Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 459
  1. #101
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Giant Warp View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong but I am sure I have read stories of biking trails that were allowed to go through wilderness after the trail was allocated to "corridor" status. In other words, the bikes are not allowed in the wilderness but a narrow "corridor" was created to keep them legal.
    That would be called a "cherry stem". It isn't Wilderness, since bikes and OHV may be permitted on it. This pi$$es the Wildernuts off to no end. They want it ALL.

  2. #102
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    That would be called a "cherry stem". It isn't Wilderness, since bikes and OHV may be permitted on it. This pi$$es the Wildernuts off to no end. They want it ALL.
    I don't know of any that go through a Wilderness area they all dead end.

    Do you know of one that does? And does not form the border between two Wilderness areas? Just wondering.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    498
    DECEMBER 16, 2016

    Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?

    by GEORGE WUERTHNER

    Several years ago, I published a book called Thrillcraft on motorized recreation and its impacts on public lands. In doing the research for that book, one of the statistics that I found interesting is the demographic profile of the “average” motorized ORV user. They tended to be male, between the ages of 20 and 40, and had incomes at or slightly above the national average (It takes a lot of money to buy pick-ups, snowmobiles and dirt bikes).

    Another interesting statistic is that most motorized users had an “outlaw” attitude and regularly violated trail closures and felt like they were entitled to go anyplace their machines could carry them. They were adrenaline junkies and like spoiled children who groused at being told they were banned from some landscapes. .

    Mountain bikers are, as a demographic group, fit the profile of off-road vehicle users. They are predominately male, between 20-40, and tend to have above average incomes and often have the same outlaw attitude and sense of entitlement.

    We see this sense of entitlement in the continual commandeering of trails and/or illegal construction of new trails on public lands by mountain bikers. When the Forest Service or BLM seeks to close some of these trails (very infrequently done) mountain bikers squeal like a poked pig, claiming they being “discriminated against.”

    A good example is the reaction of mountain bikers in Wyoming to closure of the Dunior Special Management Area near Dubois Wyoming. The Dunior has been a candidate for wilderness for years. But without seeking any permission, mountain bikers began to ride in the area and upgrade trails. The Shoshone National Forest finally closed the trails, and the mountain bikers screamed about their “loss” of access. Access that was garnered illegally.

    A similar situation exists in the Palisades Wilderness Study Area on the border of Idaho and Wyoming. Mountain bikers have commandeered trails in the area and are fighting to oppose wilderness designation for the area. This conflict would not have occurred if the Bridger Teton National Forest had simply unambiguously closed the trails to mountain bikers. After a Wilderness Study Area is supposed to be managed for its wilderness qualities until Congress determines its fate and mechanical access is not permitted.

    A comparable conflict is being precipitated on the Lewis and Clark National Forest in Montana where mountain bikers are regularly riding in a wilderness study areas like the Big Snowy Mountains. Similarly, mountain bikers regularly ride in the Gallatin Range, another Wilderness Study Area on the Gallatin/Custer National Forest.

    When the Forest Service limits mountain bike use, the mountain bikers scream that they are being denied access to public lands. On the contrary, most trails currently used by mountain bikers are available to anyone to walk. The only thing that is being closed is access to their machines (bikes). Most of these users are in better than average physical condition.

    While there are local and regional mountain biking advocacy groups as well the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) all promoting more mountain bike access and trail construction, there is virtually no push back from conservation groups. I am not aware of a single employee of any conservation group whose sole responsibility is to monitor mountain bike use in proposed wilderness areas and to provide push back and support to public lands managers who might want to limit mountain biking in these areas.

    I believe if mountain biking isn’t controlled and contained just as motorized ORV use has been limited, we will find it nearly impossible to designate any new wilderness areas.

    Indeed, some of the more aggressive mountain bikers are even seeking to scuttle the prohibition on mountain biking in designated wilderness, which will open the door to a host of other interests to argue they too should be given access to the these lands. In a sense mountain biking, to use a cliché, is the camel’s nose under the tent.

    Mountain biking is part of the outdoor recreation industry that is more about physical exercise, challenging one’s prowess on a machine and use of our public lands as outdoor gymnasiums than about appreciation of natural systems and/or protecting the ecological integrity of the landscape. It’s about speed and domination.

    Challenging oneself isn’t necessarily bad. We all, I think, enjoy challenges. And mountain biking is great fun. I ride my bike regularly on trails specifically designed for mountain bike use.

    However, we must recognize that unlimited access to public lands whether by extractive industry like logging, mining or livestock grazing or recreational users, can threaten the wildlife and ecological whole of the land.

    We have so few landscapes specifically set aside to preserve ecological integrity that we must make protection of natural function a primary function. This is an idea that seems foreign to many mountain bikers, just as it seems incomprehensible to many motorized recreationists or a smaller sub-set of bird watchers, hikers and backpacker.

    In the end, we must accept limits. One of the lessons one teaches young children as a parent is the need for restrictions on behavior. You can’t always get what you want, but you can get what you need. Far too many mountain bikers remind me of spoiled children who put on a tantrum when they are told that no they can’t do something.

    I may be optimistic, but I am hoping to see a maturing of the mountain biking culture. After all you don’t need to bike in roadless lands to get an adrenaline high. You do need to consider one’s impacts on other people and critters.

    We need wild places for a host of reason, including protecting sensitive wildlife, ecological processes, and scenic beauty. But perhaps one of the most important reasons for creating wilderness areas is that it teaches us humility and self-limits. These are lessons the mountain biking community could use.

    George Wuerthner has published 36 books including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. He serves on the board of the Western Watersheds Project.

    ...

  4. #104
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    .




    Copy and Paste isn't going to cut it here. Desperation is setting in with the Anti's it seems.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  5. #105
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13,010
    Quote Originally Posted by norton55 View Post
    And the Asses..........Donkeys and Hikers.
    Quote Originally Posted by chasejj View Post
    Just hikers. I like donkeys.
    Are you guys really wanting to ban hikers or were you just being snarky?



    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    People that use the safety argument are demonstrating their ignorance of how bikers intend to use the Wilderness. You are right no loaded bikepacker is going to be shredding down trails. Generally, shredding like the naysayers fear requires full suspension, and FS bikes do not make good bikepacking rigs. A full loaded hard tail is not going to be careening wildly downhill, skidding corners and making jumps. Much of the time an UL hiker will pass me on my bike.

    It's like saying trail running is the same as backpacking. Phony argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    There would also be day trippers on FS bikes in the Wilderness. Just how big of a problem would that be?

    Prior to the Boulder-White Cloud Wilderness designation, all manner of mountain bikes did roam those trails without conflict with other users or resource damage beyond what hikers did. The riders that choose to use backcountry trails are very respectful of other users and the environment.
    Out here the Wilderness boundary is only 30 minutes up the road, and the PCT is only 10 minutes further. I am certain that if opened there would be more day riders than bikepackers, given the number of mountain bikers who live in Bend and the number of tourists who come each year. When I've hiked and run in our local Wilderness I've often thought about how much speed and air I could get on certain stretches if I were on my bike. If I was thinking it you could be sure others would too.

    If opening up Wilderness to bikes were to happen, I'd want local land managers having the final say as to which stretches were opened up.

  6. #106
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    I don't know of any that go through a Wilderness area they all dead end.

    Do you know of one that does? And does not form the border between two Wilderness areas? Just wondering.
    I've ridden the Deer Lake OHV trail which bisects the Mokelumne Wilderness between Blue Lakes (Hwy 88) and Hwy 4. Literally splits Wilderness in 2. No idea how that came to be, but I'm guessing the OHV groups had to make it happen.

    https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE...rdb5239092.pdf


    tungsten: Weurthner is as nutty as the Wilderness Watch guy you quoted to start this thread... just like Vandeman, and McMahon, and Wolke and D. Scott, and Berto, and Miloslavich and a handful of other very active anti-bike zealots like yourself.

  7. #107
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Out here the Wilderness boundary is only 30 minutes up the road, and the PCT is only 10 minutes further. I am certain that if opened there would be more day riders than bikepackers, given the number of mountain bikers who live in Bend and the number of tourists who come each year. When I've hiked and run in our local Wilderness I've often thought about how much speed and air I could get on certain stretches if I were on my bike. If I was thinking it you could be sure others would too.

