permanently block millions of acres of public land from mountain bikers- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 28 of 28
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    18

    permanently block millions of acres of public land from mountain bikers

    dont know if this has been posted or not but im posting up for those that dont know

    http://www.mbaction.com/detail.asp?id=2254


    30 SECONDS COULD TURN THE TIDE FOR CALIFORNIA ...

    Sign and e-mail this petition to prevent a major Wilderness bill from locking us out

    A shift in political power within the State of California has once again propelled a massive Wilderness bill (sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer) into motion that, if passed into law unmodified, will permanently block millions of acres of public land from mountain bikers. Please read and sign this petition to Senator Boxer that asks for a more flexible "Back Country Recreation" instead of the ultra-restrictive "Wilderness" designation for much of the land incorporated in the bill.

    This is a worthy cause, please take 30 seconds....

    Please consider signing a petition to support Back Country Recreation Designation rather than more Wilderness Designations as proposed by Senator Barbara Boxer. See:https://host593.ipowerweb.com/~acces...tion/index.php

  2. #2
    featherweight clydesdale
    Reputation: Fattirewilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,381
    Done! Super easy and thanks for posting.

  3. #3
    CURB HUCK!!!!!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    492
    Very easy, just type your name, email, and where you live and hit submit
    forward it too
    Kona Coiler

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,042
    Done also. Though I no longer live in California, I grew up there and am partial to saving an endangered area. Thanks for posting this thread.

  5. #5
    BM and PQ Trail Rep
    Reputation: bankerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,921
    Would this post be better served on a more populated/view board like Passion, General, or the California forums?

    What does it take to get it relocated?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    You could "report" yourself to a moderator. Or find the mod for this forum and shoot them a private message.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,042

    I agree

    Just start this one up again, don't move it. Do it on the Nor cal and the So cal. It's really important.

  8. #8
    3.14159265358979323846
    Reputation: velocipus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,846
    Petitions and emails are largely ignored by elected officials. I dated one of Pelosi's aides. She gave me the break-down... Every 150 emails counts as one person. Petitions are even less effective. Write a letter. Each letter counts as one person. Be concise, make clear your position, and be polite... ie, don't come off as a wingnut... those letters are ignored are ignored all together.

  9. #9
    It's the axle
    Reputation: Gregg K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by velocipus
    Petitions and emails are largely ignored by elected officials. I dated one of Pelosi's aides. She gave me the break-down... Every 150 emails counts as one person. Petitions are even less effective. Write a letter. Each letter counts as one person. Be concise, make clear your position, and be polite... ie, don't come off as a wingnut... those letters are ignored are ignored all together.


    Wow. That's news to me. Thanks! I think a lot of Americans should know this. I'm listening to Gonzo's interrogation by Congress right now. We need every bit of power we can muster to beat these cheating criminals.


    Signed. Even if it does count as a fraction of a "person".

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Gregg K
    Wow. That's news to me. Thanks! I think a lot of Americans should know this. I'm listening to Gonzo's interrogation by Congress right now. We need every bit of power we can muster to beat these cheating criminals.


    Signed. Even if it does count as a fraction of a "person".
    I've heard the same thing. Part of it is because interest groups of all kinds can crank out the postcards and petitions. But sitting down and writing a letter takes some commitment.

    I did a rafting trip one time, where there was some controversy over a hydro project that would impact the rafting. At lunch, the guide explained the issue, then busted out paper, pens, and clipboards.

  11. #11
    Don't worry, be happy!
    Reputation: formica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,140
    Quote Originally Posted by bankerboy
    Would this post be better served on a more populated/view board like Passion, General, or the California forums?

    What does it take to get it relocated?
    just repost the info. I don't have powers to move things in this board, but cross posting should not be a problem.

    ~formica

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    18
    hmmmm, maybe someone who is really good at writing a letter can post up a copy for everyone to copy and edit with there info and print it out and send it in... I would if i was any good at writing something like that

  13. #13

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    19
    If you can get a representative of a larger club to write a letter, that is even better....esp if on club letterhead, etc.....groups are even better than just one person. You can fax the letter to the politician and then follow it up with the written document....maybe even send it certified mail too..... I have learned the names of the local politician's Chiefs of Staff...they are good targets for your communication....also the secretaries...they know everything that is going on....be nice, be concise.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pluto Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    430

    Do the alternate designations have any teeth?

    Do these non-Wilderness alternative designations have the same strength as the Wilderness Designation? I'm in agreement that losing millions of acres of land to mountain bike on is a negative, but based on the actions of the current administration, it seems like lesser protections - roadless areas, Wilderness Study Areas, animal Refugees even the Endangered Species Act - are being obliterated in favor of economic gain (drilling, mining, development without Environmental Impact Studies...or if they are done severely tampered with). I want to protect the land first, and before I support the non-Wilderness position I want to make sure that these alternate designations protect the land with the same strictness as Wilderness minus the mountain bike ban. Basically, do they have a set of teeth to stop an administration hell bent on ****ing up the environnment. For all its issues, Wilderness Areas are one of the few environmental bills/actions that have not been tampered with in the last seven years.

