Results 1 to 46 of 46
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,227

    Excellent article on IMBA

    I commend bikemag for publishing this.

    https://www.bikemag.com/features/ori...n/#sf199034037
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,227
    Also if a discussion ensues on the future of mtb it probably belongs in passion but I can't be bothered with the requisite polls.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  3. #3
    WillWorkForTrail
    Reputation: Cotharyus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,248
    Oh, lort. It's an air-fuel bomb.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    So what it is Wiens' reasoning for not supporting H.R. 1349???

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,227
    What I read, or at least what the author seemed to insinuate, is that big IMBA donors such as REI don't want bikes in the wilderness. Board members don't want to compromise their paycheck. The same reason why IMBA has publicly come out in support of ebikes, donor dollars.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  6. #6
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,111
    Meh, I like the sound of smaller local clubs investing in their own trails. I don't have confidence that IMBA is the best advocate for me, or will use my dollars as I see fit.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,227
    I agree but... It takes big dollars, organization, and a focused agenda to have lobbying power in DC.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    What I read, or at least what the author seemed to insinuate, is that big IMBA donors such as REI don't want bikes in the wilderness. Board members don't want to compromise their paycheck. The same reason why IMBA has publicly come out in support of ebikes, donor dollars.
    I got that but I was assuming that they would have had an official statement on why they don't support it? That is also me assuming they wouldn't have the balls to publicly admit that they are essentially controlled by REI.....

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    Also, what is the current state of 1349? Appears to have had enough votes to pass with 22 yeas and 18 nays?

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ouse-bill/1349

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    I agree but... It takes big dollars, organization, and a focused agenda to have lobbying power in DC.
    Exactly. Bicycles being banned from wilderness areas is ridiculous.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    Just found this article.... https://www.bikemag.com/news/dave-wi...erness-stance/

    So, from what I can tell, he is basically saying the he thinks that this is the wrong way to gain access and he doesn't want to step on the Feds toes an potentially hurt the IMBA's relationship with them? Definitely sounds like a crock of shit to me.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by rynomx785 View Post
    Just found this article.... https://www.bikemag.com/news/dave-wi...erness-stance/

    So, from what I can tell, he is basically saying the he thinks that this is the wrong way to gain access and he doesn't want to step on the Feds toes an potentially hurt the IMBA's relationship with them? Definitely sounds like a crock of shit to me.
    Makes perfect sense: people in power seldom want to give up their power. The IMBA has established itself as the face/voice of mountain bikers and something that you must do if you're a rider, so they're not going to support anything that threatens that. I know that STC is not a club but a lobby group, but it doesn't look good that they're doing the work that IMBA should be doing.

  13. #13
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    683
    Quote Originally Posted by rynomx785 View Post
    So what it is Wiens' reasoning for not supporting H.R. 1349???
    " Not fighting that because of other priorities" Well that's pretty vague.

    It's the old adage- If you're not with us, you're against us.
    How can this mean anything to me, if I really don't feel anything at all. I'll keep digging, till I feel something.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by CUP-TON View Post
    " Not fighting that because of other priorities" Well that's pretty vague.

    It's the old adage- If you're not with us, you're against us.
    Completely agree. Very unfortunate.

  15. #15
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,869
    IMBA can eat a bag of dicks.
    Wanted, SRAM GX 2x11 rear derailleur

    It ain't supposed to be easy.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,227
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    IMBA can eat a bag of dicks.
    "Eat a bag of old dildo's and choke" as one former member letter reads
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,710
    Seems to me IMBA is more concerned with existing and maintaing it "seat at the table" than being an advocate for Mtn biker and its members. Once you get to feed a trough of goverment people tend to want to still feed and forget about why they were sent there. This happens with politicans all the time where they get sent to DC to support the will of the people and then in a few years become what they sought to fight. You can call it "The swamp" the "Establishment" "The Man" the "Good old boys network" etc, but it is all the same. For IMBA to be effective they need to represent the members not stay "buddy buddy" with the forest serivce or other groups. They need to represent us Mtn bikers and if that means taking a stand then do it. We as individuals need to represent our voice. If they don't represent our voice they are worthless.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  18. #18
    CEO Product Failure
    Reputation: bingemtbr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    928
    Reap what you sow. I did not renew my IMBA membership due to this issue. IMBA no longer represents my beliefs and values. I am not empathetic to IMBA losing sponsors and having to lay off its employees. The fewer people out espousing the current IMBA agenda the better.