    If opening up Wilderness to bikes were to happen, I'd want local land managers having the final say as to which stretches were opened up.
    I think that's the point of all this: Local decision making, on a case by case basis. Some trails will never accommodate bikes for various science based and social based reasons. But in your case, if you have a mtb-friendly District Ranger or Forest Supervisor, he or she may decide that section of the PCT can be used by mt. bikers from (e.g.) Oct. 1st until its buried in snow (or something like that). What this does is provides some reasonable, seasonal access... puts some self-policing duties on the mtb community from those who do not want to lose that seasonal access... enables some research to be conducted... and brings mt. bikers to the trail maintenance party once Winter moves along.

  8. #108
    heaven help me
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    This thread was over 24 hours ago. Time to move on.

  9. #109
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,591
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    DECEMBER 16, 2016

    Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?

    by GEORGE WUERTHNER

    Several years ago, I published a book called Thrillcraft on motorized recreation and its impacts on public lands. In doing the research for that book, one of the statistics that I found interesting is the demographic profile of the “average” motorized ORV user. They tended to be male, between the ages of 20 and 40, and had incomes at or slightly above the national average (It takes a lot of money to buy pick-ups, snowmobiles and dirt bikes).

    Another interesting statistic is that most motorized users had an “outlaw” attitude and regularly violated trail closures and felt like they were entitled to go anyplace their machines could carry them. They were adrenaline junkies and like spoiled children who groused at being told they were banned from some landscapes. .

    Mountain bikers are, as a demographic group, fit the profile of off-road vehicle users. They are predominately male, between 20-40, and tend to have above average incomes and often have the same outlaw attitude and sense of entitlement.

    We see this sense of entitlement in the continual commandeering of trails and/or illegal construction of new trails on public lands by mountain bikers. When the Forest Service or BLM seeks to close some of these trails (very infrequently done) mountain bikers squeal like a poked pig, claiming they being “discriminated against.”

    A good example is the reaction of mountain bikers in Wyoming to closure of the Dunior Special Management Area near Dubois Wyoming. The Dunior has been a candidate for wilderness for years. But without seeking any permission, mountain bikers began to ride in the area and upgrade trails. The Shoshone National Forest finally closed the trails, and the mountain bikers screamed about their “loss” of access. Access that was garnered illegally.

    A similar situation exists in the Palisades Wilderness Study Area on the border of Idaho and Wyoming. Mountain bikers have commandeered trails in the area and are fighting to oppose wilderness designation for the area. This conflict would not have occurred if the Bridger Teton National Forest had simply unambiguously closed the trails to mountain bikers. After a Wilderness Study Area is supposed to be managed for its wilderness qualities until Congress determines its fate and mechanical access is not permitted.

    A comparable conflict is being precipitated on the Lewis and Clark National Forest in Montana where mountain bikers are regularly riding in a wilderness study areas like the Big Snowy Mountains. Similarly, mountain bikers regularly ride in the Gallatin Range, another Wilderness Study Area on the Gallatin/Custer National Forest.

    When the Forest Service limits mountain bike use, the mountain bikers scream that they are being denied access to public lands. On the contrary, most trails currently used by mountain bikers are available to anyone to walk. The only thing that is being closed is access to their machines (bikes). Most of these users are in better than average physical condition.

    While there are local and regional mountain biking advocacy groups as well the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) all promoting more mountain bike access and trail construction, there is virtually no push back from conservation groups. I am not aware of a single employee of any conservation group whose sole responsibility is to monitor mountain bike use in proposed wilderness areas and to provide push back and support to public lands managers who might want to limit mountain biking in these areas.

    I believe if mountain biking isn’t controlled and contained just as motorized ORV use has been limited, we will find it nearly impossible to designate any new wilderness areas.

    Indeed, some of the more aggressive mountain bikers are even seeking to scuttle the prohibition on mountain biking in designated wilderness, which will open the door to a host of other interests to argue they too should be given access to the these lands. In a sense mountain biking, to use a cliché, is the camel’s nose under the tent.

    Mountain biking is part of the outdoor recreation industry that is more about physical exercise, challenging one’s prowess on a machine and use of our public lands as outdoor gymnasiums than about appreciation of natural systems and/or protecting the ecological integrity of the landscape. It’s about speed and domination.

    Challenging oneself isn’t necessarily bad. We all, I think, enjoy challenges. And mountain biking is great fun. I ride my bike regularly on trails specifically designed for mountain bike use.

    However, we must recognize that unlimited access to public lands whether by extractive industry like logging, mining or livestock grazing or recreational users, can threaten the wildlife and ecological whole of the land.

    We have so few landscapes specifically set aside to preserve ecological integrity that we must make protection of natural function a primary function. This is an idea that seems foreign to many mountain bikers, just as it seems incomprehensible to many motorized recreationists or a smaller sub-set of bird watchers, hikers and backpacker.

    In the end, we must accept limits. One of the lessons one teaches young children as a parent is the need for restrictions on behavior. You can’t always get what you want, but you can get what you need. Far too many mountain bikers remind me of spoiled children who put on a tantrum when they are told that no they can’t do something.

    I may be optimistic, but I am hoping to see a maturing of the mountain biking culture. After all you don’t need to bike in roadless lands to get an adrenaline high. You do need to consider one’s impacts on other people and critters.

    We need wild places for a host of reason, including protecting sensitive wildlife, ecological processes, and scenic beauty. But perhaps one of the most important reasons for creating wilderness areas is that it teaches us humility and self-limits. These are lessons the mountain biking community could use.

    George Wuerthner has published 36 books including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. He serves on the board of the Western Watersheds Project.

    ...

    This was an excerpt from Fox News, right ?

  10. #110
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    5,177
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    I think that's the point of all this: Local decision making, on a case by case basis. Some trails will never accommodate bikes for various science based and social based reasons. But in your case, if you have a mtb-friendly District Ranger or Forest Supervisor, he or she may decide that section of the PCT can be used by mt. bikers from (e.g.) Oct. 1st until its buried in snow (or something like that). What this does is provides some reasonable, seasonal access... puts some self-policing duties on the mtb community from those who do not want to lose that seasonal access... enables some research to be conducted... and brings mt. bikers to the trail maintenance party once Winter moves along.
    Name:  latest.jpeg
Views: 314
Size:  15.8 KB
    Right?

    -F
    It's never easier - you just go faster.

  11. #111
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    I think that's the point of all this: Local decision making, on a case by case basis. Some trails will never accommodate bikes for various science based and social based reasons. But in your case, if you have a mtb-friendly District Ranger or Forest Supervisor, he or she may decide that section of the PCT can be used by mt. bikers from (e.g.) Oct. 1st until its buried in snow (or something like that). What this does is provides some reasonable, seasonal access... puts some self-policing duties on the mtb community from those who do not want to lose that seasonal access... enables some research to be conducted... and brings mt. bikers to the trail maintenance party once Winter moves along.
    I'm not sure how we would effectively police ourselves. Some guys are going to go as fast as they can, ride through mud, ride off-trail, and not yield to others no matter how many signs are posted. I think one of the reasons so many trail users in Central Oregon have been able to function around one another is because we're mostly segregated. Equestrians go to their favorite areas, OHV users to theirs, MTBers to ours, and hikers to theirs. A group of racers in team kit blasting around a corner on the PCT into a group of backpackers with heavy packs could end really poorly. Mostly though, I don't want to see Wilderness sold off for privatization.

  12. #112
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    5,177
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    DECEMBER 16, 2016

    Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?

    by GEORGE WUERTHNER



    ...
    Just wow.
    For one, I had no idea that I was still under 40 y.o.
    For two, I had no idea I was an outlaw.
    For three, we've been trying for years to attract the under-30 demographic to our MTB club. Thanks so much for solving that for us. I didn't even realize you were working on it. How did you do it?

    Or maybe, just maybe, things are different outside of your own backyard.

    -F
    It's never easier - you just go faster.

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BumpityBump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by norton55 View Post
    This thread was over 24 hours ago. Time to move on.
    Not really. You wanted to play the "water bible" I set up sediment removal sampling protocols blah blah blah hand as though nobody else could have commentary. That's weaksauce really. We are talking about much more than impacts in logged out forests and marijuana grow operations. By the way, what analytes are you looking at for sediment removal protocols?

    I'm personal friends with one of the authors of the River Continuum Concept (PM sent if you need to verify my credentials). You should understand the importance of that work, obviously, if you are doing watershed restoration related to logging. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to see mountain bikers in Wilderness. That being said, he's a horseman, so go figure (just being forthcoming in my argument). We are not talking logged out National Forest here.

    Trying to end debate on a subject based on pretending all should follow you because of your authority status is a pretty weak way to validate your argument IMO.