  15. #15
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,847
    In my opinion, you're asking the wrong question. The question is, why are we adding to wilderness at all? We have LOTS. Millions of acres of it here in WA. That's not a bad thing in and of itself. But I don't think we need more. We need land open to other activities, like mtn biking, off road motorcycles and vehicles (where appropriate), etc. Wilderness is way too restrictive for most of the general public to be able to ever use anything but little fringes along the edge.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pluto Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    430
    ACree - I think we'd fundementally disagree on this point. I'm in favor of much more land being protected with some bills that have teeth - be it Wilderness or some other designation. Too much of the public land in the west in used for cattle grazing (making it unsuitable for large keystone predators to survive), oil development (which fragments habitat) and mining (ditto). I believe more restrictions should be placed on OHV's and ORV's too. So I think we're on opposite ends onf the spectrum, which might make productive conversation useless. I'm unlikely to change your mind, and visa-versa. If anyone has the answer to my initial question, I'm all ears, as it would be the pending factor as to whether I write a letter or not.

  17. #17
    Don't worry, be happy!
    Reputation: formica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,140
    Alternate wilderness designation info (google is your friend)

    http://www.americantrails.org/resour...nessClark.html

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    Pluto,

    Check out the link Formica posted. The push for an alternative designation is to have something as strong as wilderness, but with a broader range of activities allowed. The Wilderness designation is sort of the nuclear weapon of land protection laws. It blocks development and sets aside an area, but may cause great collateral damage.

    HC

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    48
    Current wilderness regs allow grazing of livestock. The equestrian lobby got horses classified as "grazing livestock" and thus are allowed to ride while bikes were being interpreted as a mechanical conveyance(almost certainly meant to cover motorized vehicles) and are excluded from wilderness.
    I agree that it would be disastrous to open the Wilderness Act with the current administration but a new designation that could recognize trail bikes as an acceptable user group would be good.

  20. #20
    Don't worry, be happy!
    Reputation: formica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,140
    you are aware that the biking closure was not part of the wilderness original bill, but was added later?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    48
    Mountain bikes were not around when the act was written so obviously it was an interpretation of an existing clause. Begs the question why can't that clause be newly interpreted in light of current conditions. I think that will be a hard fought political battle - it probably makes more sense to support this new designation for now.

  22. #22
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by HarryCallahan
    ... The Wilderness designation is sort of the nuclear weapon of land protection laws. It blocks development and sets aside an area, but may cause great collateral damage....
    A minor corrective point, but in the spectrum of public land classifications, Wilderness is not the most restrictive. Research Natural Areas are more stringent as to allowed activities by either the agency or the public.

    Wilderness itself is subdivided into 2 subclassifications in the ROS (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) system -- Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized for the popular areas accessible by trails, and Primitive for the more remote difficult-to-access reaches of the Wilderness.

    You're right about Wilderness sometimes being counterproductive. On an landscape scale maximum biodiversity occurs when no more than 30% of the area is designated Wilderness. Above that biodiversity and forest resiliency starts decreasing.

    For years it was assumed that designated Wilderness had a positive economic impact on local economies -- tourism made the wilderness a net plus. Several studies over the years showed that the opposite was true. Backpackers were a net economic drain on local economies. Motorized recreation was the biggest economic plus. Mountain bikes are far less, but still positive.

  23. #23
    Trying a little
    Reputation: dusthuffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54
    A minor corrective point, but in the spectrum of public land classifications, Wilderness is not the most restrictive. Research Natural Areas are more stringent as to allowed activities by either the agency or the public.

    Wilderness itself is subdivided into 2 subclassifications in the ROS (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) system -- Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized for the popular areas accessible by trails, and Primitive for the more remote difficult-to-access reaches of the Wilderness.

    You're right about Wilderness sometimes being counterproductive. On an landscape scale maximum biodiversity occurs when no more than 30% of the area is designated Wilderness. Above that biodiversity and forest resiliency starts decreasing.

    For years it was assumed that designated Wilderness had a positive economic impact on local economies -- tourism made the wilderness a net plus. Several studies over the years showed that the opposite was true. Backpackers were a net economic drain on local economies. Motorized recreation was the biggest economic plus. Mountain bikes are far less, but still positive.
    Hey Dave, this is interesting and I appreciate the post, but these statements you make have the a very sort of BS ring to them, so do you have some references or something? I mean, my references are every backpacker town I've been to, can you name one town that has this net drain on the economy you talk about?

    I never apologize. I'm sorry, but that's just the way I am.

  24. #24
    Don't worry, be happy!
    Reputation: formica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,140
    I don't need an example to see backpackers as a "drain" on a local economy. Backpackers as a tradition, are pre loaded and ready to go. Having been one, I am not making this up. Pack all your food at home, drive through town to a trail head, buy gas and maybe a burger on the way home. Compare that to a destination recreation type scenario. A destination location will appeal to a much broader range of users: boaters, fishers, bikers, day hikers, all who might stay in hotels, eat in restarants and shop. I would not be at all surprised if the data backs this up. When you eliminate extraction economy, you have to put something else in it's place, and backpacking ain't it.

  25. #25
    Trying a little
    Reputation: dusthuffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,781
    cool, name one town

    I never apologize. I'm sorry, but that's just the way I am.

  26. #26
    Don't worry, be happy!
    Reputation: formica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,140
    one town which way?

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126

    semantics

    I see the point Dave54 and formica are making about backpacker's and local economies, but I don't think "drain" is the right word. Drain implies that a group is costing the town money.

    It does seem very likely that as a group, backpackers do the least for a tourist town economy. As formica noted, they come largely self-contained, maybe buying a few things forgotten at home, a tank of gas, and maybe some meals on the way out. Obviously, the local economy will benefit more from the tourists who stay in a hotel and spend more locally.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SoloHiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    296
    I signed the petition, too, but with Barbara Boxer I seriously doubt she'll take something like a petition seriously, regardless of number of signers...

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.