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 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 68
  1. #1
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322

    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 09:19 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  2. #2
    Fartographer
    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
    4,663
    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; 05-05-2008 at 12:05 AM.

  5. #5
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    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 12:30 PM.
    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
    1,322
    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
    1,322
    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
    1,581
    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
    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
    455
    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
    1,322
    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 07:05 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  14. #14
    Bored Carp
    Reputation: chuky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,581
    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
    445
    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
    1,581
    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 02:04 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
    350
    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
    1,322
    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 08:48 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    150
    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
    1,322
    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
    1,322
    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 11:31 AM.

  26. #26
    Bored Carp
    Reputation: chuky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,581
    I don't think this David guy is very important, and probably not the right person to be dealing with.

    Asking you to join SOC sounds a lot like donating to the Republican Party in order to disagree with it - no thanks. I will not give money and time to an organization that doesn't have my interests at heart.

    We have joined organizations that do emphasize our beliefs - IMBA and WAFTA. SOC should be working with the leadership of these 2 groups and should give some thought to the numbers they represent, rather than insisting that we fund them via membership fees in order to have them recognize the fact that we disagree.

    There are other groups that have huge issues with this proposal. I have contacted those groups, and they are willing to make this a key issue with their membership. IMBA and WAFTA aren't alone.
    I only attempt to change the world in the appropriate World-Changing venues and forums.

  27. #27
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by chuky
    There are other groups that have huge issues with this proposal. I have contacted those groups, and they are willing to make this a key issue with their membership. IMBA and WAFTA aren't alone.

    Mwuahahahahahaha

    Mwuahahahahahahahahaha

    (rubbing hands together)

  28. #28
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by chuky
    I don't think this David guy is very important, and probably not the right person to be dealing with.

    Asking you to join SOC sounds a lot like donating to the Republican Party in order to disagree with it - no thanks. I will not give money and time to an organization that doesn't have my interests at heart.

    We have joined organizations that do emphasize our beliefs - IMBA and WAFTA. SOC should be working with the leadership of these 2 groups and should give some thought to the numbers they represent, rather than insisting that we fund them via membership fees in order to have them recognize the fact that we disagree.

    There are other groups that have huge issues with this proposal. I have contacted those groups, and they are willing to make this a key issue with their membership. IMBA and WAFTA aren't alone.
    Well said. My thoughts are in line with yours and I too have joined WAFTA and IMBA recently (should have done it a while ago). Having to join SOC to show them how serious I am about disagreeing with this proposal does seem a bit counter productive. I think personally I'm better off showing SOC my support AFTER they show they are willing to work with IMBA and WAFTA by the SOC board voting to revise their proposal.

    The good ol' chicken and egg scenario. They won't change thier proposal until mtb'ers join them to show willingness to work with them and mtb'ers won't join SOC until they change their proposal showing willingness to work with us. I think I'll tell David I'll join SOC if he/they join WAFTA and IMBA.

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

  29. #29
    Lobbyn ur Leedrz!
    Reputation: David Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Bortis Yelltzen
    The good ol' chicken and egg scenario. They won't change thier proposal until mtb'ers join them to show willingness to work with them and mtb'ers won't join SOC until they change their proposal showing willingness to work with us. I think I'll tell David I'll join SOC if he/they join WAFTA and IMBA.
    Barrett, I don't mind you posting my emails; but try not to speak for SOC, just as I try not to speak for IMBA or WAFTA.

    That is why I haven't said anything about what Ryan, Steve and Lisa may have tentatively agreed to or not, either in my emails or here. If you need to know, ask them; don't speculate. I can say that Lisa will tell you what's up, firsthand, if you ask her.

    As I said, I refrain from giving specific advice - partly because it takes work, partly because I doubt I could advise you better than you can, and partly because any advice I might give would just get me called a snake - or worse. So it really is up to you. If I were more Machiavellian, I wouldn't stir this pot - but I'm still naÔve enough to believe that, in the end, things will work better if more people get more involved.

    My goal is to protect as much of what remains of the Wasatch from further development. Whether or not the Mill D trail itself gets designated as Wilderness or not doesn't matter much to me, personally. The area east of that trail is just one part of the proposal. It's not the focus of the proposal to me. But it is an important part because (1) it has high-quality habitat and (2) it is very vulnerable to development. So I will do what I can to get it designated.

    This Mill D compromise is the second one SOC is working on for mountain bikers. Because this one would be unusual, it will create some political resistance later, and SOC will either have to overcome that resistance - or yield to it - in order to get the Wilderness bill passed.