    (edited for clarity on sediment sampling vs turbidity comment made in my initial response)
    Last edited by BumpityBump; 05-15-2017 at 11:26 PM.

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cookieMonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    DECEMBER 16, 2016

    Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?

    by GEORGE WUERTHNER

    A comparable conflict is being precipitated on the Lewis and Clark National Forest in Montana where mountain bikers are regularly riding in a wilderness study areas like the Big Snowy Mountains. Similarly, mountain bikers regularly ride in the Gallatin Range, another Wilderness Study Area on the Gallatin/Custer National Forest.


    ...
    You quoted an author who has no idea what he's talking about. A very large portion of the Gallatin range is non-wilderness and LEGAL to ride. The Gallatin crest area is/was designated wilderness-study area and only fairly recently has been "managed as wilderness." Mountain bikers from the 80s and 90s (including myself) rode that area legally without causing a single problem. That area is so remote, most people would not venture that far even if it was legal today. Utter ******** that it is closed now...

    Furthermore -- The Big Snowy mountains are so far from a major population area that the impacts of any mountain biking are negligible -- legally ridden or not.

    To address the topic at hand though -- it's about time something is done about the wilderness act and senseless segregation of users. I'm not sure I agree with a blanket opening of WAs to biking, but at least we should open the door to more local discretion.
    Bikes belong in Wilderness areas.

  15. #115
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by cookieMonster View Post
    I'm not sure I agree with a blanket opening of WAs to biking, but at least we should open the door to more local discretion.
    No one has ever advocated for a "blanket opening." STC certainly has not. I don't understand why this keeps coming up as a concern.

    From a recent STC press release:

    A few people are concerned the House of Representatives version of the legislation, H.R. 1349, doesn’t give agency officials a say in when and where we could mountain bike. Actually, it doesn’t address the issue at all and leaves intact agency regulations that do give officials full authority to manage trail uses. So there’d be no blanket opening and a land manager could choose to keep the no-bike signs. However, we are conferring with the House bill sponsor and the legislation may address this concern in an amended version. Whether it’s amended or not, rest assured your local federal land managers will retain complete power to say yes or no to mountain biking. The Senate bill, S.3205 (2016), makes this explicit in the language, so if that version passes it’s not even a theoretical concern.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BumpityBump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by BumpityBump View Post
    Trying to end debate on a subject based on pretending all should follow you because of your authority status is a pretty weak way to validate your argument IMO.
    Not much time to post today, but thought I should poke fun at myself a little this morning and say others on here might accuse me of doing the same thing as what I accused norton55 of. Plus I wanted to beat them to the punch just in case, ha!

    The difference is I'm all about the debate part and the rights of others to express their opinions.

    Carry on!

  17. #117
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Are you guys really wanting to ban hikers or were you just being snarky?
    I'm for banning horses and pack animals because the erosion caused by them is on par with OHVs. Whether mountain bikes are included with hiking isn't my biggest concern, but I see allowing horses as widely asymmetrical as far as the impacts. If wilderness areas (existing) were limited to on-foot travel I wouldn't be hugely disappointed. This also depends upon not selling out the bulk of forest and BLM land that isn't wilderness.
    "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.

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BumpityBump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    I'm for banning horses and pack animals because the erosion caused by them is on par with OHVs. Whether mountain bikes are included with hiking isn't my biggest concern, but I see allowing horses as widely asymmetrical as far as the impacts. If wilderness areas (existing) were limited to on-foot travel I wouldn't be hugely disappointed. This also depends upon not selling out the bulk of forest and BLM land that isn't wilderness.
    Good post.

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,075
    Not allowing wheelbarrows and chainsaws? Thats just crazy. How does one do trail work? Tree removal from wind, pest and fire issues?

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,513
    Tungsten=Mike Vandeman?
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Mostly though, I don't want to see Wilderness sold off for privatization.
    Could you please explain this further in the context of bike access?
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jimbowho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    857
    Through lifes struggles I have always been able to go have fun which included skateboarding, desert racing, mtn-bike, shooting, and there is always a large group of anti this and anti that crowd. To me they are just lifes Bogey's like a virus that won't go away unless you get real serious with them. They cannot be spoke with, talk to, there is no chance of a discussion that makes sense in their zombie brain. They are like the Terminator, it's all they know, they won't stop, they are a machine.

    My buddies and I we're eating at a restaurant on Ventura Boulevard in California at a very green place. On the wall it said 500 Acres of rainforest is being destroyed every second. We pulled out the calculator and I can't remember but it was close to 3 weeks and the entire Earth would be destroyed according to this propaganda. My point is they the green people just make stuff up.

    I have been through all this in the past. S7 S11 it's endless. I hung with the Sahara Club, not to be mistaken for Sierra. I went to Senator hearings in LA, Bishop etc and tried speaking with these freaks. They are zombies and again they cannot be spoke with.

    They. Greenpeace, Sierra, Earth First, Forest Service, BLM. (They're on the same team) play tricks. They will close an area down for a speckled frog for a 2 year lame lying test to see if they are really out there. But then never do anything and it never gets opened again.

    In the eighties there was a video of Earth firsters sitting around a rock crying and apologizing to The Rock and talking to the trees actually crying. This is what we are dealing with people. We might have a shot at responsible Recreation but we will never have a shot at talking to these type of people.

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    48
    Great point Jimbo "They. Greenpeace, Sierra, Earth First, Forest Service, BLM. (They're on the same team) play tricks."

    So very true, they are all such liars, with falsehood and mendacity as tools of their trade. And their goal is transparent, they want CONTROL, and they will lie and deceive at every turn to get it. Saul Alinsky and Marxist playbook.

  24. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    477
    jimbo-Thank you . Exactly my experience for the last 30 years of participation in this fight.

  25. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by Jammor View Post
    Great point Jimbo "They. Greenpeace, Sierra, Earth First, Forest Service, BLM. (They're on the same team) play tricks."

    So very true, they are all such liars, with falsehood and mendacity as tools of their trade. And their goal is transparent, they want CONTROL, and they will lie and deceive at every turn to get it. Saul Alinsky and Marxist playbook.
    Because their mentors Alinsky, Marx and the like preach "end justifies the means".
    They toss ethics and the truth aside to achieve their goal. MTB's were lumped into the same user group as Moto, Hunters, 4WD enthusiasts. MTB crowd HATES this fact and have been eating their own trying to escape the label. It will never happen. They HATE MTB riders the same as the others mentioned. Somehow equestrians ride in a grey area of acceptability. Probably due to monied interests more than anything else.

  26. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    349
    Why do we have to bring the crying hippies into this? https://youtu.be/G880gxjj9dI

  27. #127
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by jimbowho View Post
    ...
    They. Greenpeace, Sierra, Earth First, Forest Service, BLM. (They're on the same team) play tricks...
    .
    Forest Service and BLM on the same team with sierra club and the other domestic terrorist groups? You are sorely mistaken. If anything they are mortal enemies.

    In my experience, FS and BLM are dedicated natural resource professionals trying to do their best for the land and serve the people. They are handcuffed by mutually exclusive federal laws and bad court decisions based on ideology and emotion, not sound science. You do not become a senior manager in those agencies without demonstrating an ability and willingness to balance all the conflicting demands on the land and resources.

    To claim FS and BLM professionals are greedy and power hungry is both absurd and insulting. You owe them an apology.
    So many trails... so little time...

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    635
    The BLM is awesome for mountain biking where I live.

  29. #129
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    DECEMBER 16, 2016

    Is Mountain Biking the Biggest Threat to New Wilderness Designations?

    by GEORGE WUERTHNER

    ...
    A comparable conflict is being precipitated on the Lewis and Clark National Forest in Montana where mountain bikers are regularly riding in a wilderness study areas like the Big Snowy Mountains. Similarly, mountain bikers regularly ride in the Gallatin Range, another Wilderness Study Area on the Gallatin/Custer National Forest.
    ...

    ...
    Lots of errors in there, but that comes with the source. The Big Snowys are not a WSA. The area was considered for Wilderness recommendation in the 1980s, and not proposed. And as cookiemonster pointed out, the Gallatin Crest is a portion of the Gallatin Range. Wuerthner's mind is too disorganized to even address the subject he chose for the title of his own piece.

  30. #130
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,075
    Quote Originally Posted by derekbob View Post
    The BLM is awesome for mountain biking where I live.
    Me too

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    498
    To claim FS and BLM professionals are greedy and power hungry is both absurd and insulting. You owe them an apology.
    The FS is in the employ of big timber and the BLM is owned by cattle ranchers, oil and gas.
    If you don't acknowledge that then maybe it's time to put down the bong.

