Matheson's Wilderness proposal- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 35 of 35
  1. #1
    ride more.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    604

    Matheson's Wilderness proposal

    As many of you have probably heard, Congressman Matheson has proposed an expansion of Wilderness in the Wasatch. One of the initial proposals circulating included expanding Wilderness designation all the way to the road in one of our canyons with a semi-legal mountain bike trail down it. After several riders met with officials, and a big meeting was held at Brewvies to discuss the original proposal, a proposal was made to spare that part of the canyon from Wilderness designation in the event that the trail was one day legitimized.

    Last spring, I met with Congressman Matheson and explained the situation re: the status of the trail, and the fact that it was the only canyon in the Wasatch with a potential to have a top to bottom mountain bike trail, and that if those areas were designated as Wilderness, that would never be possible.

    The apparently final Wilderness proposal can be found here:

    http://saveourcanyons.org/wasatch_wi..._campaign/maps

    Apparently, the work of concerned riders and rider organization makes a difference. The semi-legal trail was spared from Wilderness designation, leaving open the possibility that the trail may one day be re-routed and officially designated.

    Thanks to all those who emailed or wrote their Congressmen and Congresswomen about these issues, who met with SOC, and who are active in the community. Special thanks to SOC for listening, and especially to Jim Matheson for working with the mountain bikers and making this possible. Letters to Matheson's office from mountain bikers thanking him for sparing some mountain bike trails from the Wilderness designation may go a long way towards future relations with him and with mountain bike access in the Wasatch.

    Congressman Matheson's contact information can be found here:

    https://forms.house.gov/matheson/contact.shtml

    Mike
    Last edited by drboudreaux; 04-02-2010 at 10:52 PM.

  2. #2
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,539
    Thanks for the update Mike! Outstanding work!

  3. #3
    ride more.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    604
    Thanks T. You too. That meeting at Brewvies was a strong step in the right direction.

    To be honest, I am somewhat surprised and inspired by the fact that riders banded together, made their voices heard, and our elected officials listened. The Wilderness proposal seems to be a great compromise among a lot of user groups and interests. Great outcome I would say.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: johnnyspoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    958
    Blowing up that map sure makes it look like they're including pipeline as wilderness for a short section just above Burch Hollow Hope that's not the case.

    Thanks for the update.
    I'm looking forward to regretting this.......

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    94
    Way to pat yourself on the back!

    Greedy environmentalists and politicians in Washington D.C, want to take away your freedoms yet again, (what is new?)

    Great mountain bike rides that will be closed forever because of this proposal.

    1.Millcreek Pipeline
    2.Mill D/ Desolation lake
    3.Green's Basin/Day's Fork
    4.Mineral Fork
    5.White Pine
    6.Cardiff
    7.Silver Fork
    and many more.

    Some popular rides as well as some less well known/ridden gems.

    In addition many potential rides people haven't even thought of, that will be forever off limits.

    Looks like the White Pine section goes all the way to the creek making a top to bottom run, (starting at snowbird for example), very awkward at best.

    This wilderness proposal needs to opposed outright.

    Thanks IMBA and WAFTA for selling out the mountain bike community!
    Last edited by monkeyhands; 04-03-2010 at 06:02 AM.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    150
    monkeyhands,

    Nobody is patting themselves on the back. What did happen:

    - People have been paying attention to the issue long before the proposal came out.
    - People have asked for compromises to protect a few things important to riders in a proposal that was scheduled to go forward regardless of what may have been wanted.
    - We've always encouraged anybody involved with WAFTA (and IMBA, I suppose) to form their own opinions on these issues and more importantly - take action.

    So you've looked at a map on the interweb and made your own conclusions. Check with SOC and Congressman Matheson and get your facts confirmed.

    Personally, it would be my preference to allow mountain bikes and non-motorized (not just non-mechanized) methods of transport in Wilderness Areas but that is a much bigger fight than exclusion of corridors in proposed areas.

    Good luck on your efforts, they will be appreciated. Be sure and keep us posted with your progress.

  7. #7
    MTBR member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    798
    I'm inclined to agree with Monkeyhands. I applaud your efforts; I know you guys have been very involved with this for some time. However, I can't support something that I believe to be wrong, in order to have a few crumbs or a bone thrown my way. The likes of these self-righteous organizations (e.g. SOC & the Sierra Club) make my stomache turn. In good conscience, I can not support IMBA or this legislation. It's sad that I can't ride on the road with out being told to get off the road, and then be told to get off the trails.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    333
    If there is any greed on either side of this debate it comes from the ATVers, miners and ranchers. NOT the environmentalists.