    I have reallocated the $75-100 per year I'd spend with IMBA to local mtb associations.

  19. #19
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,505
    I have a hard time supporting IMBA these days and I have supported STC in the past... But damn it does not bode well that we as mountain bikers appear to be a fractured interest group. We aren't a massive group anyway, so dividing us even further makes us all but non-existent in the eyes of the powers that be. I hope something rises up that we can all get behind in the near future.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    What is everyone's take on the STC? Recently got back into mountain biking after riding moto for years so excuse my ignorance.

  21. #21
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,898
    Quote Originally Posted by rynomx785 View Post
    What is everyone's take on the STC? Recently got back into mountain biking after riding moto for years so excuse my ignorance.
    Methinks you'd probably better read up on their positions first.

    You're going to see that mtbrs as a group do not agree with each other on this. Some agree with STC. Some do not. A LOT of people who claim a position don't truly understand what the central issue is, which is why I suggest you go to STC's website and read about why they have the position they do.

    I happen to agree with them. The real problem they face is how to accomplish their agenda, and some simply take issue with the method that STC has chosen (pursuing legislation). I don't think they've helped themselves much with the particular legislators that have signed on so far - those who have a strong history of stripping land protections and sponsoring proposals to sell off federal land. From what I've been able to tell, that issue alone has been part of the wedge that has kept some mtbers from supporting the legislation. They'd have done better, I think, with legislators who are more moderate. But I think getting more moderate legislators on board would be harder, since they'd be keeping a closer eye on what other conservation-minded folks think about it. And many of the conservation-focused orgs have come out strongly against it. As time goes on, I've seen a slow increase in the number of supportive articles in local general outdoors publications written by non-mtbers, which is a positive step. But when you've got the staunch Wilderness orgs coming out hard against it, it's going to be hard to make headway. Part of this comes down to the fact that many hikers see Wilderness designation as the only weapon they have left to kick mtbs off of trails. Early on, mtbers had lots of battles with hiking groups regarding access. Those have lessened, as more land managers generally accept mtb access on some trails than there used to be. But this Wilderness issue is bringing that conflict back up.

    When it comes down to it, though, Wilderness was NOT originally off-limits to bikes (and bikes DID go places like that back then. maybe not often, but they did). That blanket prohibition happened decades after the original legislation, and only really because of a new "interpretation" of the existing law by federal bureaucrats. So technically, changing things back to the original interpretation wouldn't necessarily require a new law to be passed. Though a new law would make it clear, and would probably be an easier path than other alternatives.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ColinL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,559
    Wilderness is not a factor unless you're in specific western states. So, selfishly, since I don't ride there at all so I want to be sure whatever groups I support are doing something relevant to my access to trails.

    That's just one of the 2 major things they've done the past 2 years to alienate members.

    The other is advocacy for e bikes on trails. IDGAF about e bikes on roads and bike paths. Commuting via e bike makes sense if you want to do that.

    But on singletrack I'm concerned about losing access to trails thanks to hikers and land management thinking that e bikes have motors and thus are not bicycles.

    That's the main reason I peeled off my imba stickers, donated my shirts, and did not renew my imba membership this year. I'm donating to the local club directly, who ironically only became an imba chapter 3 years ago.

    Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,227
    I'd like to remind everybody wilderness and bikes are not past tense. White Cloud (just killer backcountry riding) only went offline to wilderness 2 summers ago. There's a ton of stuff in the Cascades that went to wilderness relatively recently. I'm sincerely all for conservation and in my perspective all the more reason to cojoin wilderness and bikes. Most mtbr's I roll with do not want to see where they recreate get mucked up with exploitation. We will lose more classic riding to wilderness, guaranteed.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    Methinks you'd probably better read up on their positions first.

    You're going to see that mtbrs as a group do not agree with each other on this. Some agree with STC. Some do not. A LOT of people who claim a position don't truly understand what the central issue is, which is why I suggest you go to STC's website and read about why they have the position they do.