  32. #132
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    Could you please explain this further in the context of bike access?
    It's based on what I've been reading in my inbox and newsfeed regarding the GOP-controlled Congress' desire to roll back protections on public lands.

    I guess I could spend the time digging up all I've read and posting links but I don't see the point of making that effort here, and honestly this issue falls pretty far down on my scale of important stuff to worry about lately. You can Google "bicycles wilderness" and read if you want.

    Here's an article with local perspective on how it would affect my immediate vicinity:
    Coming to a wilderness area near you: Mountain bikes?; Proposed bill would allow mountain biking in wilderness areas

  33. #133
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    The FS is in the employ of big timber and the BLM is owned by cattle ranchers, oil and gas.
    If you don't acknowledge that then maybe it's time to put down the bong.
    Your head is so far up your ass you can see the back of your own tonsils. You know nothing of how the FS and BLM works, or of private industry. Your claims highlight your total ignorance and bigotry. Stay away from the whacky-doodle conspiracy theory websites that are filling the micro-space between your ears with blathering nonsense.

    First you claim the FS and BLM are in the same bed with environmentalist then claim they are in the pocket of private industry. You cannot even keep your contradictions and inconsistencies straight.
    So many trails... so little time...

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    It's based on what I've been reading in my inbox and newsfeed regarding the GOP-controlled Congress' desire to roll back protections on public lands.
    I think the desire goes well beyond just rolling back protections. They seem bent on selling off our public lands to private interests.

    The sponsors of the bill are no friends of the environment and that is a concern to me as well. It wouldn't be a great surprise if they used mountain bikers for some other agenda and that's something to definitely be alert to. That said, I can support the bill in its current form, but would immediately oppose it if it were changed to suit some other agenda.

    Another concern that I have is that if some Wilderness trails are opened up, then it would seem quite likely that e-mtber's would ride there too.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  35. #135
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    It wouldn't be a great surprise if they used mountain bikers for some other agenda and that's something to definitely be alert to.
    I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but I don't think the people in power give a rat's ass about mountain biking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    Another concern that I have is that if some Wilderness trails are opened up, then it would seem quite likely that e-mtber's would ride there too.
    I'm pretty sure they would, even if we "policed ourselves" and put up a thousand signs.

  36. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    It's based on what I've been reading in my inbox and newsfeed regarding the GOP-controlled Congress' desire to roll back protections on public lands.

    I guess I could spend the time digging up all I've read and posting links but I don't see the point of making that effort here, and honestly this issue falls pretty far down on my scale of important stuff to worry about lately. You can Google "bicycles wilderness" and read if you want.

    Here's an article with local perspective on how it would affect my immediate vicinity:
    Coming to a wilderness area near you: Mountain bikes?; Proposed bill would allow mountain biking in wilderness areas
    The headline is wrong so I didn't read it. That is not what the bill says, it says that the local land manager can choose to allow bikes or not. I assume they would base it on facts. If it's ok, let them in, if not, keep them out.
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  37. #137
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiantsfan View Post
    The headline is wrong so I didn't read it. That is not what the bill says, it says that the local land manager can choose to allow bikes or not. I assume they would base it on facts. If it's ok, let them in, if not, keep them out.
    I think I've replied to this thread, several times that STC has no ties to Oil and Gas or resource extraction in any form. We also don't have any ties to the Trump administration or any efforts to privatize public land.

    You know me (and Jackson too) and know I am entirely focused on cycling. Do you have any ideas on how to convey that STC will only add cycling on a case by case basis to some but not all Wilderness areas? That we have nothing to do with the lies and other malarkey pushed by the Wilderness Society et al?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  38. #138
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    23,604
    Quote Originally Posted by jimbowho View Post
    They. Greenpeace, Sierra, Earth First, Forest Service, BLM. (They're on the same team) play tricks. They will close an area down for a speckled frog for a 2 year lame lying test to see if they are really out there. But then never do anything and it never gets opened again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jammor View Post
    Great point Jimbo "They. Greenpeace, Sierra, Earth First, Forest Service, BLM. (They're on the same team) play tricks."

    So very true, they are all such liars, with falsehood and mendacity as tools of their trade. And their goal is transparent, they want CONTROL, and they will lie and deceive at every turn to get it. Saul Alinsky and Marxist playbook.
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    The FS is in the employ of big timber and the BLM is owned by cattle ranchers, oil and gas.
    If you don't acknowledge that then maybe it's time to put down the bong.
    Good God, you're all idiots. The vast majority of USFS and BLM employees are scientists and managers first. I know many people who work for these (and other) agencies. They get completely fed up with the BS from both the enviro-Nazis as well as big extractive industry types who take advantage. I'm a naturalist at a city parks agency and we're scientists and educators first and see quite a lot of the same stuff. We all fall right between all of the crazy. We try to use sound, established science to do our jobs and butt heads with the crazy on all sides.

    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    Forest Service and BLM on the same team with sierra club and the other domestic terrorist groups? You are sorely mistaken. If anything they are mortal enemies.

    In my experience, FS and BLM are dedicated natural resource professionals trying to do their best for the land and serve the people. They are handcuffed by mutually exclusive federal laws and bad court decisions based on ideology and emotion, not sound science. You do not become a senior manager in those agencies without demonstrating an ability and willingness to balance all the conflicting demands on the land and resources.

    To claim FS and BLM professionals are greedy and power hungry is both absurd and insulting. You owe them an apology.
    This is my exact experience, as well. Some agency staff bring along their own opinions and experience that might run contrary to that, but on the whole, most are professionals first and work hard to balance the realities of the sometimes pretty disparate multiple uses they're required to manage lands under.

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    498
    ...

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    498

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by norton55 View Post
    This thread was over 24 hours ago. Time to move on.
    Agreed. Quite frankly, it was over before it started on this board because nobody is changing anybody's mind on this issue.
    2019 Yeti SB5C
    2018 Intense Tracer
    2017 Intense Primer

  42. #142
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post




    Editorializing isn't presenting facts and they also disabled comments to prohibit any real conversation. I see you're in Canada, you don't even have a dog in this fight or do you?

    What is your hidden agenda?
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  43. #143
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Editorializing isn't presenting facts and they also disabled comments to prohibit any real conversation. I see your in Canada, you don't even have a dog in this fight or do you?

    What is your hidden agenda?
    He's just bitter about all the great cycling trails in the Canadian Wilderness


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  44. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MtbRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,018
    Wow, there is some serious crazy coming out in this thread.
    I drank the 29er koolaid- turns out it was POWERade

  45. #145
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,403
    Bikes have no more impact than hiking in the same trail. From that standpoint there is no reason to exclude them. There is a lot of hate for bikes and it wilderness is huge. It's very unlikely that it going to be overrun with crazy kids on there bike.
    Horses and cows create a massive amount of damage especially after a rain.

  46. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jimbowho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    857
    Harold. You call us idiots, then blather about FS-BLM are scientists and managers? Aren't you the same guy that when someone asks how to tighten a Spoke you go on and on and on blathering and blathering with a three page post about how to tighten the spoke? And you call me an idiot? I rarely go after anyone but you have no room to talk. My post was spoken with experience many years of it. You are the idiot

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    A group of racers in team kit blasting around a corner on the PCT into a group of backpackers with heavy packs could end really poorly. Mostly though, I don't want to see Wilderness sold off for privatization.
    How is opening up wilderness areas to mountain biking somehow going to lead to wilderness areas being sold off for privatization?

    Similarly, the crazy article copied and pasted seems to argue that by opening up wilderness areas to mountain biking, all kinds of other users will be allowed access. Why is that necessarily true?

  48. #148
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by kpdemello View Post
    How is opening up wilderness areas to mountain biking somehow going to lead to wilderness areas being sold off for privatization?

    Similarly, the crazy article copied and pasted seems to argue that by opening up wilderness areas to mountain biking, all kinds of other users will be allowed access. Why is that necessarily true?
    Its not true.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  49. #149
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13,010
    Quote Originally Posted by kpdemello View Post
    How is opening up wilderness areas to mountain biking somehow going to lead to wilderness areas being sold off for privatization?

    Similarly, the crazy article copied and pasted seems to argue that by opening up wilderness areas to mountain biking, all kinds of other users will be allowed access. Why is that necessarily true?
    Are you referring to the article that I linked from our local newspaper or the one that someone else copied and pasted?

    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    Its not true.
    Make really damned sure, alright?