  9. #9
    ride more.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by monkeyhands
    Way to pat yourself on the back!

    Greedy environmentalists and politicians in Washington D.C, want to take away your freedoms yet again, (what is new?)

    Great mountain bike rides that will be closed forever because of this proposal.

    1.Millcreek Pipeline
    2.Mill D/ Desolation lake
    3.Green's Basin/Day's Fork
    4.Mineral Fork
    5.White Pine
    6.Cardiff
    7.Silver Fork
    and many more.

    Some popular rides as well as some less well known/ridden gems.

    In addition many potential rides people haven't even thought of, that will be forever off limits.

    Looks like the White Pine section goes all the way to the creek making a top to bottom run, (starting at snowbird for example), very awkward at best.

    This wilderness proposal needs to opposed outright.

    Thanks IMBA and WAFTA for selling out the mountain bike community!
    For the record:

    Pipeline - Not closed or affected in any way by Wilderness proposal.
    Mill D/Desolation Lake - Not closed or affected in any way by the Wilderness proposal.

    This has nothing to do with patting myself on the back. It is a simple statement of fact and history. If anything, I am patting Matheson on the back. He didn't have to listen to our concerns or spare any trails at all.

    Had you been aware of the original proposal, you will see why this was a win for mountain bikers. Granted, the ideal situation would be that mountain bikes are allowed in Wilderness, or that all of these lands are given some other designation. However, that was not an option. In an ideal world, I would have a trust fund, multiple houses around the world, and the freedom to ride and ski whenever and wherever I wanted.

    In our society, compromise is everything. Thankfully, Congressman Matheson and SOC listened to the concerns of mountain bikers, along with the Wasatch Powderbirds, to try and make this proposal as accomodating as possible. The original proposal can be found here:

    http://utah.sierraclub.org/wasatch_wilderness.asp

    As you can see, a significant number of trails were spared. Had IMBA and WAFTA not gotten involved, the proposal you see above would have likely been passed. IMBA (Mill D) and WAFTA (other trails) were the primary reason that Mill D and other trails were spared. You're right - total sellouts.

    In re top to bottom run from Snowbird, it is still very possible. Had this Wilderness proposal never been on the table, that run in its current form still would not have been possible long-term because of the USFS wetland and wildlife corridor status of that section. Should the trail ever be recognized as a legitimate trail, that section would have to be re-routed anyways.

  10. #10
    DOH!
    Reputation: SprungShoulders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    473

    Small Victories

    Thank you specific members of WAFTA and all other involved parties for investing the time and helping negotiate the compromise!

    ...Give-and-take is what a generally democratic rule-of-law is all about. There are far too many people on both ends of the political spectrum that seem to have TOTALLY forgotten that.

    I, too, think that Wilderness Designation which summarily disallows MTB's is inherently flawed and needs to be revisited/revised, but since that is a looooooong shot at best, "small victories" are all good.

  11. #11
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Dr. B is right, we really dodged a bullet on this. Believe it or not the first draft from SOC wanted to close off part of the Crest trail to bikes with some kind of reroute on the Park City side. I commend SOC for listening to the mountain bike community at the Brewvies meeting and changing the proposed wilderness additions that allows for us to continue to have trail access. I learned something today, not all hippy enviormentalist are scum, just those in the Sierra Club.
    Sierra Club Sucks

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    94
    Should you thank the thieves for not breaking the windows when they are burglarizing your house?

    You guys opened the door for them and gave them the key.

    A steaming pile of turds between two pieces of french toast served on a platter with powdered sugar on top is still a sh!# sandwich, if you know what I mean.

    This bill could be easy stopped with a little principled opposition. Now they claim that the bill has the support of mountain bikers, which it does not, because of you jackasses. If it ends up passing WAFTA will have had a hand in the closure of more mountain bike terrain than has ever occurred in the State of Utah.

    Shame on WAFTA and IMBA.
    Last edited by monkeyhands; 04-04-2010 at 08:55 AM.