    If we can overcome it, great. Everybody wins. If not - somebody loses, maybe everybody. There are no guarantees in this process, just work, and SOC has already been doing that work on your behalf.

    Those of you who said you support most of SOC's actions and appreciate what they've done for the Wasatch over the years - particularly their work in securing trail access and trying to stitch together the BST and protect its path from creeping developments - it's time put your money where your mouth is.

    Call the SOC office (363 7283) and sign up. Tell 'em to make a note that you're a mtb'er who wants the Mill D trail excluded from the Wilderness. I'll check the numbers before the meeting tonight. I don't know if it'll go to vote - the meeting agenda is already full - but it will be debated.

    I am an IMBA member.

  30. #30
    Bored Carp
    Reputation: chuky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Bortis Yelltzen
    I think I'll tell David I'll join SOC if he/they join WAFTA and IMBA.
    Your time would be better spent wring letters to the people on the list I posted and to others in the SOC leadership, rather than to David. ;-) Remember - SOC is creating a proposal that has to make it through the legal process. SOC can't enact this change without approval. Make approval of this proposal an unpopular choice.

    There are lots of bike shops, bike clubs and other organizations in SLC. Pick two and let them know about this proposal. David already knows how we feel - spend that time telling some new people. Ask yourself - has anyone told GoRide, Jan's or White Pine?

    C
    I only attempt to change the world in the appropriate World-Changing venues and forums.

  31. #31
    yelgatgab
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by chuky
    Your time would be better spent wring letters to the people on the list I posted and to others in the SOC leadership, rather than to David. ;-) Remember - SOC is creating a proposal that has to make it through the legal process. SOC can't enact this change without approval. Make approval of this proposal an unpopular choice.
    I'm waiting to contact anybody until I see what SOC does. If they're truly willing to work with bikers and ensure the Mill D remains open, I think opposing this proposal this early on is counter-productive. However, if they submit the existing proposal, or one that still includes Mill D as wilderness, then I'm more than ready to start sending letters.

  32. #32
    Lobbyn ur Leedrz!
    Reputation: David Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    So if SOC does your bidding, you'll do absolutely nothing? Before or after.

    Mighty bold of you to go out on such a limb.

    .
    .
    .
    .

    awfully quiet, what with all these eyeballs ...
    Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 12 (9 members and 3 guests)
    David Witherspoon, FBC2008, bleu, JMH, Rontele, Bortis Yelltzen, JoshP, Summit, AMMAROO
    Last edited by David Witherspoon; 05-08-2008 at 02:50 PM.

  33. #33
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    So if SOC does your bidding, you'll do absolutely nothing? Before or after.

    Mighty bold of you to go out on such a limb.

    .
    .
    .
    .

    awfully quiet, what with all these eyeballs ...
    It was open on my computer but I wasn't at my computer.

    Sorry Dave, I'm not going to join SOC to make them feel like I care. I wouldn't have spent all this time on these posts on the various forums if I didn't care. SOC is going to vote how they are going to vote. And if they decide to stick with their current plan then I'll stick with mine which is to work with WAFTA and IMBA opposing their plan. If SOC votes to deviate from their plan and ammend the proposal and work with mtb'ers, then I'll deviate from my current plan and put more thought into joining SOC.

    Done deal. Thanks for the suggestions.
    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,135
    Happy to hear that SOC is finally opening their eyes and ears to MTB'ers, somewhat. But joining SOC is not the way to convince them to 'be on our side'. What a joke.

    Not to mention I COMPLETELY disagree with their stance on winter recreation as well, e.g., WPG.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,135
    p.s. anyone know where I can get some of those 'Save Us From Save Our Canyons' stickers?

  36. #36
    Lobbyn ur Leedrz!
    Reputation: David Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    So much for all that talk about compromise, working together, win-win, roll-up-your-sleeves-and-get-to-work, 90% support of SOCs work, eh?
    Well, guess I learned what I needed to know.

    If organizing backcountry skiers is like herding cats, then doing anything with MTB purists is like herding boulders.


    Summit - I'm sure everyone will is grateful for such well-thought-out and completely objective advice from a veteran SOC hater.
    Anyway,m Louie quit making those stickers years ago and there were none left when I checked.
    If you wanna print up another round, let me know. The original design was pretty drab, we can do better.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    So much for all that talk about compromise, working together, win-win, roll-up-your-sleeves-and-get-to-work, 90% support of SOCs work, eh?
    Well, guess I learned what I needed to know.
    Look man, can't you understand how you came across? Look at it logically.

