View Poll Results: Do you agree with the Current SOC proposal

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, I don't want any existing trails closed to mountain bikes no matter what

    53 92.98%
  • Yes, I will give up existing mtb trails to protect the areas in the proposal

    4 7.02%
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 68
  1. #1
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,323

    Poll: SOC Wilderness Proposal, Yes or No?

    Just a poll to get an idea of how many UT MTBR members are for and against Save Our Canyons Wilderness Proposal that will close the North Fork of Mill D to mountain bikes eliminating one of the most popular Crest options.

    More info on SOC's proposal here:
    http://www.saveourcanyons.org/currentissues/
    and
    http://www.saveourcanyons.org/curren.../wild_land.pdf
    and
    http://www.saveourcanyons.org/curren...wilderness.pdf

    Please vote. It is important to get an idea of how the Wasatch MTB community feels on this issue. This is a public poll so others will be able to see who votes for what. If you want more options to vote on let me know and I'll add them.

    B
    Last edited by Bortis Yelltzen; 05-04-2008 at 08:19 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  2. #2
    Fartographer SuperModerator
    Reputation: Photo-John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,875
    Yeah, well, I'd be willing to give up some trails. But not Mill D. Hell f-ing no. How about I trade Pipeline for Mill D. I can easily live without Pipeline. Mill D is a big reason to live here. Did the goddamn CA trail nazis follow me here or what?!!
    Back of the camera, back of the pack.

  3. #3
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,709
    Nein.

    Actually, the choices are a little black or white... I would be willing to give up some of the other areas in the Wasatch that are currently open to bikes but aren't very popular. But anything off the Crest? No way.

    JMH

  4. #4
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Speak for yourself. I think that would be a tragic mistake.
    I don't want to lose White Pine or Mineral. Those areas are spectacular on a mountain bike. Don't be so hasty to cast aside a great area to ride just because you personally don't ride those trails or it isn't super-popular.

    The Wasatch can be protected without closing any trails.
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 05-04-2008 at 11:05 PM.

  5. #5
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    Nein.

    Actually, the choices are a little black or white... I would be willing to give up some of the other areas in the Wasatch that are currently open to bikes but aren't very popular. But anything off the Crest? No way.

    JMH
    Yes, I intentionally set it up a bit black and white. The intention was to kind of force people to pick sides, either you are pro-mtb access, or you are willing to give up trails. I am more in line with your thinking, but in the end the mtb community will probably need to take the no-compromise approach similar to what SOC is taking on the other side.

    My thoughts on it anyway. Come on poeple, almost 80 views and only 11 votes? It only takes a second to check one.

    B
    Last edited by Bortis Yelltzen; 05-12-2008 at 11:30 AM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  6. #6
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo-John
    Yeah, well, I'd be willing to give up some trails. But not Mill D. Hell f-ing no. How about I trade Pipeline for Mill D. I can easily live without Pipeline. Mill D is a big reason to live here. Did the goddamn CA trail nazis follow me here or what?!!
    I am glad to hear I'm not the only one that doesn't enjoy Pipeline. The last little shot down Rattle Snake isn't bad, but its too short and doesn't make up for the suck that is Pipeline. What if that was the only way down from the Crest? That or stopping at the Big Water parking lot.

    SOC has been here for years, not your fault. But MTB'ers in UT could use your pull with MTBR to help convince SOC to modify their proposal by removing Mill D and other rides from it. You know, what with 1 million+ mtbr viewers per month and all.

    Thanks,
    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  7. #7
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Bortis Yelltzen
    I am glad to hear I'm not the only one that doesn't enjoy Pipeline. The last little shot down Rattle Snake isn't bad, but its too short and doesn't make up for the suck that is Pipeline. What if that was the only way down from the Crest? That or stopping at the Big Water parking lot.

    SOC has been here for years, not your fault. But MTB'ers in UT could use your pull with MTBR to help convince SOC to modify their proposal by removing Mill D and other rides from it. You know, what with 1 million+ mtbr viewers per month and all.

    Thanks,
    B
    Talk of 'trading' pipeline with mill-D is a non-starter. As much as you may not personally like the trail, lots and lots of other people do. Many people consider it as a part of the crest line trail ride. I used to ride that when I was a kid. Lots of other people did too, who have lived here a long time.
    I think any of you will find yourself at the arrowhead of a lot of resentment, especially if you are not a Utah native, if you come here and start talking about 'trading' trails with SOC. That is not compromise, that is a cop out.

    BTW SOC is not going to modify their proposal, but good luck trying. If you really want to stop the trails from being closed, you've got to contact your Congressman, Senator and Governor and state representative to let them know how you feel.