  13. #13
    ride more.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by monkeyhands
    Should you thank the thieves for not breaking the windows when they are burglarizing your house?

    You guys opened the door for them and gave them the key.

    A steaming pile of turds between two pieces of french toast served on a platter with powdered sugar on top is still a sh!# sandwich, if you know what I mean.

    This bill could be easy stopped with a little principled opposition. Now they claim that the bill has the support of mountain bikers, which it does not, because of you jackasses. If it ends up passing WAFTA will have had a hand in the closure of more mountain bike terrain than has ever occurred in the State of Utah.

    Shame on WAFTA and IMBA.
    WAFTA and IMBA opened the door? Really? This bill could easily be stopped? Really?

    #1 - WAFTA and IMBA did not propose this designation. They merely responded to it. No comment from monkeyhands on the original proposal that I posted in this thread, which would have seriously affected mountain biking in the Wasatch, had IMBA and WAFTA not gotten involved. Strange.

    #2 - The "bill" hasn't even been passed yet. It is merely a proposal. In regards to the proposal being stopped, I am interested in hearing your proposal of how it could "easily" be stopped. What was the "easy" solution to derailing this proposal? Do you mean like how the healthcare bill that most Americans are opposed to was stopped? (Note, the foregoing statement sheds no light on my thoughts on the healthcare bill, for the record - it is merely an example. I do not intend to turn this thread into a debate on healthcare...) Like others have said, you are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. However, I will respond to your "facts" and arguments that you cite to support your opinion, which have no merit at all.

    Please, just say that you are pissed about it, but do not rely on false statements of fact and conclusory statements to support your disdain with the proposal, or with IMBA and WAFTA.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    monkeyhands....had you been here http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...ghlight=wasach a few years ago you'd have a greater understanding of what has transpired.

    I agree there are a few people here showing how double-jointed they are by patting themselves on their collective backs. I know many, many people who don't belong to WTFA and who don't even live in this state who wrote e-mails on our behalf.
    Did we get everything we wanted? NO! Not even close, but we got to keep Mill-d, Oh thank god we got to keep Mill-d, praise god, we got to keep Mill-d, Whew, that was a close one.

  15. #15
    ride more.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    604
    We should all be patting ourselves on our collective backs. Mill D, Crest, and other trails were spared from Wilderness designation. As I said in my original post, thanks to all those who wrote letters and emails to their Congressmen and Congresswomen to save those trails. And thanks to SOC and Matheson for listening.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: roguebuilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    216
    edit...

    Forget it. If people aren't willing to find the facts before they spew mindless palaver, arguing isn't going to accomplish much.

    Instead, knowing a little about the proposal and about the history of parties, groups, offices and individuals involved... I'll just say thanks to Mike and those who actually acted positively with biking in mind.
    Last edited by roguebuilder; 04-05-2010 at 02:35 PM.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    94
    The 'facts' are that there will be many fewer places to ride a mountainbike if this wilderness proposal passes.
    Mountain biking is hugely popular here, and it is unlikely that Matheson would have ever introduced this bill if there was vigorous opposition from mountain bikers.

    You know, there are more places to ride in the Wasatch than the Crest trail, and now they may be going away because of all this. Closure of the Crest to mountain bikers was never going to happen and SOC used the threat of it to get our self-appointed 'leaders' to compromise over nothing. So yeah, WAFTA sold out. I want nothing to do with them.

  18. #18
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by monkeyhands
    The 'facts' are that there will be many fewer places to ride a mountainbike if this wilderness proposal passes.
    It is unlikely that Matheson would have ever introduced this bill if there was vigorous opposition from mountain bikers.

    You know, there are more places to ride in the Wasatch than the Crest trail, and now they may be going away because of all this. Closure of the Crest to mountain bikers was never going to happen and SOC used the threat of it to get our self-appointed 'leaders' to compromise over nothing. So yeah, WAFTA sold out. I want nothing to do with them.
    I don't think you mean to, but you crack me up with every post.

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

    You need some...

    Quote Originally Posted by monkeyhands
    The 'facts' are that there will be many fewer places to ride a mountainbike if this wilderness proposal passes.
    Mountain biking is hugely popular here, and it is unlikely that Matheson would have ever introduced this bill if there was vigorous opposition from mountain bikers.
    anger management classses.