  50. #150
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    WILCO Nat. As I already stated in the thread I'd publicly denounce STC and HR 1349 if I found out it did anything other than add cycling access to some but not all Wilderness areas on a case by case basis.

    I assure you all of the board members of STC feel this way. And our conversations with the bills sponsors reflected this viewpoint.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  51. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Are you referring to the article that I linked from our local newspaper or the one that someone else copied and pasted?
    The one someone else copied and pasted.

    It seems to me that adding mountain bikers to your user groups would add a group of people with substantial resources who would vehemently oppose any type of development or access that would jeopardize the ecology of the land. The only thing they ask in return is to be able to ride their human-powered bikes on some trails. Seems like a good trade off and a natural ally for environmentalists.

  52. #152
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13,010
    Quote Originally Posted by kpdemello View Post
    The one someone else copied and pasted.
    You should ask the person who copied and pasted that article.
    Last edited by Nat; 05-17-2017 at 10:53 AM.

  53. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dir-T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,547
    "then blather about FS-BLM are scientists and managers?"

    All of the ones I know certainly are - and I know A LOT of them as they are my clients, friends, and neighbors.

  54. #154
    _CJ
    _CJ is offline
    membership renounced
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,072
    Quote Originally Posted by kpdemello View Post
    It seems to me that adding mountain bikers to your user groups would add a group of people with substantial resources who would vehemently oppose any type of development or access that would jeopardize the ecology of the land. The only thing they ask in return is to be able to ride their human-powered bikes on some trails. Seems like a good trade off and a natural ally for environmentalists.
    Any reasonable person can see the validity of this statement, but we're not dealing with reasonable people. Their opposition to bikes in wilderness has nothing to do with environmental impact, safety, the intent of the authors, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by BumpityBump View Post
    The last thing I want in Wilderness is this new generation of self absorbed disrespectful aholes.

    .

  55. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    879
    I mean, I sort of get where they are coming from. They want to keep their own private playground pristine and free from any uses that might interfere with their own, whether that be hiking, camping, or just staring out the window at it. Really, if there are no scientific reasons for keeping mountain biking out, then the only reason to exclude them is a purely subjective aesthetic.

    It seems to me that people who accuse users like mountain bikers of being self-absorbed, tantrum-throwing, spoiled children are really the ones acting like self-absorbed, spoiled children because they refuse to share their little private playground for no other reason than they don't like to share. I mean, don't get me wrong, if there are legitimate reasons to keep mountain biking out of wilderness areas, I would certainly support it. But we should give up on access to these areas just because some guy feels like we are immature? Get off the high horse, man.

  56. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    498
    Case by case......

    JANUARY 1, 2015

    The Mountain Bike Invasion of Wilderness Areas

    by GEORGE WUERTHNER

    The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) brought some early Christmas presents to the mountain biking community at the expense of wilderness.

    Buried in the Act was a boundary adjustment to the Wheeler Peak Wilderness of New Mexico. The existing boundary had been put into place 50 years ago with the signing of the Wilderness Act. Since mountain biking (and any mechanical advantage) is not permitted in official Wilderness, technically mountain bikes were excluded from the Wheeler Peak Wilderness.

    Approximately a mile of trail was removed from the wilderness protection to allow legal access (mountain bikers had already been illegally using the trail). The deletion of wilderness status allows the creation of a 15 mile long trail, much of it above 10,000 feet, that links the East Fork to Lost Lake and Middle Fork drainages to create what biking enthusiasts describe as a “ripping-fast single track”.

    The change in the wilderness boundary was part of the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness Act that permanently protects 45,000 acres of the Carson National Forest in Northern New Mexico near Taos. The Columbine-Hondo was a wilderness study area since 1980.

    Mountain bikers in the area consider this a small concession to balance out the loss of 75 trails they had been using in the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness Study Area. But that attitude is part of the problem created by the Forest Service’s lax approach to mountain biking in the WSA (as they do nearly everywhere else). Instead of banning bikes from WSAs as they should, the agency allows this incompatible use to flourish, thus creating a constituency that frequently opposes new wilderness designations.

    This was not the only concession to mountain bikers in the NDAA. The proposed boundary of a 22,000 acre addition to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness was also adjusted to accommodate mountain bike use along the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River.

    Similar exclusions and revisions to wilderness proposals in the Hermosa Creek Wilderness in Colorado. The original roadless area was more than 148,000 acres, and for decades conservationists had sought to protect about 100,000 acres as wilderness. However, due to active opposition from mountain bikers, the wilderness boundaries were shrunk to 37,000 keepingwildacres with 70,000 acres being designated a “Special Management Area” to permit mountain biking to continue.

    Mountain biking also played a part in the designation of the 208,000 acre Conservation Management Area in Montana along the Rocky Mountain Front. Much of this area was considered to have the highest wilderness qualities of any lands in the lower 48 states during the Forest Service Roadless Areas Review Evaluation.

    Yet due to opposition to wilderness designation from mountain bikers, along with other interests like ATVs, loggers, ranchers, etc., some of the most outstanding wildlands in the lower 48 will not garner the protection of wilderness designation. The legislation creating the Conservation Management Area also specifically directs the Forest Service to study expanding mountain biking in this area, likely foreclosing forever the opportunity to designate this area as wilderness in the future.

    In the Boulder White Cloud (BWC) proposed wilderness in Idaho, mountain bikers managed to get specific trails that traverse the heart of the range (and wilderness proposal) excluded from any wilderness legislation. Unless this is voided by Congress if and when the BWC obtain some protection, these trails will fragment and diminish the wildlands quality. At least in the BWC, the existing proposal calls for allowing mechanical trail maintenance equipment use like bobcat tractors and of course chain saws.

    Not all mountain bikers are wilderness opponents. Indeed, it tends to be the most aggressive bikers who lead the opposition. Many mountain bikers are content to ride roads and trails outside of any existing or proposed wilderness. As this quote here in a guest commentary in the Denver Post demonstrates, some mountain bikers understand why we need wilderness free of bikes. Dennis Coello, author of “The Complete Mountain Biker,” says, “In this day of man’s increasingly mechanical approach to the outdoors, when thousands experience nature not for what it is through observation but as a playground, there aren’t many places left where one is guaranteed one won’t be run over by a Jeep or snowmobile or mountain bike. Preserving those [wilderness] areas * at the cost of a disgruntled few seems worth the price.”

    I wish more mountain bike organizations shared Coello’s perspective. Unfortunately most leaders for organizations like the International Mountain Biking Association, along with local biking groups, are among the most dedicated and aggressive mountain bikers. This group lobbies ceaselessly to open more public land to mountain bike access. Unless conservationists start organizing soon, we will eventually see far fewer acres being given the gold standard of wilderness protection.

    I do not object to mountain biking as an activity—in appropriate locations. But our remaining wildlands are increasingly under assault from a wide range of impacts—not only the traditional industrial sources like mining, oil/gas, agriculture, ranching, and logging, but also increasingly from a variety of recreation pursuits as well. Wilderness designation is about more than just human recreational opportunities. These lands are places we set aside for the “others”, the creatures that require natural places that are protected from human intrusion and manipulation.

    Wilderness also has symbolic value. These places represent places that we have set aside as a matter of self-restraint and ethical consideration for the rest of Earth’s diversity and lifeforms.

    George Wuerthner is an ecologist who has published 37 books, most recently Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of the Earth.

  57. #157
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    Copy and paste because I am not able to form cohesive trains of thought or use my own words.



    Buh Bye.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  58. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    879
    All those words and not a single one addressed any legitimate reason WHY mountain bikes should be excluded from wilderness. Other than, that is, "I just don't want them on my trails"

  59. #159
    Linoleum Knife
    Reputation: forkboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    Make really damned sure, alright?
    This is the thing for me. It's not about mountain bikes in the wilderness. It's about the ulterior motives behind the legislation. There is no way that the sponsors of this are passing a bill so that a bunch of cyclists can go have a nice time in a previously off-limits area.

    There is more going on here, and it is most likely not in "We The People"s best interest.

  60. #160
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,314
    Quote Originally Posted by kpdemello View Post
    All those words and not a single one addressed any legitimate reason WHY mountain bikes should be excluded from wilderness. Other than, that is, "I just don't want them on my trails"
    But, they're "aggressive", man.

  61. #161
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by forkboy View Post
    This is the thing for me. It's not about mountain bikes in the wilderness. It's about the ulterior motives behind the legislation. There is no way that the sponsors of this are passing a bill so that a bunch of cyclists can go have a nice time in a previously off-limits area.

