realize that this bill is the next evolution of the Wilderness Act and that the 1984 additional language was based in ignorance and fear, and now with this potential reversal, we are returning to the intent of this. As you said, laws change all the time.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by VBraker View Post
    I knew I took an unpopular position, and expected opposing responses, but this one made me laugh out loud.

    Anyone that believes that advocating for the environment is somehow a Marxist action is not particularly adept at critical thought, nuance, or history.

    Yeah, riding bikes on dirt isn't the same as strip mining, but moving a a few pounds of dirt, or rolling over some grass, in an ecosystem that is ideally minimally affected by mankind's activities, that is an impact, regardless of how insignificant you think it is.
    It's just as bad to walk on it with your feet, and worse if it's a horse.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    This act will let people drive Cattle across the area...guess that will have no impact.

  99. #99
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    This act will let people drive Cattle across the area...guess that will have no impact.
    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.

  100. #100
    Pos rep makes me sad
    Reputation: dv8zen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    293
    The more context you know, the wiser judgment you can make...

    People here are way too quick to judge, especially on very basic info.

    I personally, only have questions regarding the deep considerations being factored in here. I have a feeling that it's very political. Can't avoid political stuff if one believes in Plato's teachings, but I don't like all the lines being drawn based on bias/prejudice, taking sides and berating the opposition, etc. Just bringing out the ugliness in people...

    The only significant facts I know are:
    - The amendment is 1 sentence
    - The person who introduced it is anti-environmentalist* opposes environmentalists' policies

    The 2nd fact seems to be a bigger problem than it should be. Reminds me of a skit in which random college students were interviewed, who responded to tax reform differently when it was said that it was brought up by the Trump administration, vs being brought up by Bernie...

    Edit: clarify 2nd fact, as some interpreted it as being against environment, instead of against environmentalists
    Last edited by dv8zen; 12-12-2017 at 04:39 PM.

Page 1 of 4 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: 613

Posting Permissions

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