Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    106

    Mountain bikers lumped in with illegal ATV riders in Washington Post

    I suggest posting a comment if you can.

    The article's url.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081102040.html

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    718
    WOW, As a new reader of the Washington post I am shocked, they are typically one the most well written papers out there. That article is pure rubbish. When garbage such as that, that is only meant to fan flames is published every one looses. The article would have you believe Farmington NM is a war zone. It looks like a battle field but that has so little to do with trail use, and is the result of gas and oil leasing. Instead of getting all the trail users together to stop there favorite trails from getting plowed under by oil and gas leasing there trying to drive a wedge between us. I lived in flagstaff Arizona for the last 6 years and our local mtb club had a fierce battle with the local Motorcycle club, only it was to see which group could bring more people to trail building event!! The reality is the forest service is being de-funded and will soon become so cash strapped that selling off public lands will become a reality especially if people cant work together to bully land managers into doing what is right for the protection of the resource. I am especially pissed at the post for giving publicity to the sierra club and the blue ribbon coalition when there are good local mtb, running and hiking clubs doing good things in the DC metro area. The author of that article could have fixed that trash pice by posting real conflict resolution Tips for trail users.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    94
    I read it, but it didn't seem to be anti-mountain bikers to me?

    The confrontation they describe is a MTBer trying to keep an ATV off a no motorized vehicles section. The biker was trying to defend his trail and the ATV rider was a dick.

    And I'm sure that some hikers that wish there were no mountain bikers on their trails, but a smile and a "thank you" can go a long way there.

    -james
    [SIZE="1"]2000 Trek 6500 HT
    2008 Ibex Asta Comp X7 FS[/SIZE]

  4. #4
    26er
    Reputation: smilycook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,969
    Talk about trying to sensationalize the conflict between user groups. I agree that writing a whole article about some bad apples is going to do nothing to come up with real solutions to the problems. The real issue at hand is the lack of funding for the Forest Service and BLM who have basically no law enforcement staff. Either congress needs to step up to the plate and fully fund these agencies or users are going to have to start paying there way. Frankly I wouldn't mind returning to the days when we actually cut timber on national forest lands, not the old days of clear cutting but somewhere in between the complete lack of timber cutting we have now. But the Sierra Club would have a fit if that happened.
    Live to ride!

    Cannondale Jekyll Carbon 1
    Cannondale Trigger Carbon 2
    Transition Bottle Rocket
    Niner MCR 29er Hardtail

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    718
    I know this is a double post but.....

    The thing I keep having the most trouble with is why would the Washington Post give publicity to the extreme groups, the sierra club and the blue ribbon coalition. Not good regardless but down right terrible when the Post could have given good publicity to good local hiking groups like MORE of the Capitol Hiking Club ect. This could have shown readers not already in the know the difference between advocating in a me first confrontational manner, and working with local land managers and busying your club doing good instead of advocating for bans and such.

    The whole article may as well have been written by a BLM gas lease holder in Farmington hoping to pit trail user groups against each other instead of them.

    Congratulations Karl Vick you just brought down the debate on public land management a whole level.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    224
    Getting people of two extreme views and nothing else is the new standard "fair and balanced" journalism practiced now.

  7. #7
    Pedaler of dirt
    Reputation: marzjennings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    903
    The only bit that really mentions mtbs is," Hikers are irked at having their solitude broken by careening mountain bikes," which is nothing new and the rest talks about a-holes on atvs and mxers. Which if they end up getting banned from public trails is fine with me.

    I don't like to see mtbs lumped in with motorized off road vehicles as a common menace, but this article offend as much as others have done.

  8. #8
    26er
    Reputation: smilycook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by marzjennings
    Which if they end up getting banned from public trails is fine with me.
    Of course if that happens then Mountain Bikers are next.
    Live to ride!

    Cannondale Jekyll Carbon 1
    Cannondale Trigger Carbon 2
    Transition Bottle Rocket
    Niner MCR 29er Hardtail

  9. #9
    Pedaler of dirt
    Reputation: marzjennings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by smilycook
    Of course if that happens then Mountain Bikers are next.

    Not at all. You're doing the same thing that opponents of mountain biking are already doing, lumping us into the same group as motorized off road vehicles. We need to allign ourselves more with equistrains with equal trail access rather than with atvs and mxers. Present the mountain bike as the modern day horse. Back home in the UK this is how's it's been for years, you have Footpaths which are for walkers/hikers, Bridleways for walkers, horses and bikes and Byways which allow for walkers, horses, bikes and everyone else.

    I thought IMBA and the Sierra Club have been working for years on joint projects and common goals regarding trail access and use.

  10. #10
    26er
    Reputation: smilycook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by marzjennings
    I thought IMBA and the Sierra Club have been working for years on joint projects and common goals regarding trail access and use.
    I don't know what planet you have been residing on for the past couple of years, but groups like the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society are going full bore to close trails to Mountain Bikers. Just check out the battle being waged in Montana or this thing called NREPA.