    There is more going on here, and it is most likely not in "We The People"s best interest.
    So are you saying that the board members of STC are in on it? Just wondering because I am one...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  62. #162
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,403
    Who lets these crazy F$%# tards on the site. It's just like the protesters at soldiers funerals, no reasoning with them. The best bet is to fight them at every turn as they don't have a rational bone in there body's. We are the enemy and it's war.

  63. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    I think I've replied to this thread, several times that STC has no ties to Oil and Gas or resource extraction in any form. We also don't have any ties to the Trump administration or any efforts to privatize public land.

    You know me (and Jackson too) and know I am entirely focused on cycling. Do you have any ideas on how to convey that STC will only add cycling on a case by case basis to some but not all Wilderness areas? That we have nothing to do with the lies and other malarkey pushed by the Wilderness Society et al?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I wish I did have some ideas on how to stop these lies, especially when it is other mountain bikers spreading them. I know you and Jackson are all about cycling and would never support a bill that would harm Wilderness, that is the main reason I support STC
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  64. #164
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    Mountain biking also played a part in the designation of the 208,000 acre Conservation Management Area in Montana along the Rocky Mountain Front. Much of this area was considered to have the highest wilderness qualities of any lands in the lower 48 states during the Forest Service Roadless Areas Review Evaluation.

    Yet due to opposition to wilderness designation from mountain bikers, along with other interests like ATVs, loggers, ranchers, etc., some of the most outstanding wildlands in the lower 48 will not garner the protection of wilderness designation. The legislation creating the Conservation Management Area also specifically directs the Forest Service to study expanding mountain biking in this area, likely foreclosing forever the opportunity to designate this area as wilderness in the future.
    Mountain Bikers Seek to Gut Wilderness Act-3f93307a5b547c933747af83d6888997_nope-lana-memes-quickmeme-lana-meme-nope_474-634.jpeg

    Wow, who knew that mountain bikers had such pull?

    That study was a fig leaf - a useless paper exercise with no effect on any future Wilderness or potential for expanded MTB opportunities.

  65. #165
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13,010
    Quote Originally Posted by forkboy View Post
    This is the thing for me. It's not about mountain bikes in the wilderness. It's about the ulterior motives behind the legislation. There is no way that the sponsors of this are passing a bill so that a bunch of cyclists can go have a nice time in a previously off-limits area.

    There is more going on here, and it is most likely not in "We The People"s best interest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    So are you saying that the board members of STC are in on it? Just wondering because I am one...
    I'm guessing he's referring to Congress rather than you guys.

    Rep. Tom McClintock is the sponsor of HR 1349 and his voting record hasn't been pro-environment.

    Last year Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch sponsored the Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Act, and neither of them have voted pro-environment either.

    I think that's where everyone's (or at least my) suspicions come from. Can you put my mind at ease?

  66. #166
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,887
    Will this help anyone else understand McClintock's thoughts about public access to public land?

    http://youtu.be/RxHnSWzxZ44

    I'm in McClintock's district. Other than voting in favor of the Boulder white clouds wilderness (Not in my district ) he has stepped up/ supported mountain bikers at least four times that I can think of.

    He may not be your first, second, or third choice for sponsoring this legislation, but he's who we have and I'm comfortable with him and happy he's doing it. If you want to make sure your issues are addressed in this bill, you better be contacting your local representative and asking him or her to cosponsor this bill.

  67. #167
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Thanks Empty Beer


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  68. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    I'm guessing he's referring to Congress rather than you guys.

    Rep. Tom McClintock is the sponsor of HR 1349 and his voting record hasn't been pro-environment.

    Last year Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch sponsored the Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Act, and neither of them have voted pro-environment either.

    I think that's where everyone's (or at least my) suspicions come from. Can you put my mind at ease?
    It's a good question. Do these guys get campaign contributions or some other benefit from mountain biking groups? Money is the traditional means of influencing politicians, after all.

  69. #169
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,887
    ^ OFFS

  70. #170
    _CJ
    _CJ is offline
    membership renounced
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Nat View Post
    I'm guessing he's referring to Congress rather than you guys.

    Rep. Tom McClintock is the sponsor of HR 1349 and his voting record hasn't been pro-environment.

    Last year Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch sponsored the Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Act, and neither of them have voted pro-environment either.

    I think that's where everyone's (or at least my) suspicions come from. Can you put my mind at ease?
    A better question might by why the "saviors of the left" aren't introducing this legislation. If you're so quick to question the supposed ulterior motives of the people trying to help you, why aren't questioning those who continue to slam the door in your face?

    The legislation says what it says. To use super secret back room conspiracy theories as justification for opposition to the efforts makes you look like a brainwashed idiot who watches CNN too much.

    Read the bill. Support it if you agree with it. Argue against it if you don't. But in the name of all that is holy and right, stop with the conspiracy theory fear mongering. None of those doomsday scenarios are going to happen, and if somebody were going to try to make them happen, I'm willing to bet they'd have the full opposition of mountain bikers. Why the wilder-nuts continue to throw stones and alienate a large group of people who would otherwise support them really defies logic.


    .

  71. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BumpityBump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by _CJ View Post
    A better question might by why the "saviors of the left" aren't introducing this legislation. If you're so quick to question the supposed ulterior motives of the people trying to help you, why aren't questioning those who continue to slam the door in your face?
    The "trying to help you" portion of your post implies that all avid mountain bikers want access to Wilderness via bicycle. That's a false assumption.

    Why propose legislation for alternative access if a large share of your constituent group isn't interested in that type of access? Makes no sense.

    I'm no proponent of large scale liberal hippy idiocy either, just to clarify.

  72. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,513
    Tungsten = Mike Vandeman (sp?).

    I think we're being baited here.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  73. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,513
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    Case by case......

    JANUARY 1, 2015

    The Mountain Bike Invasion of Wilderness Areas

    by GEORGE WUERTHNER

    The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) brought some early Christmas presents to the mountain biking community at the expense of wilderness.

    Buried in the Act was a boundary adjustment to the Wheeler Peak Wilderness of New Mexico. The existing boundary had been put into place 50 years ago with the signing of the Wilderness Act. Since mountain biking (and any mechanical advantage) is not permitted in official Wilderness, technically mountain bikes were excluded from the Wheeler Peak Wilderness.

    Approximately a mile of trail was removed from the wilderness protection to allow legal access (mountain bikers had already been illegally using the trail). The deletion of wilderness status allows the creation of a 15 mile long trail, much of it above 10,000 feet, that links the East Fork to Lost Lake and Middle Fork drainages to create what biking enthusiasts describe as a “ripping-fast single track”.

    The change in the wilderness boundary was part of the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness Act that permanently protects 45,000 acres of the Carson National Forest in Northern New Mexico near Taos. The Columbine-Hondo was a wilderness study area since 1980.

    Mountain bikers in the area consider this a small concession to balance out the loss of 75 trails they had been using in the Columbine-Hondo Wilderness Study Area. But that attitude is part of the problem created by the Forest Service’s lax approach to mountain biking in the WSA (as they do nearly everywhere else). Instead of banning bikes from WSAs as they should, the agency allows this incompatible use to flourish, thus creating a constituency that frequently opposes new wilderness designations.

    This was not the only concession to mountain bikers in the NDAA. The proposed boundary of a 22,000 acre addition to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness was also adjusted to accommodate mountain bike use along the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River.

    Similar exclusions and revisions to wilderness proposals in the Hermosa Creek Wilderness in Colorado. The original roadless area was more than 148,000 acres, and for decades conservationists had sought to protect about 100,000 acres as wilderness. However, due to active opposition from mountain bikers, the wilderness boundaries were shrunk to 37,000 keepingwildacres with 70,000 acres being designated a “Special Management Area” to permit mountain biking to continue.

    Mountain biking also played a part in the designation of the 208,000 acre Conservation Management Area in Montana along the Rocky Mountain Front. Much of this area was considered to have the highest wilderness qualities of any lands in the lower 48 states during the Forest Service Roadless Areas Review Evaluation.

    Yet due to opposition to wilderness designation from mountain bikers, along with other interests like ATVs, loggers, ranchers, etc., some of the most outstanding wildlands in the lower 48 will not garner the protection of wilderness designation. The legislation creating the Conservation Management Area also specifically directs the Forest Service to study expanding mountain biking in this area, likely foreclosing forever the opportunity to designate this area as wilderness in the future.

    In the Boulder White Cloud (BWC) proposed wilderness in Idaho, mountain bikers managed to get specific trails that traverse the heart of the range (and wilderness proposal) excluded from any wilderness legislation. Unless this is voided by Congress if and when the BWC obtain some protection, these trails will fragment and diminish the wildlands quality. At least in the BWC, the existing proposal calls for allowing mechanical trail maintenance equipment use like bobcat tractors and of course chain saws.

    Not all mountain bikers are wilderness opponents. Indeed, it tends to be the most aggressive bikers who lead the opposition. Many mountain bikers are content to ride roads and trails outside of any existing or proposed wilderness. As this quote here in a guest commentary in the Denver Post demonstrates, some mountain bikers understand why we need wilderness free of bikes. Dennis Coello, author of “The Complete Mountain Biker,” says, “In this day of man’s increasingly mechanical approach to the outdoors, when thousands experience nature not for what it is through observation but as a playground, there aren’t many places left where one is guaranteed one won’t be run over by a Jeep or snowmobile or mountain bike. Preserving those [wilderness] areas * at the cost of a disgruntled few seems worth the price.”

    I wish more mountain bike organizations shared Coello’s perspective. Unfortunately most leaders for organizations like the International Mountain Biking Association, along with local biking groups, are among the most dedicated and aggressive mountain bikers. This group lobbies ceaselessly to open more public land to mountain bike access. Unless conservationists start organizing soon, we will eventually see far fewer acres being given the gold standard of wilderness protection.

    I do not object to mountain biking as an activity—in appropriate locations. But our remaining wildlands are increasingly under assault from a wide range of impacts—not only the traditional industrial sources like mining, oil/gas, agriculture, ranching, and logging, but also increasingly from a variety of recreation pursuits as well. Wilderness designation is about more than just human recreational opportunities. These lands are places we set aside for the “others”, the creatures that require natural places that are protected from human intrusion and manipulation.

    Wilderness also has symbolic value. These places represent places that we have set aside as a matter of self-restraint and ethical consideration for the rest of Earth’s diversity and lifeforms.

    George Wuerthner is an ecologist who has published 37 books, most recently Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of the Earth.
    This opinion appears to be predicated upon a false assumption that mountain bikes cause harm to Wilderness and that we should continue to lose access based upon this perceived harm. It would appear that the author uses inflammatory language to insinuate that bikes are similar to ATVs, dirt bikes, and loggers in our impact.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  74. #174
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    Tungsten = Mike Vandeman (sp?).

    I think we're being baited here.



    I posted that same conclusion early on. I also spoke of Trojan Horses in a motorbike thread and there seems to be a couple of them in this thread. Not all alleged "Mountain Bikers" are on our side.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  75. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    498
    Tungsten = Mike Vandeman (sp?).
    Nope. Spent 25 years in the paint/fabrication shops of a major Cdn. mtn. bike manufacturer.

  76. #176
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    Nope. Spent 25 years in the paint/fabrication shops of a major Cdn. mtn. bike manufacturer.
    It's kind of odd you have focused so much energy on the one country in North America that does not allow cycling on Wilderness trails.

    Canada and Mexico have reasonable access policies and less issues with multi use. Does that make you upset?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  77. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    ^ OFFS
    What? It's a valid question. Why would a legislator care mountain biking access? I imagine the groups who advocate for it make up a pretty small percentage of their constituency.

  78. #178
    Nat
    Nat is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    13,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    Will this help anyone else understand McClintock's thoughts about public access to public land?

    http://youtu.be/RxHnSWzxZ44

    I'm in McClintock's district. Other than voting in favor of the Boulder white clouds wilderness (Not in my district ) he has stepped up/ supported mountain bikers at least four times that I can think of.

    He may not be your first, second, or third choice for sponsoring this legislation, but he's who we have and I'm comfortable with him and happy he's doing it. If you want to make sure your issues are addressed in this bill, you better be contacting your local representative and asking him or her to cosponsor this bill.
    Thanks. I'll watch the video when I can.

    Edit: I watched the video.
    Last edited by Nat; 05-17-2017 at 07:52 PM.

  79. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    303
    Could it be as simple as they aren't fans of the federal govt limiting access by the public to public lands? Nobody is asking you to support their campaigns for re-election. Read the bill, if you agree with it, send your support for the bill to your reps.
    Anthem Advanced
    ECR

  80. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by BumpityBump View Post
    I completely disagree with blanket access to Wilderness Areas by bikes. I already access Wilderness a lot, on foot. If you want to access Wilderness, shoulder a pack. Mountain bikers seem to be becoming as self righteous as the motor crowd, sad. (cue horse argument, yawn)
    Sorry but if you are accessing Wilderness Areas with a pack, you are almost assuredly doing so while wearing footwear, yes?

    If so you are breaking the law if read in the same light that it is read in to ban bicycles, ie transportation using a mechanical advantage. Shoes are ramps and the soles provide rebound, mechanical transportation.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

  81. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by Spec44 View Post
    Could it be as simple as they aren't fans of the federal govt limiting access by the public to public lands? Nobody is asking you to support their campaigns for re-election. Read the bill, if you agree with it, send your support for the bill to your reps.
    I do agree with the bill, I am just curious as to why politicians would sponsor it. I did watch the video posted by Empty_Beer. It was a nice speech. I want to believe that the legislator is sincerely interested in his constituents concerns, but experience has taught me to question such notions.

    Let me be clear - I really wouldn't have an issue with MTB groups that I give money to giving money to politicians that support our causes. While I find the notion of giving money to politicians to get something done to be deplorable as a citizen, I have also had enough experience in politics to realize that it is, in many ways, a pay-to-play system. Unfortunately.

    So my question is, does STC and the IMBA and other groups donate to political campaigns? I'm guessing no, but perhaps they have an influence the way many groups do - by telling their members which politicians support their causes, and thereby helping these politicians get re-elected. Again, I'm just curious about the motivations of the legislators.

  82. #182
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by kpdemello View Post
    I do agree with the bill, I am just curious as to why politicians would sponsor it. I did watch the video posted by Empty_Beer. It was a nice speech. I want to believe that the legislator is sincerely interested in his constituents concerns, but experience has taught me to question such notions.

    Let me be clear - I really wouldn't have an issue with MTB groups that I give money to giving money to politicians that support our causes. While I find the notion of giving money to politicians to get something done to be deplorable as a citizen, I have also had enough experience in politics to realize that it is, in many ways, a pay-to-play system. Unfortunately.

    So my question is, does STC and the IMBA and other groups donate to political campaigns? I'm guessing no, but perhaps they have an influence the way many groups do - by telling their members which politicians support their causes, and thereby helping these politicians get re-elected. Again, I'm just curious about the motivations of the legislators.



    What are the political motivations behind locking out a significant user group out of huge swaths of public lands?

    Which organizations are contributing money to politicians that oppose mountain bikers? Which corporations are funding the opposition? We may be surprised to find out the answers of which of our favorite outdoor companies are helping to fund the opposition.

    If you support this effort, contact your representatives in Congress and let them know you do. Kicking a few ducats to the S.T.C. wouldn't hurt either.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  83. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,075
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    Nope. Spent 25 years in the paint/fabrication shops of a major Cdn. mtn. bike manufacturer.
    Canada? Ya got no skin n the game here.

  84. #184
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,887
    As far as I can tell, McClintock introduced the bill because A) STC's lobbyist met, educated and followed up with his DC staff again and again; B) many mt bikers in his district wrote letters/emails and made phone calls to his office; C) a dozen mt bikers in his district met with him in his Roseville, CA office to discuss (he revealed at that meeting he was going to introduce the bill); and D) this issue is in his sweet spot for helping the public enjoy public lands responsibly. He's also been good to mt biking issues locally.

    He's doing this because his constituents (after a lobbyist set the table) helped him understand that this is an important enough issue to pursue legislation. It helps that he's not afraid of his Sierra Club constituents. This is common sense legislation, despite the fear mongering its opponents are throwing at him.

    To think that anyone paid him money to do this is ridiculous.

  85. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    879
    That all sounds good, Beer, and that kind of thing can certainly move a politician to act.

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    To think that anyone paid him money to do this is ridiculous.
    Really? Do you know how many special interest groups (of which MTB groups are one) donate to campaigns? I work in an industry that is heavily involved in politics. I had a boss who used to require me to show up at fundraisers and write checks to political candidates that I didn't really support. I didn't like it, but if I wanted my bonus check at the end of the year, I had to show up and write a check.

    Do you think the politicians he supported actually picked up the phone when he called? You're damn right they did.

  86. #186
    Linoleum Knife
    Reputation: forkboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    So are you saying that the board members of STC are in on it? Just wondering because I am one...
    Well, I don't know you, now do I?

    You could be anywhere from a naive but well meaning fool to a malicious participant with your own agenda.

    McClintock does not appear to have any history as a friend to the environment.

    Look into the background of the people you are getting into bed with. Just because they say the words you want to hear doesn't mean they are working in your interest.

    Tom McClintock (R-CA) U.S. House | MapLight - Money and Politics
    Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) U.S. Senate | MapLight - Money and Politics
    Mike Lee (R-UT) U.S. Senate | MapLight - Money and Politics

    So you have a combination of Real Estate, Logging operations and Oil & Gas development.

    Tell us again how this is simply about bicycles in the wilderness.

  87. #187
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,887
    Well shit, that sounds a lot easier than trying to build a grassroots effort! We didn't even need to pay a lobbyist! ! Let's all start writing checks to Bernie Sanders and get this legislation passed!

  88. #188
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by forkboy View Post
    Well, I don't know you, now do I?

    You could be anywhere from a naive but well meaning fool to a malicious participant with your own agenda.

    McClintock does not appear to have any history as a friend to the environment.

    Look into the background of the people you are getting into bed with. Just because they say the words you want to hear doesn't mean they are working in your interest.
    So I'm either naive (and trying to destroy the Wilderness act) or I'm being malicious (and trying to destroy the Wilderness act)?

    You're not leaving me with any good options here and it seems that you have decided our bill is bad. Likely due to falsehoods pushed by the Wilderness Society.

    I'm also guessing that you didn't see that McClintock voted for Wilderness areas in the past? For someone who has never done something for the environment?

    I can't really address things that don't exist and I don't think I can convince you if you choose to look at the world with such a narrow perspective.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  89. #189
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by forkboy View Post
    Well, I don't know you, now do I?

    You could be anywhere from a naive but well meaning fool to a malicious participant with your own agenda.

    McClintock does not appear to have any history as a friend to the environment.

    Look into the background of the people you are getting into bed with. Just because they say the words you want to hear doesn't mean they are working in your interest.
    Holy crap! Now there's a conspiracy theory about Davey?!? Mt bikers are amazing....

    Forkboy- If you support the notion of ending the blanket ban, please share with all of us the names of the Congress people you have contacted yourself (the ones you feel super comfortable about with regard to environment) and what their response was, if any. Thanks.

  90. #190
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    Holy crap! Now there's a conspiracy theory about Davey?!? Mt bikers are amazing....

    Forkboy- If you support the notion of ending the blanket ban, please share with all of us the names of the Congress people you have contacted yourself (the ones you feel super comfortable about with regard to environment) and what their response was, if any. Thanks.
    I feel like I've finally made it I'm finally someone important enough for an omnipotent conspiracy theory. My life is now complete.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  91. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    Well shit, that sounds a lot easier than trying to build a grassroots effort! We didn't even need to pay a lobbyist! ! Let's all start writing checks to Bernie Sanders and get this legislation passed!
    You're acting like it's not a legitimate question. All kinds of groups donate to campaigns in various ways to influence politicians.

    I did a bit of checking and found out the STC is a 501(c)(4) which prohibits them from directly donating to campaigns. Saying something like that would have been an easy, respectful response, but instead you decided to be snarky.

    Are you upset because your beer is empty? 'cuz I'm just some guy on a forum asking questions.

  92. #192
    Linoleum Knife
    Reputation: forkboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Davey Simon View Post
    So I'm either naive (and trying to destroy the Wilderness act) or I'm being malicious (and trying to destroy the Wilderness act)?

    You're not leaving me with any good options here and it seems that you have decided our bill is bad. Likely due to falsehoods pushed by the Wilderness Society.

    I'm also guessing that you didn't see that McClintock voted for Wilderness areas in the past? For someone who has never done something for the environment?

    I can't really address things that don't exist and I don't think I can convince you if you choose to look at the world with such a narrow perspective.
    Maybe you are. I don't know.

    Is it a narrow perspective? It's a different perspective.

    Why would a politician spend the time, energy and money to create a bill that allows bicycles in the wilderness?

    Is he a cyclist?
    Are a large base of his constituents cyclists?
    Are large funders of his campaign cyclists?

    No? Then why? Who benefits if not him?

  93. #193
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by forkboy View Post

    Who benefits if not him?




    Cyclists benefit. Isn't that enough?
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  94. #194
    Linoleum Knife
    Reputation: forkboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,324
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Cyclists benefit. Isn't that enough?
    We can't think like that anymore.

  95. #195
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by kpdemello View Post
    You're acting like it's not a legitimate question. All kinds of groups donate to campaigns in various ways to influence politicians.

    I did a bit of checking and found out the STC is a 501(c)(4) which prohibits them from directly donating to campaigns. Saying something like that would have been an easy, respectful response, but instead you decided to be snarky.

    Are you upset because your beer is empty? 'cuz I'm just some guy on a forum asking questions.
    I'm simply exhausted with reading conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about being able to ride bikes in the backcountry once in a while. It is no more complex than that. Its tough enough to get mountain bikers to join IMBA or their local advocacy organization... and now you are spreading FUD about dark money mt. bikers are feeding McClintock so that he'll end up raping and pillaging our Wilderness areas.

  96. #196
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,770
    Quote Originally Posted by forkboy View Post
    We can't think like that anymore.



    We can however begin the reclamation of what really is ours in the first place. The HOHA's trade in Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas as political currency. That's the real disgrace yet none of you wish to acknowledge the dirty dealing that the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society and Friends Of The Forest have brought to bear. Wilderness, bought and paid for by the highest bidders.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  97. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,075
    If it's really so wild, how will folks know if we pedal there or not? MA rider here, not so much wilderness near me, maybe some in the White mountains of NH? Not that I advocate breaking the law or such. Wouldn't be the first time an act of civil disobedience sought some justice in the eyes of the public.

  98. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    879
    Here is a handy map:

    Wilderness.net - U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System Map

    I, too, am from MA and there are no wildernesses in our little state. Some in NH and VT, but looks like mostly a left coast thing. I would not recommend the civil disobedience thing though because it reinforces the whole MTBers are irresponsible argument. But then, it's easy for me to say because it doesn't much affect me. If I lived over on the left side, though, I'd probably be really annoyed by the blanket ban.

  99. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bakerjw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by BumpityBump View Post
    I completely disagree with blanket access to Wilderness Areas by bikes. I already access Wilderness a lot, on foot. If you want to access Wilderness, shoulder a pack. Mountain bikers seem to be becoming as self righteous as the motor crowd, sad. (cue horse argument, yawn)
    the problem is that a bureaucrat, in one fell swoop, will designate an area as wilderness even though there are roads or maintained trails through it. When that happens, bikepackers lose all access. It has happened and will continue to happen.

    I am not for unfettered access everywhere. There are a lot of places where bikes don't belong. Horses too for that matter. What most of this legislation does is put access decisions back into the hands of the land managers.

    They are expanding a wilderness area where I ride a lot. I can't get an explanation of the intended expansion but if it is to the South East, then one of the major USFS roads will be off limits to bikepackers.
    Help chart the mountains at www.appalachianbiketrails.org

  100. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by bakerjw View Post
    the problem is that a bureaucrat, in one fell swoop, will designate an area as wilderness even though there are roads or maintained trails through it. When that happens, bikepackers lose all access. It has happened and will continue to happen.

    I am not for unfettered access everywhere. There are a lot of places where bikes don't belong. Horses too for that matter. What most of this legislation does is put access decisions back into the hands of the land managers.

    They are expanding a wilderness area where I ride a lot. I can't get an explanation of the intended expansion but if it is to the South East, then one of the major USFS roads will be off limits to bikepackers.
    Hikers are using mechanized transportation as well, well all but the barefoot ones. Just make that cut both ways with the overly literal reading and access will magically return.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-24-2017, 01:32 PM
  2. 96% of mt. bikers surveyed supported reasonable access to Wilderness
    By Empty_Beer in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 02-19-2016, 11:00 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-31-2015, 07:01 PM
  4. WH Petition to Not Close Proposed Wilderness to mt bikers
    By powpig in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-30-2015, 05:33 PM
  5. Mountain bikers belong in the Wilderness - NEW Follow up story
    By CHUM in forum Riding Passion and Stories
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 08-26-2011, 08:35 PM

Members who have read this thread: 218

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

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.