    I happen to agree with them. The real problem they face is how to accomplish their agenda, and some simply take issue with the method that STC has chosen (pursuing legislation). I don't think they've helped themselves much with the particular legislators that have signed on so far - those who have a strong history of stripping land protections and sponsoring proposals to sell off federal land. From what I've been able to tell, that issue alone has been part of the wedge that has kept some mtbers from supporting the legislation. They'd have done better, I think, with legislators who are more moderate. But I think getting more moderate legislators on board would be harder, since they'd be keeping a closer eye on what other conservation-minded folks think about it. And many of the conservation-focused orgs have come out strongly against it. As time goes on, I've seen a slow increase in the number of supportive articles in local general outdoors publications written by non-mtbers, which is a positive step. But when you've got the staunch Wilderness orgs coming out hard against it, it's going to be hard to make headway. Part of this comes down to the fact that many hikers see Wilderness designation as the only weapon they have left to kick mtbs off of trails. Early on, mtbers had lots of battles with hiking groups regarding access. Those have lessened, as more land managers generally accept mtb access on some trails than there used to be. But this Wilderness issue is bringing that conflict back up.

    When it comes down to it, though, Wilderness was NOT originally off-limits to bikes (and bikes DID go places like that back then. maybe not often, but they did). That blanket prohibition happened decades after the original legislation, and only really because of a new "interpretation" of the existing law by federal bureaucrats. So technically, changing things back to the original interpretation wouldn't necessarily require a new law to be passed. Though a new law would make it clear, and would probably be an easier path than other alternatives.
    I started out on their website to get an idea of their position before I asked what you guys thought. After reading some of the info on their site, I feel like their plan is sensible and isn't asking for too much. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something that wasn't blatantly obvious.

    Any idea what happened with HR 1349?

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
    Wilderness is not a factor unless you're in specific western states. So, selfishly, since I don't ride there at all so I want to be sure whatever groups I support are doing something relevant to my access to trails.

    Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
    You have no plans of ever coming out west and riding?

    Even if you don't, I for one like the idea of my kids or grand kids being able to go use land that we were were intended to be able ride a bicycle on.

    If that still isn't enough to make you support STC, what about the fact that the people we elected to represent us voted and originally intended for cyclists to be able to use the trails in the designated wilderness areas and it wasn't until some non-elected official(s) decided to change that law without the public having any say at all in it? That should bother everyone regardless of whether you want to recreate in wilderness areas or not. That is what I hate about government bureaucracies like the FS and BLM. They do as they see fit are not held accountable to anyone.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ColinL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,559
    Quote Originally Posted by rynomx785 View Post
    You have no plans of ever coming out west and riding?

    Even if you don't, I for one like the idea of my kids or grand kids being able to go use land that we were were intended to be able ride a bicycle on.

    If that still isn't enough to make you support STC, what about the fact that the people we elected to represent us voted and originally intended for cyclists to be able to use the trails in the designated wilderness areas and it wasn't until some non-elected official(s) decided to change that law without the public having any say at all in it? That should bother everyone regardless of whether you want to recreate in wilderness areas or not. That is what I hate about government bureaucracies like the FS and BLM. They do as they see fit are not held accountable to anyone.
    My post wasn't very clear. I didn't say I wouldn't support STC - I said that if I'm supporting IMBA they should be doing something locally that helps me. They aren't, and in fact nationally they are harming me with their opposition to Wilderness reform (which I agree, was set by policy, and not with Congress' pen) and their support of e bikes on singletrack.

    So yeah, I might donate to STC. I'm definitely not donating to IMBA. Wiens was a great racer but he's a clueless president of IMBA. The board is clueless. They no longer represent my interests so I donate directly to my local MTB club.

  27. #27
    Snow Dog
    Reputation: sXeXBMXer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,111
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    Meh, I like the sound of smaller local clubs investing in their own trails. I don't have confidence that IMBA is the best advocate for me, or will use my dollars as I see fit.
    I am also in this mind set..and feel the same way about the govt as well...unfortunately, I can't always withhold taxes from the govt and put that money where I want it to go

    I have always just donated to our local club. Never even considered IMBA.

    as far as the wilderness issue though, I know that I am in the minority, and will get mercilessly flamed for it, but I DON'T think that we (American humans) should just get to go where ever we want...trapse where ever we feel like...disrupt ecosystems for our hobbies. I think some parts of the land should be left alone. I think we are very selfish and egotistical to just have this belief that we can dominate everything for some "God given right", that was never really given by a god, but by misinterpretation of many different pieces of paper over the ages. If someone says that I shouldn't ride my bike in area X, then I will just go ride in area Y where it has been determined that I can do so...i don't feel like i am being "oppressed" or that my Constitutional Rights are being trampled on...

    None of that belief is politically motivated. It came from growing up in the family history that I had, and my past experiences with nature, camping, land management etc...

    Many have mentioned in this debate (overall...not just this thread) that they don't want to see "their wilderness get overused and become over populated"...well, the floodgates were opened with the first footsteps

    just my 2 cents..
    " ...the moonlit swamp Krampus is a king among bikes." - geraldooka

    15 Surly Krampus
    LET IT SNOW!

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
    My post wasn't very clear. I didn't say I wouldn't support STC - I said that if I'm supporting IMBA they should be doing something locally that helps me. They aren't, and in fact nationally they are harming me with their opposition to Wilderness reform (which I agree, was set by policy, and not with Congress' pen) and their support of e bikes on singletrack.

    So yeah, I might donate to STC. I'm definitely not donating to IMBA. Wiens was a great racer but he's a clueless president of IMBA. The board is clueless. They no longer represent my interests so I donate directly to my local MTB club.
    Gotcha!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by sXeXBMXer View Post
    I am also in this mind set..and feel the same way about the govt as well...unfortunately, I can't always withhold taxes from the govt and put that money where I want it to go

    I have always just donated to our local club. Never even considered IMBA.

    as far as the wilderness issue though, I know that I am in the minority, and will get mercilessly flamed for it, but I DON'T think that we (American humans) should just get to go where ever we want...trapse where ever we feel like...disrupt ecosystems for our hobbies. I think some parts of the land should be left alone. I think we are very selfish and egotistical to just have this belief that we can dominate everything for some "God given right", that was never really given by a god, but by misinterpretation of many different pieces of paper over the ages. If someone says that I shouldn't ride my bike in area X, then I will just go ride in area Y where it has been determined that I can do so...i don't feel like i am being "oppressed" or that my Constitutional Rights are being trampled on...

    None of that belief is politically motivated. It came from growing up in the family history that I had, and my past experiences with nature, camping, land management etc...

    Many have mentioned in this debate (overall...not just this thread) that they don't want to see "their wilderness get overused and become over populated"...well, the floodgates were opened with the first footsteps

    just my 2 cents..
    I certainly won't flame you having a different opinion on the matter but I will say that MTBs leave much less of a footprint than horses and horses are completely legal to ride in wilderness areas. So, if MTBs in wilderness areas would adversely effect the ecosystem then horses should not be allowed in the areas either. I will also add that I don't think that horses have enough on an effect to bother banning them.

    It has been made pretty clear that the original legislation that Congress passed was intended to do. The two main intentions were, "Conservation and rugged self reliant recreation". Back country cycling certain falls into rugged self reliant recreation. There is no good reason that cyclists shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the land under the supervision of the agency managing the land.

    There is some good info in the Congressional testimony videos.

    Congressional Testimony — Sustainable Trails Coalition

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,227
    Quote Originally Posted by sXeXBMXer View Post
    I am also in this mind set..and feel the same way about the govt as well...unfortunately, I can't always withhold taxes from the govt and put that money where I want it to go

    I have always just donated to our local club. Never even considered IMBA.

    as far as the wilderness issue though, I know that I am in the minority, and will get mercilessly flamed for it, but I DON'T think that we (American humans) should just get to go where ever we want...trapse where ever we feel like...disrupt ecosystems for our hobbies. I think some parts of the land should be left alone. I think we are very selfish and egotistical to just have this belief that we can dominate everything for some "God given right", that was never really given by a god, but by misinterpretation of many different pieces of paper over the ages. If someone says that I shouldn't ride my bike in area X, then I will just go ride in area Y where it has been determined that I can do so...i don't feel like i am being "oppressed" or that my Constitutional Rights are being trampled on...

    None of that belief is politically motivated. It came from growing up in the family history that I had, and my past experiences with nature, camping, land management etc...

    Many have mentioned in this debate (overall...not just this thread) that they don't want to see "their wilderness get overused and become over populated"...well, the floodgates were opened with the first footsteps

    just my 2 cents..
    I understand what you're saying but not sure that works in practice. Without the next generation of outdoor enthusiasts what mechanism is there to safeguard wild lands from exploitation? Methinks none. It's hard enough to get a seat at the table now with a fairly robust user group and like it or not hunters and horse back riders etc. probably do more good here than we do. From my observation people out to enjoy and have a relation with nature are the very least we need to worry about when it comes to wilderness degradation. Getting people out there to appreciate nature is the very best tool we have. This makes for a good meme but is scary even remotely true...
    "Kids can recognize 800 corporate logos but only 2 native plant species local to their environment."
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: twd953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    I agree but... It takes big dollars, organization, and a focused agenda to have lobbying power in DC.
    While that is true, the one national level issue that individual local orgs aren't going to be successful on is wilderness access. And that is the one issue that IMBA is not supporting us on.

    As you pointed out in your later post, one of the big issues isn't just gaining bike access to Wilderness trails that have been off limits for 30+ years, it's not losing access to current trails to newly proposed wilderness and wilderness study areas.

    I'd be more apt to support IMBAs position on Wilderness if they could show their strategy of playing buddy buddy with the likes of the wilderness groups that want to shut us out was saving more miles of trails than we are losing.

    In Oregon we have wilderness groups proposing new wilderness over massive tracts of land that have all sorts of non-wilderness infrastructure on them, and 100s of miles of mtb legal trail including at least one very iconic and unique trail, and I don't have much confidence that IMBA has our back on this.
    No dig no whine

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,400
    maybe this has been covered, but what is considered a "wilderness area" in this context? I looked that up and it appears to actually be very small parts of the US-
    https://umontana.maps.arcgis.com/app...0e894b0db5c3b6

    are we talking about "wilderness areas" or "Wilderness Areas"?

    are we really fighting this hard over just those specs of land? apologies if one of those areas happens to be prime riding terrain near you, but I would think that there's plenty of other places to ride that we can leave those few places alone.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: twd953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
    Wiens was a great racer but he's a clueless president of IMBA. The board is clueless.
    Have you met Dave Wiens? Talked to him in person about any mtb advocacy related issues? I have, and he came across as a very humble, knowledgeable, and competent guy that knows his stuff from being involved at the grass roots level.

    I feel bad for him actually. I think he was asked to captain a sinking ship by a board that is ordering him to steer into the biggest icebergs they can find. IMBAs wilderness position long predates Dave Wiens, and I'm not sure he has much power to change that course.
    No dig no whine

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by twd953 View Post
    Have you met Dave Wiens? Talked to him in person about any mtb advocacy related issues? I have, and he came across as a very humble, knowledgeable, and competent guy that knows his stuff from being involved at the grass roots level.

    I feel bad for him actually. I think he was asked to captain a sinking ship by a board that is ordering him to steer into the biggest icebergs they can find. IMBAs wilderness position long predates Dave Wiens, and I'm not sure he has much power to change that course.
    If that is the case, he should lower a raft and paddle away.

  35. #35
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,331
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    maybe this has been covered, but what is considered a "wilderness area" in this context? I looked that up and it appears to actually be very small parts of the US-
    https://umontana.maps.arcgis.com/app...0e894b0db5c3b6

    are we talking about "wilderness areas" or "Wilderness Areas"?

    are we really fighting this hard over just those specs of land? apologies if one of those areas happens to be prime riding terrain near you, but I would think that there's plenty of other places to ride that we can leave those few places alone.
    I hear what you're saying, and no, I wouldn't fight to ride my bike in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, or other legacy WAs. But there are advocacy groups with 'Wilderness' in their names that are dedicated to increasing the amount of WA acreage. There are also forests that manage a recommended WA as though it were a WA and don't allow bicycle travel because it wouldn't be allowed in the (unlikely) event of congressional designation. All of these cumulatively lead to what a lot of wilderness advocates want - no bikes in the backcountry. And IMBA seems to be OK with that, provided they can point to increasing miles of MTB-designed trail in suburban settings. That's great for a lot of people. But not for those of us who choose to live near the backcountry and want access to that solitude.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: twd953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by rynomx785 View Post
    If that is the case, he should lower a raft and paddle away.
    I wouldn't think less of him if he did.
    No dig no whine

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: twd953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    maybe this has been covered, but what is considered a "wilderness area" in this context? I looked that up and it appears to actually be very small parts of the US-
    https://umontana.maps.arcgis.com/app...0e894b0db5c3b6

    are we talking about "wilderness areas" or "Wilderness Areas"?

    are we really fighting this hard over just those specs of land? apologies if one of those areas happens to be prime riding terrain near you, but I would think that there's plenty of other places to ride that we can leave those few places alone.
    My state (Oregon) is 53% federal land (32.6 million acres), with 2.6 million acres of that as Wilderness. So, less than 10% of federal land in our state is Wilderness.

    While I know of a few cases where Wilderness boundaries cut off some good riding opportunities, many of the Wilderness trails I have hiked and backpacked on are poorly designed, and poorly maintained to the point that there would be a fair bit of hike a bike for most riders. They are also far enough away (2-3 hour drive) that those trails would still be a fairly small percentage of my overall riding miles if they were open due to heavy snowpack, and only so many available weekends in our short summers.

    I'd venture a guess that there are a lot more miles of trail closed to bikes in those 30 million acres of non-wilderness than there are in the 2.6 million acres of Wilderness.

    Some of those non-wilderness trails are no longer maintained by the FS of BLM, and some dedicated groups of mountain bikers (Transcascadia, Oregon Timber Trail, and many others) have been going in with land manager permission and putting in thousands of hours of trail work to reopen these trails.

    This builds good will with land managers and nets a lot of "new" miles of backcountry trails. Cost per mile has to be far far lower than building new trail, and far fewer hurtles in the approval process. I'm hoping that it also leads to opening some other non-wilderness trails that have been closed to bikes.

    I think that's a better use of time and resources in our state than banging our heads against opening Wilderness areas. However, it doesn't solve the issue of potential loss of existing MTB legal singletrack to newly proposed Wilderness.
    No dig no whine

  38. #38
    Snow Dog
    Reputation: sXeXBMXer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,111
    Quote Originally Posted by rynomx785 View Post
    I certainly won't flame you having a different opinion on the matter but I will say that MTBs leave much less of a footprint than horses and horses are completely legal to ride in wilderness areas. So, if MTBs in wilderness areas would adversely effect the ecosystem then horses should not be allowed in the areas either. I will also add that I don't think that horses have enough on an effect to bother banning them.

    It has been made pretty clear that the original legislation that Congress passed was intended to do. The two main intentions were, "Conservation and rugged self reliant recreation". Back country cycling certain falls into rugged self reliant recreation. There is no good reason that cyclists shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the land under the supervision of the agency managing the land.


    There is some good info in the Congressional testimony videos.

    Congressional Testimony — Sustainable Trails Coalition

    I definitely agree with you about the horses thing, and the back country cycling thing. I also feel like the people that gravitate to backcountry recreation understand respect for the land....for the most part. I just worry that id we keep opening up more "backcountry area" for public use, it will eventually get "dumbed down" to Glamping

    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    I understand what you're saying but not sure that works in practice. Without the next generation of outdoor enthusiasts what mechanism is there to safeguard wild lands from exploitation? Methinks none. It's hard enough to get a seat at the table now with a fairly robust user group and like it or not hunters and horse back riders etc. probably do more good here than we do. From my observation people out to enjoy and have a relation with nature are the very least we need to worry about when it comes to wilderness degradation. Getting people out there to appreciate nature is the very best tool we have. This makes for a good meme but is scary even remotely true...
    "Kids can recognize 800 corporate logos but only 2 native plant species local to their environment."
    Well, I think that we can educate and foster outdoor enthusiasts without opening up every piece of available land...but I absolutely agree with your comments above...and the meme is a sad truth of our current society

    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    maybe this has been covered, but what is considered a "wilderness area" in this context? I looked that up and it appears to actually be very small parts of the US-
    https://umontana.maps.arcgis.com/app...0e894b0db5c3b6

    are we talking about "wilderness areas" or "Wilderness Areas"?

    are we really fighting this hard over just those specs of land? apologies if one of those areas happens to be prime riding terrain near you, but I would think that there's plenty of other places to ride that we can leave those few places alone.
    yep...that is what I am saying!
    " ...the moonlit swamp Krampus is a king among bikes." - geraldooka

    15 Surly Krampus
    LET IT SNOW!

  39. #39
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,984
    I too believe that some of the wilderness areas should be protected with minimal trails and access, if that means no bikes, I have no problem with that. The real problem is a lack of highcountry/wilderness trails in many of the forests and lack of access to the ones that exist. In Nor Cal, I lived in what you'd think would be a "prime" location, along highway 50 towards the end of all the cities where the real forest starts and goes up to the crest of the Sierras...but there wasn't crap for trails. It's changing more around Truckee now on the other highway, it's a LOT better in Washington IME, but the fact that you couldn't ride through Desolation Wilderness didn't bother me at all, there was plenty of non-wilderness that was prime for trails that just wasn't utilized. In every place I've lived, this has generally been the case. We live right up against some amazing mountains here in AK, but I have to travel 70 miles to the Kenai Peninsula to get to some real epic trails, they refuse to built decent mountain bike trails in the Chugach State Park. Luckily, the city has somewhat embraced mtb, realizing the draw in terms of tourism and making people wanting to live here, so we've been able to do a lot with the municipality and there are "a few" routes in the mountains, but it's fairly poor comparatively.

    So there seems to be a huge difference between some states, another good one is Colorado, amazing rides and trails through the interior. Sure, there are some wilderness areas, but it doesn't really detract from the riding and I'm not chomping at the bit to ride in those wilderness areas. The real issue IME is lack of the various land owners to accommodate the relatively "new" sport of mountain bikers by either granting access or developing trails.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: roughster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    328
    The tipping point for any organization, particularly a special interest group representing a very "special interest" in this case MTBing, is when the organization starts caring more about themselves than the special interest they are representing. There are so many cases of this over and over and over that it is rather shocking to see it happen, though it just seems to be an unavoidable collision that you stare at thinking, "Please don't let me hit that rock..."

    IMBA simply made a bad choice. I can live with the eMTB stance, though I personally am not thrilled about it, but I simply can not imagine what was going through their heads when they came out against H.R. 1349.

    To me, that was a fatal decision that should have been immediately retracted. Instead they doubled down in spite of the interest they represent. Humility was the right choice not hubris. Their bad decisions put egg on the entire community's face and they have the nerve to still tell us it was the right call.

    For that, IMBA will not see a penny from me.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    I agree but... It takes big dollars, organization, and a focused agenda to have lobbying power in DC.
    Lobbying for what?

    IMBA isn't offering a clear vision of what they are anymore. What are they trying to actually accomplish for bikers?
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    Lobbying for what?

    IMBA isn't offering a clear vision of what they are anymore. What are they trying to actually accomplish for bikers?
    Yeah, I agree. That was in response to donating to local clubs. Point being that won't have any impact on legislation for access to wilderness. IMBA has lost it's way and there were a lot of good points as to why made here. As far as your question I say it's a good one.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  43. #43
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    Lobbying for what?

    IMBA isn't offering a clear vision of what they are anymore. What are they trying to actually accomplish for bikers?
    No idea.

    They are made up of remnants of a more viable and robust past organization AFAICT. They still build trails, even though they are way behind the ball compared to other professional trail builders. They offer mtb groups some services, but not a lot. They collect dues money for you, and keep a chunk. They pretend to be a membership organization, even though they are not. They advocate and lobby in a few places, but not many.

    While I admire STC's mission and would welcome giving local USFS districts the ability to manage bike access on Wilderness land, I really don't see how we have a chance for mtb access since there is no way to then regulate emtb access, which would be a bridge too far for the organizations who consider a wheelbarrow to be mechanized.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,569
    IMO, an advocacy organization should have clearly defined goals and work towards obtaining those goals on behalf of their members. This rather simple concept doesn't appear to apply to IMBA anymore. It appears that their primary goal is to obtain corporate sponsors.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  45. #45
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,897
    USFS memo from 6 years before IMBA was formed... and one of the reasons they did form! Between bike bans in CA State Parks, in Wilderness and on the Pacific Crest Trail... all before mt. bikers had "a voice".... IMBA helped get us on solid ground and at "the table", but somewhere in the past 10 years or so, they were co-opted by environmental extremists who believe bicycles have no place in the backcountry.

    Excellent article on IMBA-1982-usfs-memo-about-bicycles.jpg

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,569
    Another club drops IMBA.

    Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz to leave IMBA - Mountain Bike Review- Mtbr.com

    I can't really see IMBA surviving for too much longer.

    It would be very cool if a new organization formed to represent mountain biker's interest at the national level.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

Similar Threads

  1. Imba Imba Imba Imba
    By Queen Bee in forum Alaska
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-18-2005, 11:19 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-10-2005, 05:11 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-27-2004, 09:04 AM

Members who have read this thread: 264

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.