    -There's a contentious proposal that will shut down a hugely popular trail to MTBers.
    -There is then some progressive talk between the two groups.
    -You then suggest that to prove that MTBers are in this thing, we need to join SOC. If not, then you suggest that we are against you.

    How is that helping matters? I still don't see why a mutual agreement cannot be reached and MTBers working in tandem with SOC for a compromise - w/o them being 'mandated' to join SOC.

    Make sense?

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by bagtagley
    I'm waiting to contact anybody until I see what SOC does. If they're truly willing to work with bikers and ensure the Mill D remains open, I think opposing this proposal this early on is counter-productive. However, if they submit the existing proposal, or one that still includes Mill D as wilderness, then I'm more than ready to start sending letters.
    My two cents:

    If the mtb community doesn't get involved now, SOC will submit the proposal as-is. Why shouldn't they? They know folks are opposed to it, and delaying its submission in order to appease a small group of dissenters (ie. MTBers are probably not the only ones opposed to the proposal) doesn't make much sense. In the end, this just makes it less likely to pass - fine if you don't want it passed at all, but then don't try and say that it has to do with Mill D.

    On the other hand, if mtbers get involved now (I'm not necessarily advocating joining - rather doing what's necessary in order to have your voice heard by those making the proposal, rather than those who may already oppose it), there's a better chance of having the submitted proposal that more folks can agree with - thus making the proposal more likely to succeed, sooner.


    Then again, I don't know why I'm bothering... I haven't even ridden this particular trail.

  39. #39
    Lobbyn ur Leedrz!
    Reputation: David Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Summit - Can you understand that a good number posting here and writing letters say they support most of what SOC does?

    Can you understand that this modification is likely to cause trouble further down the road?

    Can you understand that it will take work and people to get this bill passed, and even more work with that modification in it?

    Now why would I make it a tougher sell - on your behalf - if you aren't willing to step up and do something? I may be blunt, but I ain't dumb.

    Right now, if I were to try to pitch this change to anyone, I would do so knowing full well that nobody has my back - no, it's worse, some of you guys would stick a knife in my back and complain if I didn't bleed enough.

    Can you understand that I've been asked - no, mandated - to join IMBA - a group I have 0% use for, either locally or nationally - as a direct exchange for joining SOC? And that I did?

    I haven't mandated a damn thing in return.

    What I have done is suggest a course of action which has predictable and favorable effects for both the Mill D trail and possibly for the Wilderness proposal. It's up to individuals to decide what to do, if anything.

    Those decisions will be informative - they'll sort the mice from the men.
    Y'know, people who will throw down the bank-breaking amount of $35 when their bluff gets called.

    All I hear is a lot of squeaking.

    ----
    Ok, except for that last two cents. They rang true.
    Last edited by David Witherspoon; 05-08-2008 at 09:53 PM.

  40. #40
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    I think you are confusing people supporting your intentions with people supporting your actions. Who doesn't want to preserve the Wasatch right? The question is how is the best way to do it? Wilderness designation is effectively a ban on mountain bikes, so does it surprise you at all that mountain bikers would be opposed to it, epecially when it is not the only way, or necessary way to preserve the land? C'mon get real man.

    Even if the Mill-D problem is worked out somehow, a Wilderness designation is going to ban mountain bikes in a lot of other great places. We need to expand recreational opportunities, not restrict them, to meet the demands of out growing population, or else it is going to create a lot more conflict. If this Wilderness designation happens then think about the shitshow that the Crest Trail is going to be in 20 years. There will be nowhere else for people to go.

    The idea of wilderness is a noble one, but this proposal is not a reasonable solution to the problems we face. Its not fair for SOC to say that the only way to enjoy nature is their way. SOC would do much better and create a lot less resentment if it concentrated on protecting the land through the public input NEPA process, rather than shutting everybody out as with this proposal. SOC's been successful at it before and they can do it again.
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 05-09-2008 at 12:17 AM.

  41. #41
    Lobbyn ur Leedrz!
    Reputation: David Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    ... epecially when it is not the only way, or necessary way to preserve the land? C'mon get real man.
    Let's hear your proposal, then. Get real.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    ... if it concentrated on protecting the land through the public input NEPA process, rather than shutting everybody out as with this proposal. SOC's been successful at it before and they can do it again.
    (1) The NEPA process is an expensive, highly structured Congressionally-mandated procedure that only Federal Agencies (like the FAA and USFS) use. Mainly to confuse and bore the public into thinking they've understood & signed off on whatever the Agency or the commercial entity behind the proposal wanted to do anyway.