    While it is true that there will be fewer places to ride if this passes it is far better than having no places to ride. Wilderness proposals make me angry also but it is incredibly nieve to think that this wouldn't pass if mountain bikers opposed this. Mountain bikers are always the first to be thrown under the bus. Matheson doesn't give a rat's a*& about you or your bike because mountain bikers don't donate squat to his campain war chest. I was surprised that SOC even listened to our concerns but then they compromised their proposal for the mountain bike community. You should be thanking WAFTA for preserving acess not critisizing something you know nothing about. If it wasn't for IMBA and WAFTA you wouldn't be riding these trails if the proposal passes.
    JC
    Sierra Club Sucks

  20. #20
    Bored Carp
    Reputation: chuky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,596
    I'm stoked. This is a positive step toward a stronger mountain bike voice in multi-user land use decisions. Nice work, everyone.
    I only attempt to change the world in the appropriate World-Changing venues and forums.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: roguebuilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    216
    Edited once again to reduce virtual hostility. Being hostile online doesn't seem to encourage anyone to see another's point of view.

    Monkey, I am sorry that you feel let down by those involved in this debate. In all sincerity, you should come to a WAFTA meeting, party, dig day or even the showing of Follow Me at Brewvies on the 29th. Share your feelings and find out what WAFTA's intents and goals truly are.

    I believe that there has been misinformation and assumptions made along with all that has transpired. Perhaps with real life communication, some clarification can be made and common ground can be found.

    WAFTA isn't comprised of a few elitists. WAFTA is many riders like you and me. The more people who participate and support, the better the input and resulting progression for our area.
    Last edited by roguebuilder; 04-07-2010 at 10:52 AM.

  22. #22
    ride more.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    604
    Monkeyhands - I am sorry that I let you down. I am also sorry that IMBA and WAFTA let you down.

    Mike

  23. #23
    Enduroist
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    67
    Just chiming in to say that as a mountain biker, resort and backcountry skier, and lover of the outdoors, I am stoked that congressman Matheson is moving forward with this bill. I am very happy that Mill D and the Pipeline, as well as another trail have been excluded from inclusion. Great work WAFTA and IMBA. You guys rock.

    It feels like, to me at least, that this bill will balance the needs of all users of the canyons, while setting limits on expansion of the ski areas (which are, in my opinion, large enough as it is).

  24. #24
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,159
    Quote Originally Posted by drboudreaux
    Monkeyhands - I am sorry that I let you down. I am also sorry that IMBA and WAFTA let you down.

    Mike
    I am not very familiar with these areas, but it seems that you and most others are happy with your results, so congratulations. Even the Stones would say "You Can't Always Get What You Want".

  25. #25
    ride more.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    604
    Thanks Crash. WAFTA, IMBA, and others who wrote letters and emails and made phone calls made a difference. I, personally, am particularly excited about that other trail that was spared, which leaves open the possibility that at some point in the future, it may be recognized as a legitimate trail.

    My comment to monkey was composed of some truth, some sarcasm. I am sorry that monkey is not happy, though I am happy with what was accomplished. My feelings are similar to JoshP's, and feel like this proposal was a great compromise.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: whit022000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    252
    Wow, there is a lot of hostility on these threads. Let me offer a little outside perspective. I just moved here from WV the site of 30,000+ new acres of wilderness in 2009. I won't bore you with all the particulars but we lost over 100 miles of single track in the Dolly Sods North. Just search the forums for posts of some most awesome single track I have ever ridden. Also some of the area where the birth of 24 hours mountain biking is, Canaan Valley.

    The pushers on the bill said it was the only way to stop windmills, strip mining, development and preserve the natural beauty. Horseshit, which is what most of the damage to the trails are now because of some guided groups in the area ( I am also an equestrian so don't get me started). National Recreation Area will provide the same protection. The great thing is you drive bus loads of people right to the edge and then walk through it and nobody knows the better. Just don't ride a bicycle.

    The real issue is the need to redefine the wilderness designation to include mountian bikes. Until some serious progress is made on that front this will be a never ending problem. Oh yeah, all those people that watched the Ken Burns special on PBS last year will be picking up whatever torches are available to carry in the campaign for more wilderness. Most don't have a clue that mountain bikes are excluded.

    Yeah, I was pissed at IMBA for losing this battle but they were the closest arm to punch. They try hard with limited resources and try to make it work when they can. Unfortunately, all it takes is for one celebrity to benefact the Sierra or some similar organization and the tide shifts even harder.