  8. #8
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    Speak for yourself. I think that would be a tragic mistake.
    I don't want to lose White Pine or Mineral. Those areas are spectacular on a mountain bike. Don't be so hasty to cast aside a great area to ride just because you personally don't ride those trails or it isn't super-popular.

    The Wasatch can be protected without closing any trails.
    Relax man, not even SOC wants Pipeline.

    Again, there are only 2 choices in this poll for a reason. I think the results speak for themselves. Only a very small portion of UT mtbr folks want to lose any trails. Hopefully UT members continue to vote on this. The more people vote the stronger the message will be.

    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  9. #9
    Bored Carp
    Reputation: chuky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,519
    I think we need to re-post representative contact links - Congressman, Senator and Governor and state representative. Make sure you give them your info - you need to be a real live Utahn for them to care, and remember, it is just as important to contact the state and national reps - they both have their strengths.

    Governor Huntsman:
    http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_governor.html

    Senator Bennett:
    http://bennett.senate.gov/contact/email_form.html

    Senator Hatch:
    http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index...ffices.Contact

    For Congressmen:

    Look at this map to determine your district:
    http://www.voteutah.org/voter/SLcounty.html

    District 1, Congressman Bishop
    http://robbishop.house.gov/ZipAuth.aspx

    District 2, Congressman Cannon
    cannon.ut03@mail.house.gov

    District 3, Congressman Matheson
    https://forms.house.gov/matheson/contact_sec.shtml

    To find your state reps, use this page:
    http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/Dist...e/SaltLake.htm
    I only attempt to change the world in the appropriate World-Changing venues and forums.

  10. #10
    Fartographer SuperModerator
    Reputation: Photo-John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    especially if you are not a Utah native, if you come here and start talking about 'trading' trails with SOC.
    Point taken.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    you've got to contact your Congressman, Senator and Governor and state representative to let them know how you feel.
    Point taken, again.
    Back of the camera, back of the pack.

  11. #11
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    I received a return letter from Senator Bennet on Friday. It seemed like a non-form letter. It mentioned the proposal, that he had looked it over, and that he was aware of it. He did say at the moment his attention is directed elsewhere with a somewhat similar issue in Washington County. It's possible that this is just his form letter for this issue. But I did get the impression that his office is well aware of the situation.
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  12. #12
    yelgatgab
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo-John
    Yeah, well, I'd be willing to give up some trails. But not Mill D. Hell f-ing no. How about I trade Pipeline for Mill D. I can easily live without Pipeline.
    Took the words right out of my....fingers.

    And, I'm not actually proposing we push for the close of Pipeline, but I feel the same way about Mill D over Millcreek.

  13. #13
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,323
    Man, I got a heck of a debate going on on the last few pages of this thread over on UMB.

    http://www.utahmountainbiking.com/UM...pic.php?t=4298

    I keep trying to get them to come over to mtbr and debate it but they won't leave the smaller safer world of UMB.

    If you are bored take a look. I need to take a break and get to work.

    B
    Last edited by Bortis Yelltzen; 05-08-2008 at 06:05 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  14. #14
    Bored Carp
    Reputation: chuky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,519
    I have sent letters to everyone on the list.

    Be sure you tell your friends who work in the outdoor industry about this proposal. Particularly bike shop owners and resorts who hope to have summer bike business. Bikes are a huge business here in SLC, as is the outdoor industry in general. City governments are putting a lot of effort into bringing companies to Utah, and a reputation for heavy trail restriction isn't going to help them in this. A few letters from people at Scott, Specialized, Reynolds, would be pretty helpful.
    I only attempt to change the world in the appropriate World-Changing venues and forums.

  15. #15
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by Bortis Yelltzen
    Man, I got a heck of a debate going on on the last few pages of this thread over on UMB.

    http://www.utahmountainbiking.com/UM...pic.php?t=4298

    I keep trying to get them to come over to mtbr and debate it but they won't leave the smaller safer world of UMB. I am UB over there and I believe "native" is the "Wizard of the Wasatch" whome I have great respect for as a backcountry skier and avy expert. I could be wrong, but his writing tone is the same as WOW on teletips and other winter sites.

    B
    I would call a debate over on UMB a lost cause if I have ever seen one. Don't you know that your OPINION only holds merit if you have are a native to Utah, and have ridden your fully rigid 10 speed on the Crest in 1974? Until then you are simply a tourist. I heard that the wasatch is the only place in america that has any issues with land development and trail access.
    On a slightly more productive note, has anyone heard from SOC about the idea that wilderness areas can be <5K acres, thus allowing for cherry stemming of mill D? I was suprised how easy it was to find that information. The people at SOC made it sound like it was impossible.
    Until I hear differently, I am going to assume that they aren't changing their proposal and I am going to write whoever I can....good idea to write the local bike industries in town Chuky.

  16. #16
    Bored Carp
    Reputation: chuky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,519
    Thanks. I also have some friends who live in Mill Creek. I am guessing they would not be happy about the increased traffic...

    Anyway, be creative in your letter writing. Send stuff to the SLC bike shops, the tour companies, people who live in Millcreek. Anyone know what side of the issue the Boy Scouts would come in on? I don't know anyone in the organization, but they would be very well connected.
    Last edited by chuky; 05-06-2008 at 01:04 PM.
    I only attempt to change the world in the appropriate World-Changing venues and forums.

  17. #17
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    YB,
    Native is a total tool. You are fighting the good fight but it is a lost cause with that guy.
    IB

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bleu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by chuky
    Anyone know what side of the issue the Boy Scouts would come in on? I don't know anyone in the organization, but they would be very well connected.
    Why, so they can burn it down?

    MTB groups declaring war on SOC is misguided, IMHO. The proposal they have submitted is not anti-bike, the laws surrounding it are. MTBs are stuck between a rock and a hard place in these battles. SOCs intention is not to ban MTBs, but to prevent developers from encroaching upon some of the most pristine alpine areas next door to large metropolitan centers, and they're using one of the only tools available to them. God knows the state government isn't going to help, considering it's run by the very people that want to build in the canyons.

    Changing wilderness designation laws to allow bikes is the only clear solution to this issue (however, I fear that opening up wilderness laws would allow for a host of other use groups and companies to attempt to force their way in). Otherwise, there are more important issues than mountain bikes when it comes to threats of development in the Wasatch, and they will be continually barred from more and more terrain. I'd rather poach wilderness trails and risk a ticket than see more and more condos and development go up in/around BCC and LCC.

    *dons flamesuit*
    It's just frustrating sometimes being an Athena...

  19. #19
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186

    I don't know where...

    you've been Bleu but there are other alternatives. We have done a bit of research and found that much precedence exists for islands of wilderness less than 5K acres so we can keep our trail and have wilderness too. Also we could do a National Recreation Area or National Protection Area that would limit uses to those that already exist which is already limited at this time. As for poaching trails that sucks, why break the law when we can have our cake and eat it too. The big problem, and one that you seem to miss is that the SOC will not compromise. As soon as the SOCers are willing to give up their Tele's in the wilderness during winter I will give up my bike in the summer. I don't see that happening do you?

  20. #20
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by bleu
    Why, so they can burn it down?

    MTB groups declaring war on SOC is misguided, IMHO. The proposal they have submitted is not anti-bike, the laws surrounding it are. MTBs are stuck between a rock and a hard place in these battles. SOCs intention is not to ban MTBs, but to prevent developers from encroaching upon some of the most pristine alpine areas next door to large metropolitan centers, and they're using one of the only tools available to them. God knows the state government isn't going to help, considering it's run by the very people that want to build in the canyons.

    Changing wilderness designation laws to allow bikes is the only clear solution to this issue (however, I fear that opening up wilderness laws would allow for a host of other use groups and companies to attempt to force their way in). Otherwise, there are more important issues than mountain bikes when it comes to threats of development in the Wasatch, and they will be continually barred from more and more terrain. I'd rather poach wilderness trails and risk a ticket than see more and more condos and development go up in/around BCC and LCC.

    *dons flamesuit*
    Consider this please. The ski areas were built before NEPA went into effect. Any expansion and development of the ski areas since has been on private land. Any further expansion of the ski areas are required by law to submit to public review, and are unlikely to get approved. Ask yourself why Alta/Snowbird is not like Aspen and there you will find the answer. SOC doesn't want you to know this. They are using the 'threat' of development to scare people. The fact is is that development isn't ever going to happen. The Wasatch is already 'protected', and there is a process in place to ensure that the needs of the public are being met. SOC wants to bypass this process for their own selfish purposes..

    Designating Wilderness is only going to squeeze more people into fewer and fewer trails and create conflict. We need to expand, not restrict, recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing population. Wilderness designation is the first step to outlawing bikes from the Wasatch forever.

    You are correct, changing Wilderness law to allow bikes would be one solution, but honestly, it is not a realistic solution.

  21. #21
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,323
    Alright folks, Bortis Yelltzen/Uruly Baker's internet rant on this is now closed. I have what I need to write my follow up letters to the list Chuky provided. I wanted a data point to present (i.e. 90+% of UT mtb riders and tax payers polled on one of the, if not the largest mtb specific website were against the proposal, and send them a link) and in my other arguments on the web I wanted to get an idea of what some of the SOC supporters stand is so I could properly address each of their talking points. Probably could have/should have stopped weeks ago .

    If anyone that voted in this poll is not a UT resident please let me know so I can normalize the data. And UT residents feel free to keep voting either for or against. SOC claims the mtb'ers they talk to are ok with their proposal. This poll shows the mtb'ers SOC talk to are a bit out of touch with the typical UT mtb rider. Not perfectly scientific or anything but it shows pretty clearly where the dedicated UT mtb community stands. That's all I wanted. It'd be cool if any of you industry peeps could get an approximate # of mtb's sold in UT per year and annual mtb tourist revenue too. If you can post it up. Numbers and $$'s will make the letter more effective.

    Sorry for my annoying barrage of posts. I'll now go back to my normal mtbr habits of talking gear and browsing the classifieds. Still plan on supporting WAFTA trail build days too.

    Thanks everyone that voted.
    B
    Last edited by Bortis Yelltzen; 05-06-2008 at 07:48 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    148
    I think it's cool that everyone out here has been vocal and SOC is now hearing more from the MTB crowd. Believe me, they've noticed!

    I met with the SOC folks Monday evening and talked about their proposal a bit. It's a great deal of work that they put in to try and define boundaries for their proposal, and to try and accommodate bikers while furthering their agenda. Plus they have their board of directors that must approve any changes to the plan. So, I can appreciate their reluctance when they have to go back and modify things as the process pretty much starts all over again.

    Given that, they have researched the less-than-5k wilderness area possibility. They've found that of the 70+ areas that are this way, many don't really apply (many of them are islands surrounded by water if I recall correctly) but they did find 2 that were very relevant. They met with a couple of the IMBA folks earlier, and they are revising their proposal to keep Mill-D open with a 100 foot corridor and create a new wilderness area for the portion that would have been cut off from the rest. They expect to have a revised proposal towards the end of this month, or early June, that would be available for viewing on their website. They're trying to work with bike groups up front so they can avoid the re-work and hopefully with IMBA and WAFTA they'll be able to reach more of us prior to any future proposals.

    It's up to each one of us to form our own opinion, and as Chuky has done, communicate that to those who will make the decisions on this. While the new proposal may or may not be acceptable to you or me, I do appreciate SOC trying to engage us so we will know their plans up front and hopefully be able to avoid conflicts or confusion in the future.

    Cheers -

  23. #23
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,323
    Excellent!
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  24. #24
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,323
    Can't seem to be able to put this down for a little while I guess.

    I seem to have gotten myself into a little situation here . Basically David Witherspoon is asking me to show that I and any other mtb'ers are willing to work with SOC by signing up with them prior to their Board of Directors vote (tonight) to revise the proposal to better suit the mtb community. I mentioned to David that in my opinion, if the WAFTA and IMBA leaders were to be offically partnered in the SOC revision plans, a large portion of the mtb community would most likely follow, myself included. I just want to see the organization leaders such as WAFTA and IMBA leading the partnership, not just some schmuck like me, I don't have the credibility. Read below:

    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    I know your word is good, but you're slacking off at precisely the
    worst possible moment. To make a difference, actions have to be taken
    *before* decisions are made - not after.

    I haven't given any specific advice on how to influence things -
    mainly because I figure it's up to individuals to figure out what they
    really want to do and feel able to do, and anything I suggest is
    unlikely to work for them.
    But I will now:
    Call the SOC office today, sign up as a member, and post on UMB/mtbr to
    encourage others to do the same. If you thought your posts mattered
    enough to others to make them last week, they'll matter just as much
    today. If you were serious when you said you supported most of what
    SOC did, it's time to back up those words.

    When I go into that meeting tonight, the numbers will speak for
    themselves. If exactly zero purist mtb'ers have signed up, the board
    is going to be utterly unimpressed. On the other hand, if even a dozen
    have signed up, there will be a *lot* more enthusiasm in working for
    this modification, and it will be more likely to withstand the
    inevitable pressures later.

    Don't let yourself down now!

    David.
    Anyone else willing to take the plunge to show SOC we are serious? Please share your thoughts.

    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  25. #25
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    David Witherspoon is taking advantage of you.
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 05-08-2008 at 10:31 AM.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 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
  •