    (2) This IS a public process, and a lot more public than most NEPA ones. SOC has been trying to make this as public as possible for years.

  42. #42
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    I would say leave things the way they are. There already is wilderness that gets relatively little use. There is a process in place. The best way to preserve the Wasatch is, like I said before, is to create more recreational opportunities not less. It is supply and demand equation. That way you reduce the load on any particular trail or area. If you close off most of the Wasatch in wilderness, you are just going to squeeze people into smaller and smaller areas, thus creating discontent, conflict and general unhappiness.


    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

    (1) The NEPA process is an expensive, highly structured Congressionally-mandated procedure that only Federal Agencies (like the FAA and USFS) use. Mainly to confuse and bore the public into thinking they've understood & signed off on whatever the Agency or the commercial entity behind the proposal wanted to do anyway.
    .
    An economic decision I see. So you are saying that you don't have the public support or donations to 'save our canyons' in the open and fair way? You guys stopped Snowbird from improving the top of the Tram the way they wanted. Its still a tiny shitshack up there. Its a joke and that was during the Bush years. You honestly think they are going to get a new lift through that process?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    ...

    (2) This IS a public process, and a lot more public than most NEPA ones. SOC has been trying to make this as public as possible for years.
    No it is NOT a public process, because in the end it is a private group, SOC in this case, that gets to write the proposal. Everybody else is at the whim of SOC if they want to have input. SOC alone is the ultimate arbiteur of the makep of the proposal. Then it is up to Congresspeople in New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. i.e. people who don't even live here, to decide whether to approve it. Nowhere along the way do the PUBLIC, as in the people who actually live here and would be affected, get to have a fair say in this.
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 05-09-2008 at 12:20 AM.

  43. #43
    Lobbyn ur Leedrz!
    Reputation: David Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    An economic decision I see.
    All you're doing is making it clear that you do not see. Have you ever even participated in a NEPA process? You should try it sometime, prolly could get extra credit in your history or civics class.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    No it is NOT a public process, because in the end it is a private group, SOC in this case, that gets to write the proposal.
    If it were NEPA, it would be a private contractor writing the proposal for the Agency while carefully crafting it to suit the business that was pushing the proposal. The public comments get attached to the end of the report, along with all the reasons why the comments were appreciated and ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    Everybody else is at the whim of SOC if they want to have input. SOC alone it the ultimate arbiteur of the makep of the proposal.
    Ha. Not even sort of. You wanna arbiteurate, go right ahead - you're the only person stopping you.

    I wouldn't want it to be SOC's sole authority even if it were possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    Then it is up to Congresspeople in New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. i.e. people who don't even live here, to decide whether to approve it.
    News flash: it's Federal land. ALL Americans own it, so it's right that Congress determines what happens with it.

    But locals effectively do get a lot more say in the matter, 'cause everyone else defers to the locals, on the assumption that the locals know what they're talking about & can make a decent decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    Nowhere along the way do the PUBLIC, as in the people who actually live here and would be affected, get to have a fair say in this.
    Bologna. You've had more say in this than 99.999% of Americans already. Too bad it's been incoherent.


    Snowbird coulda built a patrol building on top of Hidden Peak a decade ago if they wanted to. Instead, Bass wanted a monumentally unnecessary mall - the architectural drawings make it look like some kinda spider perched up there. Funny thing is, what stopped him wasn't SOC, it was that it'd be too expensive and pointless.

  44. #44
    on yer left
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    There are no guarantees in this process, just work, and SOC has already been doing that work on your behalf.
    Huh? I can't recall ever asking SOC to designate areas of the Wasatch a Wilderness. How is it that SOC is now working on our behalf to give us back what was already ours? Your logic sucks. SOC represents a minority that wants to cause change for the majority. Now it's possible that there are portions of the majority that might agree with SOC, but the fact is that they most likely have no idea any of this is even transpiring. SOC is needs a serious reality check if they really folks like us to sign on. They are far too heavy handed and self righteous. Declaring that you want to prevent any more development in the Wasatch and will do whatever it takes to stop it is just as selfish a view as a developer might have. It's not you forest just as it's not the developers. It's also not SOC's place to decide. It belongs on a referendum to be placed before the public to vote on. Not haggled over in a dark corner by a fringe community of elitist evangelists.