    The even scarrier prosect is what is going on in Montana that could change it all for us. Some court rulings have said that if you want to propose land for wilderness in the future you have to show you are treaing it like wilderness. What does that mean? Land managers are to start behaving like stewards of wilderness and can even start banning cycles in no wilderness areas.
    Can you hook that up to your car?.......

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by drboudreaux
    Monkeyhands - I am sorry that I let you down. I am also sorry that IMBA and WAFTA let you down.

    Mike
    WOW!!! An obsequious, DOUBLE self deprecating, DOUBLE jointed, reverse finger wag WITH... a full sarcastic twist! Very nice! but I'm only giving you a 9.3 because you didn't grab your ankles apon landing.

    Take the F out of WAFTA and you might gain another hard working member, until then you can take the F out of WAY.

  28. #28
    ride more.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    WOW!!! An obsequious, DOUBLE self deprecating, DOUBLE jointed, reverse finger wag WITH... a full sarcastic twist! Very nice! but I'm only giving you a 9.3 because you didn't grab your ankles apon landing.

    Take the F out of WAFTA and you might gain another hard working member, until then you can take the F out of WAY.
    And I am giving you a 10 on your vocabulary test. Way to go Billy!

  29. #29
    Ride and Smile
    Reputation: axolotl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    736
    Nice work! and thanks. I would like to help.

  30. #30
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by whit022000
    Wow, there is a lot of hostility on these threads.
    It happens every spring when people are antsy to ride...

    but you offer some good insights into what is going on in other states. I spent a few years in California and the conflicts and restrictions are off the charts there, that's why I hope we aren't too late to stem the tide in Utah. There are certainly a lot of motivated people working to preserve and increase access, eventually there will be participatory support from the riding community as well.

    In the end, it often comes down to a simple head count.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by TheProf
    - We've always encouraged anybody involved with WAFTA (and IMBA, I suppose) to form their own opinions on these issues and more importantly - take action.
    Quoting myself because I *think* I was offering monkeyhands a good option here. Spouting off to other mountain bikers on a forum about what sellouts they are does zero good.

  32. #32
    ride more.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    604
    Update:

    The original link above did not contain the final version of the mapped proposal. The final version can be found here:

    http://saveourcanyons.org/files/camp...WWPAmap_LG.pdf

    That is a map with better resolution so it is clear where the proposed wilderness areas are located. Additionally, it should be noted that some areas are designated as special management areas.

    Thanks to Carl Fisher at SOC for the updated map. TheProf got an email from him this morning with the correction.

    And thanks again to all those who wrote, called, met, etc. to SOC, Matheson's office, and any other elected officials about this proposal.

    Mike

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    903
    Link didn't work, try this:

    http://saveourcanyons.org/files/camp...WWPAmap_LG.pdf

    I will tentatively throw in my .02 ... I think we have to be thankful the thieves didn't break the windows ( not to the thieves...but just generally thankful that it could have been worse), and we have to hope that we can come together to change the rules so that Mtn. Bikes are allowed in the wilderness eventually.

    I thought whit022000's post about WV was scary ... and it shows how thankful we should be that we didn't lose the Mill D trail among others.

    It also shows that if we divide ourselves we're probably screwed, because we will dilute our collective voice. I think there is a strong argument for allowing Mtn. bikes into the wilderness, and that should be a priority for all mtn. bikers, but we can't lose sight of the fact that we may not represent the majority view and compromise may be necessary to further our cause in the short term....oh...I dunno....i just want to go ride.

  34. #34
    DOH!
    Reputation: SprungShoulders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by slcpunk
    I thought whit022000's post about WV was scary ... and it shows how thankful we should be that we didn't lose the Mill D trail among others.
    Even scarier: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=607700

    I rode in the Bozeman/Big Sky area last summer; it is (was) spectacular. Substantial loss to the local biking community....

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by SprungShoulders
    Even scarier: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=607700

    I rode in the Bozeman/Big Sky area last summer; it is (was) spectacular. Substantial loss to the local biking community....
    If any of you would like to help in the fight for montana's singletrack, please join.
    www.montanamountainbikealliance.com
    Last edited by Shelbak73; 04-09-2010 at 08:15 PM.

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.