    Some Wilderness Society Cheer:
    http://action.wilderness.org/campaign/lionhead

    or NREPA:
    http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/nrepa/
    Last edited by smilycook; 08-13-2008 at 07:31 AM.
    Live to ride!

    Cannondale Jekyll Carbon 1
    Cannondale Trigger Carbon 2
    Transition Bottle Rocket
    Niner MCR 29er Hardtail

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    106
    Unfortunately the groups mentioned and others like it seem to manage to be able to severely limit bike access in many places.

    I think mountain bikers need to let people know (IMBA Action alerts, speaking to land managers, emails, etc...) that they are not satisfied with the crummy trail access that exists in many places. The decision makers need to be aware that mountain bikers are an important trail user group, and can't just be ignored.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: snailsongs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Chriffer
    Getting people of two extreme views and nothing else is the new standard "fair and balanced" journalism practiced now.
    ...so true.....otherwise widely known as classic "black and white" americanism....Lets all thank Rupert Murdoch for bringing the american media to this level....

  13. #13
    Singletrack +1
    Reputation: AndysTrek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    212
    While the contents of this article are saddening, and perhaps geared more towards a little "shock and awe", it really doesn't attack BIKERS directly. We are mentioned in passing, but the group in question is all MOTORIZED recreation vehicles. Really, the biggest mention of a bike was when they did the right thing and tried to close off the trail to a motorized rider, but of course it was taken to far and everyone got hurt. Too bad it was a young punk who if their parents gave a lick, they would see the immaturity of their child, NOT buy them an atv, and NOT allow them out on these trails alone. That said, anyone who reads this article and believes bikers are being directly attacked, are as guilty as any group of becoming extremists. Just because you're mentioned in passing, does not mean that its a full-frontal attack. YES once the atv's are dealt with, if ever, it will turn to the next most obnoxious group. But that is where bikers need to step up to the plate, and encourage each other to have proper etiquete. You won't be slandered if you don't treat everyone around you like garbage. Stop taking ever little thing as some major attempt to instantly ban people, and try WORKING WITH the groups that DON'T want motorized vehicles out there. That lets them know you do care about the land, the biological ramifications of trail use, and you're stepping "into bed" with these interests groups that could ultimately control your destiny on these trails.
    1x9 Hardtail, yummy.....

  14. #14
    Singletrack +1
    Reputation: AndysTrek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by smilycook
    I don't know what planet you have been residing on for the past couple of years, but groups like the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society are going full bore to close trails to Mountain Bikers. Just check out the battle being waged in Montana or this thing called NREPA.

    Some Wilderness Society Cheer:
    http://action.wilderness.org/campaign/lionhead

    or NREPA:
    http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/nrepa/
    These are great examples of uninformed parties going against something they don't fully understand. If a mountain biker goes out after a hard rain, they're putting a 3 inch track on the ground, with a total weight of 175 to 250 lbs. The only polution created is laborous breathing, and depending on what they had for dinner, some flatulence. Big f-ing deal. If an equestrian goes out, you have a couple hundred pounds placing weight on a few square inches at a time, and then shoving off from the divot created. Ever seen a horse run through a wet field? See all that crap flying up behind it? Thats land desicration, by W.S. standards. Not to mention the piles of crap all over the trail, and the fact it has to be wider to accomadate rider/horse.
    The ONLY reason these groups hate mountain bikers and not horses, is that horses were once wild, so they would have created the same carnage. I'm not saying horses shouldnt be allowed there, and i'm not saying mountain bikers want to ride the same trails as horses, as we all know how rough that can be. But to allow an equestrian access to ANYTHING that a mountain bike would have, in their eyes, more negative effects on the land, is just ridiculous.
    Trail ettiquete be damned, I know horse riders that ride on my bike/hike only trails, and don't even have the courtesy to YIELD when i'm going downhill on my trail. Do you see me *****in? I explain to them what trail they're on, hand them an extra map i carry, and say enjoy your weekend. What i DONT do is go shred down one of their hills on a horsey trail screaming "hell hath no fury like a pissed off mountain biker...." and stampede into a group of equestrians.
    You can't change anything or anyone without changing the way you approach the situation at hand. Don't even know why i posted again, but this debate pisses me off, from both sides. People whine and complain about this and that, rather than having a serious, adult conversation with the people who are in the position to do anything or gather one RELEVENT fact, positive or negative. I'm done... sorry again.
    1x9 Hardtail, yummy.....

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Motorep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    312
    [QUOTE=marzjennings] Which if they end up getting banned from public trails is fine with me.

    Back in the day when mtb's and trail conflicts started to be an issue it was the Sierra Club that initially lumped mtb riders with ohver's. When mtber's and ohver's started looking to each other for support to keep trails open the Sierra Club then changed their outward tune on mtber's.

    Just remember, divide and conquer...

  16. #16
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,825
    I guess this is still on topic re the poor writing. I got a kick out of this part:

    "The granola-crunchy county government in Boulder County, Colo., this year enforced a ban on ATVs, shuttering Jeff and Vicki Mead's off-road rental business. In revenge, they plan to reopen it as a pornography retailer. "

    Ban on ATV's in Boulder County? Give me a break. That never happened. ATVs are still legal here and pretty well behaved for the most part. The deal here was that the town of Allenspark found a loophole to shut down an ATV rental business that was operating without permits and was generally not a good community member and not a responsible user of public lands. They moved the business to a town (Lyons, CO) 20 minutes away. Now, they're right down the street from the shop.

    More research please, WP.
    Redstone Cyclery
    turner*intense*transition*REEB*Rocky Mt
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  17. #17
    Bike to have fun.
    Reputation: grantheppes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    153
    Don't know if this is mentioned, but my dad came up to me all excited to show me an article about MORE in the Washington Post.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...5.html?sub=new

    MORE IS AWESOME! Thank You Guys!

  18. #18
    Probably drunk right now
    Reputation: Ken in KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,767

    Huh?

    [QUOTE=Motorep]
    Quote Originally Posted by marzjennings
    Which if they end up getting banned from public trails is fine with me.

    Back in the day when mtb's and trail conflicts started to be an issue it was the Sierra Club that initially lumped mtb riders with ohver's. When mtber's and ohver's started looking to each other for support to keep trails open the Sierra Club then changed their outward tune on mtber's.

    Just remember, divide and conquer...
    I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not sure that many mountain bikers have ever looked to ohver's for support other than a few that are associated with the BRC.

    And I'm also quite certain that anyone involved in advocacy over the past couple decades doesn't really put stock in the SC's acceptance of mountain bikers.

  19. #19
    Bike to have fun.
    Reputation: grantheppes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    153
    I own ATV's and MTB's and I don't hate myself. haha.

    I just happen to have land to ride my atv's on, but my dad always wants to go to places to ride, I always thought you had to find places that allow ATV riding, usually have to pay. But I live in VA and I expect to drive to WV to ride ATV's if I dont use my land I own.

  20. #20
    Probably drunk right now
    Reputation: Ken in KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,767

    Huh? v2

    Quote Originally Posted by grantheppes
    I own ATV's and MTB's and I don't hate myself. haha.

    I just happen to have land to ride my atv's on, but my dad always wants to go to places to ride, I always thought you had to find places that allow ATV riding, usually have to pay. But I live in VA and I expect to drive to WV to ride ATV's if I dont use my land I own.
    I'm not sure what you're refering to? I never said anything about user groups hating other user groups?

  21. #21
    Bike to have fun.
    Reputation: grantheppes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken in KC
    I'm not sure what you're refering to? I never said anything about user groups hating other user groups?
    I was just poking at fun of the MTB'ers that aren't a fan of ATV'ers and vice versa.

  22. #22
    Probably drunk right now
    Reputation: Ken in KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,767

    Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by grantheppes
    I was just poking at fun of the MTB'ers that aren't a fan of ATV'ers and vice versa.
    Why do mountain bikers need to be ATV fans and vice versa? ATV fans should be fans of eating sweet breads and sweat bread eaters should be fans of ATVers then, right?

    Seriously, why should one type of trail user be a fan of another type of trail user?

  23. #23
    Bike to have fun.
    Reputation: grantheppes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken in KC
    Why do mountain bikers need to be ATV fans and vice versa? ATV fans should be fans of eating sweet breads and sweat bread eaters should be fans of ATVers then, right?

    Seriously, why should one type of trail user be a fan of another type of trail user?
    I was just making a joke about all the hate...

  24. #24
    dsq
    dsq is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    27
    Non motorized transport can damage the enviro.
    I know horse packs can turn hiking trails into sand making it twice as hard to walk..And ive seen my own bike do damage to the cryptobiotic soil in utah.
    The human foot does the least damage.
    Aside from delicate areas i wouldnt see mtb's being a problem on hiking trails as long as long as they give a holler well in advance and slow down to a very slow speed when passing hikers.

    I would think in places with lots of precip and foliage this is less of a problem than the arid southwest where plants etc grow and recuperate very slowly.

    I dont know how mtb's and motocross atv can have mutual goals.Take a look on youtube videos at the destruction of the caineville mesas badlands by the atv crowd .A beautiful topography getting shredded by motocross and suv's.

  25. #25
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,493

    really?

    Quote Originally Posted by dsq
    The human foot does the least damage.
    Aside from delicate areas i wouldnt see mtb's being a problem on hiking trails as long as long as they give a holler well in advance and slow down to a very slow speed when passing hikers.
    My experience has been that walkers/hikers/runners do considerable damge to bike trails by widening them and scuffing the surface loose. A hiker can do almost as much damage as a horse on soft wet surfaces. Bikes roll over and pack instead of impacting and then pushing off and breaking the surface loose like all walking/running legged beings do. Bikes smooth trail surfaces most of the time.

    Why the demand for multiuse trails, they are not nearly as enjoyable as specific use trails in most cases? Who wants to"holler well in advance and slow down to a very slow speed" when mtbing? Put the energy into developing use specific trails where ever possible, thus removing the source of conflicts.

    Just saying...
    A Useful Bear is a handy thing.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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