  45. #45
    DOH!
    Reputation: SprungShoulders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    473
    Mr. Witherspoon, for someone acting as a goodwill ambassador for a private organization that relies largely on the support and feelings of warm fuzziness from the public for support, let me be the last to say that you do a fantastic job of spitting vitriolic venom in every direction possible. Geezus. Ever stop for even a moment to think that if you quit kicking people in the balls all the time that they might actually be more inclined to not dismiss you and your thoughts/concerns/idea so readily?

    I suggest you return/burn your diploma from the John Bolton School of Diplomacy and start over. Had you simply not gotten right off to (the appearance of) treating the mountain biking community as some annoying little piece of sputum, and generally dismissing the valid concerns over being banned from a long-establish and favorite ribbon of dirt, then perhaps we'd all be joining hands and singing Kumbia right now rather than lobbing verbal grenades back and forth.

    If SOC really wants the support of mountain bikers, then I submit that their online talking head - ie apparently you - learn to at least smile while trying to kick us off one of our favorite trails.

  46. #46
    Wandervans
    Reputation: smilycook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,071
    I can't wait to see what SOC comes back with... My bet is no change...
    Live to ride!
    15 Cannondale Jekyll Team
    15 Rocky Mountain Blizzard

    https://www.facebook.com/wandervans
    wandervans.com

  47. #47
    Lobbyn ur Leedrz!
    Reputation: David Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    I'll call that bluff and take your wager at even odds. What's your stake?

    Sprung- if it's warm fuzzies and sweet nothings you need, go find a politician. It ain't my job to sing you soothing lullabies - and the usual suspects would be just as venomous anyway. Look at who started these threads and what was being posted before I put two cents in. There wasn't a note of Kumba-ya anywhere, and you haven't even seen the worst of the emails - which were more profane than anything here and aimed at faultlessly polite, professional and helpful people.
    You know who you are.

    Now, you want me to judge the MTB community by that? Okey-dokey.


    rad - "haggled over in a dark corner"? Hey, it's not my fault teh l33t mtber leadership picked Brewvies to meet.
    Next meeting: at the stroke of midnight in the middle of the bridge. I'll bring the maps, you bring the letters. Alone, no guns.

    As for public referendum - this is a Representative Democracy, so Congress is s'posed to do the public representation part.

    The majority of people along the Wasatch front support more Wilderness. It's a minority that will do the work to make it happen. It's a few more minorities that will carp about it.

    And no, taking action to protect the Wasatch from further development is not just as selfish as what developers like Diehl did at "Tavaci."

  48. #48
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Chuky is right, PLEASE email the addresses above and do your best to shoot this thing to pieces before it leaves the ground.

    SOC is NOT looking out for cyclists in this matter, nor are they obligated to. And expecting them to care what we say on an internet forum is naive at best. If we don't fight this proposal by writing to the people that matter, we could lose the Mill D trail to bikes. It's as simple as that.

    Get writing... please.

    JMH

  49. #49
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    Look at who started these threads and what was being posted before I put two cents in.
    That would be me on this thread. For the record my emails (2) to SOC, David (14) and all my posts between UMB and mtbr (many) have been polite and debated the issue, no personal attacks or name calling on my part.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    There wasn't a note of Kumba-ya anywhere, and you haven't even seen the worst of the emails - which were more profane than anything here and aimed at faultlessly polite, professional and helpful people.
    You know who you are.
    Feel free to post any of the emails I sent to SOC or to you if you feel they are inappropriate or hostile. I have copies on hand as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    rad - "haggled over in a dark corner"? Hey, it's not my fault teh l33t mtber leadership picked Brewvies to meet.
    You were the one that told me to go to Brewvies. If WAFTA or IMBA picked the place it is news to me. I got the invite from you.

    Sorry if I said anything to offend you or anyone at SOC. My point was to express my disapproval of the proposal as written. And I feel I have done that in a polite but persistent manner.

    Sorry you feel the way you do.
    B
    P.S. Any update about what was decided at the SOC board meeting?
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  50. #50
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    Chuky is right, PLEASE email the addresses above and do your best to shoot this thing to pieces before it leaves the ground.

    SOC is NOT looking out for cyclists in this matter, nor are they obligated to. And expecting them to care what we say on an internet forum is naive at best. If we don't fight this proposal by writing to the people that matter, we could lose the Mill D trail to bikes. It's as simple as that.

    Get writing... please.

    JMH
    Wise words. Effort = refocused-->Draper DH trail and writing letters to Chuky's list (again). Appologies for dragging this out on the interwebs.

    I'm outta this topic fo reals this time.

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

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •