More wilderness designations for the Wasach?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 157 of 157
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545

    More wilderness designations for the Wasach?

    Mctweek, an MTBR member, posted this on another page. But since I don't know how many of you visit the "Trails and Advocacy" page I felt it worthwhile to make a posting here.
    There is a proposal to add nearly 30,000 more acres of the Wasatch mountains east of Salt lake city, to the Wilderness areas designations that already exist there.

    Read more at www.saveourcanyons.org

    If you look at the mapped proposal you'll see Desolation and Dog lakes as well as Mill D tr. are within the new proposals domain.
    Last edited by Shelbak73; 04-13-2008 at 11:39 AM.

  2. #2
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    If you look at the mapped proposal you'll see Desolation and Dog lakes as well as Mill D tr. are within the new proposals domain.
    I agree with some of the SOC party line, but I will fight this when it conflicts with established multi-use trails. Does anybody know who to contact to voice an opinion? Is it the Forest Service that currently manages these areas?

    JMH

  3. #3
    yelgatgab
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    459
    Ah forgetit

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Boon Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    495

    SOC is national...

    SOC is well organized. I am from Salt Lake but now live in the Bay Area. I have seen SOC propaganda out here at least three times that I can recall. I even saw a Heli Free Wasatch bumper sticker once. They have good intentions but they are way, way over the top IMHO. Said the mountain biker AND backcountry skier...

  5. #5
    Wandervans
    Reputation: smilycook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,084
    Just write your govenor, congressman, and senator and tell them you oppose the wilderness designation.
    Live to ride!
    18 Cannondale Jekyll Carbon
    16 Diamond Back DB8

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

  6. #6
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    You don't like what SOC is doing? Send them a note here:

    www.saveourcanyons.org/mail-rachael.html

    That's what I did. I wonder why they are so careful about not posting an email address? Only way to contact them is through forms on their site. Here is what I wrote:

    Hello,
    I am not a member of SOC. I have lived in SLC for over 3 years now after moving from Colorado where I spent the first 27 years of my life. I am anxious to learn more about SOC. I do agree with most of what SOC stands for but I am extremely worried that your policies are anti-mountain bike. I would like to know more about SOC's stance on mountain bikes and if closing trails to mountain bikes is a major focus of your organization.

    I can not support your other actions that I agree with (heli-free wasatch, watershed, resort expansion, etc....) when I know supporting those could just lead to me losing more trails that I enjoy biking. I am a strong believer that mountain biking when done right on well designed, maintained, and built trails causes no more erosion than hiking. I also see many trails more severely damaged by horses than any damage that could be caused by cyclists. Yet I see no focus of SOC to ban equestrians. The vast majority of the cyclists I ride with are very cautious about trail etiquette and maintenance and go above and beyond to be polite to other trail user groups and help keep the trails in good shape. I know this isn’t always the case with bike riders but in my experience this is the majority of riders.

    Please inform me on your stance on these issues. I am anxious to learn more and if I agree with you policies I'd be happy to become a member, donate money and volunteer my time. But if you are anti-mountain bike I am afraid this will not be possible.

    Regards,
    I'm not a fan of their bike policies for sure. I am for most of their other policies though (heli-free wasatch, watershed, resort development, etc...). Makes it tough, I can't support them until they relax their biking stance.

    Until then - Save us from Save Our Canyons. Soon no one will be allowed in the canyon unless they float in on a non-damaging cloud of smug.

    B
    Last edited by Bortis Yelltzen; 04-15-2008 at 08:20 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  7. #7

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    "Soon no one will be allowed in the canyone unless they float in on a non-damaging cloud of smug..."

    lol! Thats pretty damn funny...

  8. #8
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    I wrote a letter too. I think the hardest thing for me is that I don't really know where they stand as far as bikes are concerned. I just asked them for a straight answer. Because mtn. bikers represent such a huge group in the wasatch, and many of us are load and obnoxious, I just don't see this bill passing without our support. I'll write as many letters to senators/congressmen as I have to.
    Sad thing is that I agree with a lot of their policies, they just need to learn to negotiate with other interest groups imho.
    BY, perhaps I would be a little faster uphill if I had a cloud of smug. What must I eat to produce such a cloud?

  9. #9

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Wilderness is anti-bike, so thus- SOC is anti-bike

  10. #10
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,539
    This is very unfortunate. I have a hard time as viewing this proposal as anything more than bickering among trail users, who do not want to share the trails, thinly veiled as legislation to protect the Wasatch.

    The trails in these areas are very well maintained and much of that maintenance comes from mountain bikers. We need to make sure this does legislation does not pass.

  11. #11
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    from SOC FAQ:
    "What is SOC's position on mountain bikes in the Wasatch?

    While the use of mountain bikes does create potential user conflicts, there are well-established rules for the right-of-way on Forest Service paths. SOC believes that the presence of mountain bikes does not represent any irreversible change in the character of the canyons or mountains. Local governments and the Forest Service need to manage user conflicts. Using the best preservation tool at hand, SOC is actively working toward the expansion of the boundaries of the wilderness areas in the Wasatch and bikes are not allowed in such areas. Mountain bike enthusiasts, when they review SOC's wilderness proposal, will find that the proposed restrictions on mountain biking are minimal."


    I guess this sort of answers my question. Although I am sort of missing the part where increasing wilderness land will have a "minimal" impact on mountain biking in the wasatch.

  12. #12
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    It's not enough to list the different animals and plants in the Wasatch, juxtaposed with the fact that the population in SLC is growing. Where is the data to show that these plants and animals are being impacted in a negative way? Propaganda groups like SOC love to make blanket statements about how animals are being driven out of habitat because of a human presence.

    Without permanent protection the populations of these sensitive species are at risk due to habitat destruction and degradation.
    Am I missing where this is actually demonstrated? Where are the studies, the numbers, the actual impact?
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  13. #13
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,539
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. welcorn
    from SOC FAQ:
    [INDENT]"What is SOC's position on mountain bikes in the Wasatch?


    I guess this sort of answers my question. Although I am sort of missing the part where increasing wilderness land will have a "minimal" impact on mountain biking in the wasatch.
    I'm with ya.

    Wilderness = No mountain bikes. Plain and simple. There's no minimized or reduced access options. It's all or nothing when you speak in terms of wilderness designation.

    I'm having trouble pulling PDF's off their website right now. Were you guys able to download them? Could someone email me a copy if you already have it downloaded.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Just in case, maps are here...

    http://www.saveourcanyons.org/curren...wilderness.pdf

    and here...

    http://www.saveourcanyons.org/curren.../wild_land.pdf

    Both are somewhat similar. If you have trouble downloading drop a line and i'll email them.

    This can't stand. Anyone got any ideas of how to counter it?

  15. #15
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Here is the response I got back:

    Thanks you for contacting us regarding mountain biking in the Wasatch.
    Rachael passed along your email and I am happy to address some of your
    concerns.

    We are not by any means anti-mountain bike group or really anti any user
    group, but rather an environmental group. Many of our members are mountain
    bikers as are many members of our board and staff. Since our beginning in
    1972, we have been dedicated to protecting the wildness and beauty of the
    Wasatch mountains, canyons, and foothills. Some of this work has been done
    at the county level, some at the city level, and then we also work at the
    federal level too. We seek to protect access to public lands while working
    toward the long term protection of those lands.

    When protecting lands at the federal level, it has been our experience that
    the best way to do so is under the Wilderness Act of 1964. This provides the
    highest level of land protection that currently exists in the United States.
    It is this act that guides the management of Wilderness lands. It has never
    been the goal of our organization to close trails to mountain bikes. Last
    fall, we carved out nearly 2,000 acres of our wilderness proposal in
    response to concerns about popular mountain bike trails from our membership,
    board, staff and other community members. We have also, for the past 5 or 6
    years, done trail maintenance on many mountain biking trails to help repair
    any damage done to the environment.

    As our wilderness proposal currently stands, 1.6 miles of the Mill D trail
    would be closed to mountain biking. Big Water, Little Water, all of the
    Wasatch Crest Trail (or Great Western Trail) and the segment of the
    Desolation Trail which connects dog lake and Desolation Lake all lie outside
    our current wilderness proposal. Mill D has been the hardest part of our
    proposal because it cuts the Mt. Olympus Addition in half, thus leaving a
    large portion of the proposal unconnected and under 5,000 acres. We have
    tried everything from a trail reroute to cherry stemming but those will
    still result in a loss to some of the most unique terrain in the Central
    Wasatch.

    As far as your comments regarding the damage of equestrian use in the
    Wasatch I would again say that we don't advocate or align ourselves with any
    user group. Equestrian use is permitted under the Wilderness Act of 1964,
    however, it is not permitted in the Salt Lake City Watershed. Our Wilderness
    Proposal is based on data gathered from Salt Lake City Public Utilities, the
    water manager for over 400,000 Salt Lake residents. We are hoping that
    between Wilderness designation and the purchasing of private lands within
    the canyons we can reduce the amount of pavement and protect our water and
    natural resources.

    I hope that you can support our work as we are very excited to be working
    toward additional Wilderness in the Wasatch. We are committed to relocating
    trails that lie within our wilderness proposal so that their will not be a
    loss in mileage to mountain bike trails in the Wasatch.

    I look forward to speaking with you again.

    Thanks again for contacting us,

    Carl Fisher
    Issues Coordinator
    Save Our Canyons
    I read it as "quit your *****ing, we are just going to make it so you can't ride one of the funnest parts of the Crest trail, you'll still have the rest, and an exit on odd days, but the Crest will be an out and back to mtb'er on even days". What they forget is that as far as I know Mill D is the only way off the crest back into BCC. So new pirate trails will emerge to replace the Mill D exit into BCC from the Crest. Causing further conflicts. They say they are going to build new trails so no mileage is lost. But that will take longer than it takes for people to cut pirate trails.

    My $0.02.

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

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    I agree that SOC have clearly missed some key points, though in fairness they probably haven't realized it. I would expect something more from a public interest group who claim to act in the interest of the "long-term good of Salt Lake City whose residents and visitors depend on these mountains as an escape from the hectic city". Simply asking for feedback would have done it.

    I actually think Carl's response is quite measured. But at the end of the day, let's not forget one simple thing: is commercial development around the Mill D trailhead really a serious issue? Is there ever really going to be a 7-11 at Beartrap or some Multi-level parking lot plans? No, the only reason to make this a wilderness area is simply to reduce traffic. Bike traffic, to be specific.

    The really unfortunate thing is that SOC have completely misjudged the will of the many dedicated bikers out here who will now be obliged to shuttle from Mill Creek to Guardsman's, thus greatly increasing car-miles and vehicle traffic in the canyon, a problem which gets worse every year (and, ironically, which SOC claim to be committed to alleviating but which they appear to have had little or no affect). And don't forget the problems at the Mill Creek end. Additional shuttle traffic, extra demand on an already insufficient parking system and of course increased potential for user conflict due to much heavier bike traffic.

    Nice going, SOC. To paraphrase another genius of planning who favors the unilateral approach and has his finger on the pulse of the people "Mission accomplished!" https://forums.mtbr.com/images/smilies/mad2.gif

  17. #17
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    I will fight this as hard as I can. Once we give them Mill D they will take the Crest. It is just a matter of time. We can not let hateful hikers take our trails.

  18. #18
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleWhiteCaveman
    I actually think Carl's response is quite measured.
    Agreed. I was pleasanlty surprised at the response as a whole. He put it to me as politely as he could have.

    Quote Originally Posted by SingleWhiteCaveman
    But at the end of the day, let's not forget one simple thing: is commercial development around the Mill D trailhead really a serious issue? Is there ever really going to be a 7-11 at Beartrap or some Multi-level parking lot plans? No, the only reason to make this a wilderness area is simply to reduce traffic. Bike traffic, to be specific.

    The really unfortunate thing is that SOC have completely misjudged the will of the many dedicated bikers out here who will now be obliged to shuttle from Mill Creek to Guardsman's, thus greatly increasing car-miles and vehicle traffic in the canyon, a problem which gets worse every year (and, ironically, which SOC claim to be committed to alleviating but which they appear to have had little or no affect). And don't forget the problems at the Mill Creek end. Additional shuttle traffic, extra demand on an already insufficient parking system and of course increased potential for user conflict due to much heavier bike traffic.
    Yep again.

    I also think it is crazy for SOC to say
    "We have tried everything from a trail reroute to cherry stemming but those will
    still result in a loss to some of the most unique terrain in the Central Wasatch." Hmmm, maybe we bikers like it because it is unique too.

    So in order to work around this SOC says:
    "We are committed to relocating trails that lie within our wilderness proposal so that their will not be a loss in mileage to mountain bike trails in the Wasatch"

    So I read that as "we are going to close an existing trail to bikes and then cut a new one for bikes" How does closing a single existing trail to some users and then cutting a new trail to all users minimize our impact on the environment? Now there are 2 trails to maintain and cause problems and have user conflicts on. Is the new trail goig to be in a similar area just outside the new Wilderness area? Or is it going to be along the Jordan river near the SLC Fairgrounds next to the homeless corpses?

    I don't know. I know they mean well, but they are just a bit over the top in my opinion. I am going to reply and point them to this thread so they can get a feel for what the local bike community thinks and try to correct us all if we are out of line.

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

  19. #19
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    Am I missing where this is actually demonstrated? Where are the studies, the numbers, the actual impact?
    Studies, numbers? Sheesh................come on man, this SOC thing survives on donations, you think that generates enough $$ to do studies and gather real numbers?

    Besides, 76% of all statistics are made up, 14% of all people know that.

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

  20. #20

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Now we know we they were so intent on 'maintaining/dumbing down' the Mill-D trail with their 'trails commitee' last year. Figures.
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 04-16-2008 at 07:20 AM.

  21. #21
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    The question I have is "why?"

    Usage of the canyons will not decrease. Car traffic will not decrease. And as has been pointed out, it may actually increase because of the enhanced need for a shuttle to ride the Crest and surrounding areas.

    Tourists will still drive up to the resorts in the summer, hikers, picnicers, bikers, horsemen... everyone will still head to the canyons the way they always have.

    The only user group effected by this proposal is mountain bikers. The Mill D area is already highly protected as a watershed. And highly regulated. Mountain bikers are already have limited access up there. If there are 120 rideable days on those trails, we are limited to 60 of them. 60 days a year, as compared to 365 for a hiker, who can access that trail any time they want.

    This seems to me to just be an attempt for another feather in SOC's cap. They want to add to the number of wilderness miles they have pushed for. It's what they do. And if it eliminates premium biking trails along the way, then it's that much better for them.

    Wether or not the wilderness area is needed is never even considered. In their minds it is ALWAYS, without question needed. They'd probably designate downtown SLC if they could get it passed.
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  22. #22

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    And designating an area 'wilderness' doesn't actually change the nature of the landscape or actually do anything to 'protect' it. It just outlaws mountain bikes.

  23. #23
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    guess who got an almost identical response to Bortis? Me.
    here it is:
    "Mr. Welcorn

    Thanks for contacting us with your concerns regarding mountain biking and
    multi-use trails in the Wasatch. Rachael forwarded me this message and I am
    happy to address some of your concerns.

    As you well may know, Save Our Canyons has always been a champion of
    preserving access to the public domains of the Wasatch all while ensuring
    the utmost protection of the resources that lie within. Over the course of
    the past few years SOC has been a lot of energy on the expansion of
    Wilderness throughout the Central Wasatch in order to protect lands from
    future development, protect additional acres that make up the Salt Lake City
    watershed, and to redraw Wilderness boundaries that are natural rather than
    political (where possible) to enhance wildlife migration corridors.
    SOC is an environmental group composed of a number of members, who represent
    multiple user groups, but all share a common goal of protecting the beauty
    and wildness of the Wasatch mountains, canyons, and foothills. Most of us
    agree that the best protection available is through Federal Wilderness
    Designation using the Wilderness Act of 1964 and we hope that we can get the
    rest of the community to see that as well.

    Our initial Wilderness Proposal came from the Salt Lake City Department of
    Public Utilities which was based on watershed data. At that time, many
    trails, popular to mountain biking, would have been closed to that use
    because of restrictions under the Wilderness Act of 1964. Since that time
    Save Our Canyons has taken steps to ensure that there is not a net loss in
    the mileage of mountain biking trails in the Wasatch. Last fall we made
    adjustments to our wilderness proposal to exclude popular mountain bike
    trails like the Wasatch Crest Trail, Little Water, Big Water, and the
    Desolation Trail. This was all due to feedback we received from the mountain
    bike community. There is however, still one area that we cannot seem to
    remedy which is the 1.6 mile stretch of the Mill D trail. That said, it has
    never been the goal of Save Our Canyons to alienate a user group from using
    a trail. We recently cut out nearly 2,000 acres of our proposal to allow for
    mountain biking on the aforementioned trails. We have also been a huge
    supporter of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and have submitted many comments
    in favor of the "mountain bike alternative."

    We are currently working to create additional mountain biking trails to
    provide loop trails back to Guardsman Pass and elsewhere in the Wasatch. We
    sincerely hope that the measures we have taken thus far will help you
    support us in this endeavor as we need as many people as possible to get
    behind this proposal. I myself as a person who recreates in the Wasatch on a
    regular basis (yes, I have left my fair share of paint and blood on the
    spine) have been at times conflicted by the restrictiveness of the
    Wilderness Act. Thus far in history the Wilderness Act has yet to be undone,
    which is why we feel that these lands deserve that protection. As the
    population in the Salt Lake Valley continues to rise so will the demand for
    places to recreate, clean water, and places to find solitude and be with
    nature.

    I hope to continue this dialog with you and go over maps to see if there are
    ways to address your concerns, if we haven't already. I will happily answer
    any other question that you have, feel free to call me as well. Maps, with
    trails are available on our website www.saveourcanyons.org in the Wilderness
    section.

    Sincerely,

    Carl Fisher
    Issues Coordinator
    Save Our Canyons"
    The response I got seems a bit more bland, but equally measured, I think some of the paragraphs might be cut and paste. I can only imagine how many of these he does a day. At least he responded, and for that I give him credit. I agree with pretty much all above. One thing that gets me is that they can make concessions banning horses, but they can't make a concession that allow bikes.
    The IMBA has some general information about the issue at hand:
    "Wilderness often presents a dilemma to the environmentally conscious mountain biker. While most of us applaud the intentions of the Wilderness Act, we also believe that bicycles are an appropriate, muscle-powered activity that belongs in Wilderness alongside hiking and horseback riding.

    But why did bicycles ever become embroiled in the Wilderness debate? Note that bicycling is not mentioned in the Wilderness Act. The key provision often debated is in Section 4(b), which prohibits in Wilderness all motorized travel and equipment and allows "no other form of mechanical transport."

    What does the term "mechanical transport" mean? In 1965, shortly after the Congressional action, the Forest Service wrote formal regulations to implement the Wilderness Act and defined "mechanical transport" to mean a cart, sled or other wheeled vehicle that is "powered by a non-living power source." As of the year 2005, that definition is still law. However, nineteen years after the passage of the Wilderness Act, during the early days of mountain bicycling, the agency added a regulation that prohibits "Possessing or using a hang glider or bicycle." That 1984 action was one of the first to ban bicycling on public lands and by eliminating riding on approximately 25 million acres, it was also certainly the largest.

    Unfortunately, most Americans are not aware that bicycles are banned from Wilderness. This can create the impression that bicycles cause more harm to the environment than do hikers or horses. In fact, science has shown that bicycles generally cause about the same amount of damage as hikers and less damage than horses. IMBA has summarized the findings of this research, available at: imba.com/resources/science/impact_summary.html.

    When the topic of bicycles and Wilderness is debated by the conservation community, views are often split. The Spring 2003 edition of Wild Earth, a biodiversity and conservation publication of the Wildlands Project, invited six environmental advocates to weigh in on the issue. You can get a sense for both sides of the argument and those on the fence. (The article is linked from the online version of this toolkit)"

    I bet the president himself (an avid biker from what I have heard), doesn't even know that he can't ride a bike on wilderness land, neither do probably half of the senators or congressmen in washington (for some reason I sort of doubt they care). Banning bikes in 1984 was a bad idea and I think it's a bad idea now......Hang gliders on the other hand?
    You'd think the biking industry has enough money that they might have lobbyists, well maybe not.
    Last edited by mr. welcorn; 04-16-2008 at 12:01 PM.

  24. #24
    yelgatgab
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    459
    I carried this discussion to another forum. I think it's important to get the word out. Here's a post I thought brought up some important points. If we fight to block this designation, or even change the boundary, chances of failure are much higher. Protection of this area isn't a bad thing, there just need to be some concessions for bikers, such as the designation of certain areas as National Recreation Areas, National Scenic Areas or National Conservation Areas...for example. I don't completely agree with his assessment of IMBA, but that's beside the point.

    Alright, I've officially gone overboard on this issue. I just spent 30 minutes on the phone with a representative from wilderness.org in Durango. He also happens to be the president of the Durango Wheel Club and sits on the board of Trails 2000. The fights down there over portions of the Colorado Trail and the Hermosa Creek Trail are pretty much identical to the proposal up here. They were able to reach consensus to keep those trails open to non-motorized mechanized travel.

    The conversation ran the gamut from the the intent of the original WA 1964 to common sense approaches to new land designations. From what I cold gather the WA 1964 is not open for re-interpretation as the forces behind it have uber deep pockets and fro the most part (and I agree) the act is a good one and does far more good than harm.

    The approach that worked for them (mtb'rs) was too take the stance that they too want to protect the areas in question, but that it cold be done without eliminating the most widely used trails while conceding the use of more obscure areas. To me that seems to make sense on all levels because, as was pointed out, what would the Wasatch look like if there was no protection?

    Mtb'rs need to segregate themselves from the typical motorhead stereotype (IMBA's major downfall) and organize into a far more green consortium along the lines of Trails2000 in order to better work with environmental groups. Being new to this area I am pretty ignorant to what the current state of cycling advocacy is here so enlightenment on that would be appreciated.

  25. #25
    on yer left
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by bagtagley
    Here's a post I thought brought up some important points.
    That'd be my post. I guess I'm here and there now. Just what I needed, another time suck. My wife is gonna kill me, again.

    So....I found this list of advocacy in Utah. Seems there is a need for something more along the lines of Trails2000 here.

  26. #26
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by radnasty
    That'd be my post. I guess I'm here and there now. Just what I needed, another time suck. My wife is gonna kill me, again.
    Welcome! I'm UB over there and on a couple other winter related sites.

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

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    [QUOTE=mr. welcorn]from SOC FAQ:
    "What is SOC's position on mountain bikes in the Wasatch?

    While the use of mountain bikes does create potential user conflicts, there are well-established rules for the right-of-way on Forest Service paths. SOC believes that the presence of mountain bikes does not represent any irreversible change in the character of the canyons or mountains. Local governments and the Forest Service need to manage user conflicts. Using the best preservation tool at hand, SOC is actively working toward the expansion of the boundaries of the wilderness areas in the Wasatch and bikes are not allowed in such areas. Mountain bike enthusiasts, when they review SOC's wilderness proposal, will find that the proposed restrictions on mountain biking are minimal."

    Here's the way this reads to me:
    Mountain bikes create conflict due to right-of-way issues.
    Remove the "presence" of mountain bikes and reverse the change in "character" of our outdoor experience.
    Since local government and the Forest Service will not manage user conflicts in a way that suites us...
    We will eliminate this conflict by banning mountain bikes through the use of wilderness designation.
    And since mountain bikers are an ignorant group we'll add this last sentence so the'll think we've worked hard on their behalf.

    You know what happened to the mountain biking in the Uintas?
    "They" came up with an amicable soloution on our behalf.
    Let's not let that happen again. "Remember the Uintas!"

  28. #28

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1

    Wilderness is anti-bike?

    Wilderness is anti-bike? Come on, give me a break. Have any of you actually read the wilderness act? It is a piece of legislation and as such, has no opinions. It isn't anti bike or pro anything. It's a piece of paper. Now the people who worked tirelessly to pass it, and the people who continue to work to increase wilderness, they have opinions. Some of those folks may not like bikes, I suspect most of them do however. But they value the concept of wilderness and if that means loosing a bike trail, so be it. I'll gladly stop riding that trail if it means that those places will be protected in perpetuity.
    We as a society have no desire to stop making more of ourselves, and that means more of ourselves out there. Maybe it is time we look beyond our own selfish desires and begin to think of these places that give back so much to the quality of our life.

  29. #29

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Sorry, you are wrong. Bikes are banned in wilderness, so therefore wilderness is anti-bike.
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 04-17-2008 at 10:17 AM.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    And designating an area 'wilderness' doesn't actually change the nature of the landscape or actually do anything to 'protect' it. It just outlaws mountain bikes.
    I agree - the only impact would be to prevent mtb bikers. The ONLY possible other reason would be to keep the helicopter skiing out in the winter -- the wilderness designation would prevent that too.

    How mtbikes got lumped in with MOTORIZED travel is beyond me, but in 1964, they probably just didn't really know what mtbiking would become. Mechanized travel...what else is there besides a bike that falls into that category?

    Whacked.

    I've always hated the fact that horses can use trails that bikes can not. More impact - those of you who have backpacked in the Uintas will know this - big horse train with boxes of food/gear ... ridiculous.

  31. #31
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,539
    I can't even imagine loosing the Mill D trail. This is by far one of the best mountain bike trails in the Wasatch. We need different approach to protect that land.

  32. #32
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by dabast
    Maybe it is time we look beyond our own selfish desires and begin to think of these places that give back so much to the quality of our life.
    How do these areas inherently give back to the quality of our life? Just by being there? Just by existing? My life is improved because of the mere existence of some pristine wilderness? Give me a break.

    It improves the quality of my life because I venture out into that land. I use the land, I enjoy being among the trees, the mountains, the fresh air.

    Who is being selfish? The people who want to exclude 1 user group from usage so thier lives are the ones enriched? Or the people who want to still be able to use the area.

    Mountain bikers have been getting the shaft from political propaganda groups for years. We are seen as the black sheep of trail users. Despite the fact that bikers are out there building and creating new trails, maintaining existing ones, educating the public about proper trail use and etiquette. And despite the fact that our impact is less than that of horses and in some cases even hikers. Don't give me garbage about "giving back" to areas that enrich our lives. Bikers as a group are the ones who are most actively giving back.

    These areas don't enrich anyone's lives just by existing, as if some ethereal peace of mind transcends the valley knowing that "out there" is some peaceful lake with peaceful trees. It is in the act of using, and being in the mountains that improves our lives.

    ----

    In regards to the Wilderness Act and bikes. I believe bikes were banned in 1984, 20 years after the Act.
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  33. #33
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by dabast
    Wilderness is anti-bike? Come on, give me a break. Have any of you actually read the wilderness act? It is a piece of legislation and as such, has no opinions.
    Welcome,
    I have read the wilderness act, and you are right, acts/laws don't have opinions. They state legal guidelines/rules. As such, the wilderness act prohibits "mechanical transportation". This has been interpretted by legislators to mean bikes/atvs/planes/anything mechanical. If you have read the wilderness act, you'll see this is in section 4c:
    http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?...sec=legisAct#5
    you can see the relevance to bikes here:
    http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?...misconceptions
    I'm not saying aren't entitled to your opinion, but did you really read the Act before you asked everyone if they did?

  34. #34
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    The Mill D area is already highly protected as a watershed. And highly regulated. Mountain bikers are already have limited access up there. If there are 120 rideable days on those trails, we are limited to 60 of them. 60 days a year, as compared to 365 for a hiker, who can access that trail any time they want.
    The Odd-Even days apply to the Millcreek drainage side where dogs are allowed. The Mill-D trail is in Big Cottonwood (watershed, no dogs) and you can ride any day you like.

    Please correct me if I am wrong?

    Cherry Steming the Mill D and Desolation Lake trails sounds like an excellent compromise, read about it at IMBA:

    http://www.imba.com/resources/land_p...toolkit_7.html

    "Cherry-stemming, the process of cutting out a trail or road from surrounding Wilderness, is a fairly common strategy for accomodating motorized interests in current Wilderness bills. With a cherry-stem, motorized users can continue to access certain roads or trails even though they are now surrounded by Wilderness. There is no reason why this technique could not be utilized to protect bicycle access to some of our favorite trails. A cherry-stem works best on out-and-back trails to a campground, lake, scenic vista, or some other landmark. Wilderness advocates are receptive to cherry-stemming because it does not require allowing "non-conforming" uses in Wilderness. Bicyclists should consider cherry-stemming because it allows us to ride singletrack with Wilderness on both sides of the trail."

    JMH

  35. #35
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by JMH
    The Odd-Even days apply to the Millcreek drainage side where dogs are allowed. The Mill-D trail is in Big Cottonwood (watershed, no dogs) and you can ride any day you like.

    Please correct me if I am wrong?

    JMH
    Yes, I think you are right.
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,494
    Best post on "wilderness designations" that I have read in a long time. The same thing is happening across North America and it is a sham.

  37. #37
    on yer left
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by dabast
    Wilderness is anti-bike? Come on, give me a break. Have any of you actually read the wilderness act? It is a piece of legislation and as such, has no opinions. It isn't anti bike or pro anything. It's a piece of paper. Now the people who worked tirelessly to pass it, and the people who continue to work to increase wilderness, they have opinions. Some of those folks may not like bikes, I suspect most of them do however. But they value the concept of wilderness and if that means loosing a bike trail, so be it. I'll gladly stop riding that trail if it means that those places will be protected in perpetuity.
    We as a society have no desire to stop making more of ourselves, and that means more of ourselves out there. Maybe it is time we look beyond our own selfish desires and begin to think of these places that give back so much to the quality of our life.
    The WA 1964 is anti-bike in so much that it bans the usage of bikes within a designated wilderness area. This in and of itself is not a bad thing. However, having the WA 1964 as the only means to protect lands that are currently enjoyed by a multiple of users (some of which are inherently more abusive than others) is an issue, especially when it is applied to an area that adjoins an urban landscape and is used by it's citizens. It's hardly a selfish act to want to maintain the use of limited recreational areas in an urban setting. SOC is seeking to prevent current users from using the lands that the SOC doesn't like. Plain and simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    These areas don't enrich anyone's lives just by existing, as if some ethereal peace of mind transcends the valley knowing that "out there" is some peaceful lake with peaceful trees. It is in the act of using, and being in the mountains that improves our lives.
    You're wrong on both counts.

  38. #38
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by radnasty
    You're wrong on both counts.
    I am right in how it applies to me. It is not enough for me to just KNOW these areas exist. I want to experience them. That is where, for me, the real improvment to my quality of life stems from.

    Perhaps I should have personalized my statement a bit more. But I would think we can agree that experiencing these lands is more valuable than just knowing they are there?
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by radnasty
    The WA 1964 is anti-bike in so much that it bans the usage of bikes within a designated wilderness area. This in and of itself is not a bad thing. However, having the WA 1964 as the only means to protect lands that are currently enjoyed by a multiple of users (some of which are inherently more abusive than others) is an issue, especially when it is applied to an area that adjoins an urban landscape and is used by it's citizens. It's hardly a selfish act to want to maintain the use of limited recreational areas in an urban setting. SOC is seeking to prevent current users from using the lands that the SOC doesn't like. Plain and simple.



    You're wrong on both counts.
    I'm curious, what current use of land in the wasatch does the SOC not "like" that they hope to restrict by designating Mill-D? In response to an earlier invitation I actually have read the WA ( http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?...sec=legisAct#5 ) and it states the intent as this "there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road ...there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area".

    I have no problem with that. I don't have much of a problem with "mechancial transport" being stretched to mean a bicycle (even though SOC and others agree that it has no lasting affect on the environment). However, I have a very serious problem with the fact that SOC is trying to justify disenfranchising a big section of people who love and use the wasatch based on a "need" to protect against roads, cars, aircraft, boats and shopping centers springing up all over Mill-D. Are those serious threats, or is SOC trying to find some way to kick out bikers because they believe we somehow cheapen their experience?

    SOC have my full suport in designating wilderness all over the Wasatch. They can designate my back yard if they feel it would help. I just wish they did it with a little more thought and don't try to abuse the WA. It was put in place to preserve lands and people's appreciation of them, not as a tool to achieve some elitist agenda.

  40. #40
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Dabast has one post. I'm sure he is an SOC'er.

  41. #41
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleWhiteCaveman
    I'm curious, what current use of land in the wasatch does the SOC not "like" that they hope to restrict by designating Mill-D?

    I have no problem with that. I don't have much of a problem with "mechancial transport" being stretched to mean a bicycle (even though SOC and others agree that it has no lasting affect on the environment). However, I have a very serious problem with the fact that SOC is trying to justify disenfranchising a big section of people who love and use the wasatch based on a "need" to protect against roads, cars, aircraft, boats and shopping centers springing up all over Mill-D. Are those serious threats, or is SOC trying to find some way to kick out bikers because they believe we somehow cheapen their experience?
    I am just giving my opinion based on the feeling i get talking with people involved with SOC, and what I read on other non-biking boards, so take it for what it's worth. I think the big thing SOC would like to get rid of is heli-skiing in the wasatch. I don't know if there is a hidden agenda to target bikes, or if we are just a side effect of wanting to be free of helicopters during ski season. I personally hate the choppers during the winter, and yes it does cheapen MY experience in the backcountry, not to mention potential safety concerns. That is for a different forum though.
    From my limited communication with SOC, the real problem is with the wording of the Wilderness Act. From what I was told you can't pick and choose what things you allow and what things you ban. If you want bikes you can't have a "wilderness" designation. Some people have brought up the idea that some of this "anti-bike" legislation is due to user conflicts between bikes and hikers, I don't know about the merit of that. From all I can tell it is just speculation and hearsay.
    In terms of solutions, I think everyone can agree with err that it would be a shame to lose any of the mill D trail. It truly is one of the best in the wasatch. I am wondering if it is possible to just designate the trail itself and 5 feet on either side as "non-wilderness". This would eliminate the ability of helicopters to travel there, while allowing bikes ( I think). The only downside is that it would break up the wilderness land, but perhaps I am missing the big deal there? Anyone on the SOC listening? If there was some hidden agenda (which I don't think exists) then they certainly wouldn't agree to this idea. Just a thought.

  42. #42
    on yer left
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleWhiteCaveman
    I'm curious, what current use of land in the wasatch does the SOC not "like" that they hope to restrict by designating Mill-D?
    There are two. Heli skiing and mtb. While there is clearly a need to protect the Wasatch it's idiotic to attempt to designate areas that see heavy recreational use on the border of an urban area as wilderness. The corridor from I-80 south to LCC should never even be considered for a wilderness designation. The reason the Wasatch is such an asset is because SLC residents have access to it. SOC's elitist myopic agenda is total crap. Wilderness Areas have their place, but it's not here.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. welcorn
    .... I am wondering if it is possible to just designate the trail itself and 5 feet on either side as "non-wilderness". This would eliminate the ability of helicopters to travel there, while allowing bikes ( I think). The only downside is that it would break up the wilderness land, but perhaps I am missing the big deal there? Anyone on the SOC listening? If there was some hidden agenda (which I don't think exists) then they certainly wouldn't agree to this idea. Just a thought.
    Agreed, though i think in an earlier letter SOC claimed the "cherry-stem" approach didn't work. While they certainly are not obliged to explain themselves to us, they might get more support if they were able to explain why we couldn't pursue this approach. If SOC's proposal included a cherry stem on Mill-D I'd pay-up, become a member for life, put their fugly, busted stickers all over my helmet and eat my chamois.

  44. #44
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,539
    If they Cherry Stem in Mill D and any other existing trails in their proposal, then they've got my full support. We don't need any more trails up there but we need to keep what we have.

    No cherry stem, then this needs to be fought to the bitter end.

  45. #45
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by dabast
    "Wilderness is anti-bike? Come on, give me a break. Have any of you actually read the wilderness act? It is a piece of legislation and as such, has no opinions. It isn't anti bike or pro anything. It's a piece of paper."

    I'll gladly stop riding that trail if it means that those places will be protected in perpetuity.
    Haha. This dude is hilarious. Obviously a SOC or pro-SOC voice. Nice to have their perspective, but they are obviously not the sharpest spoon in the drawer.

    So a piece of paper is going to protect places for "perpetuity"? How many civilizations have lasted that long? How many governments have lasted into "perpetuity"? Your basic logic is flawed if not at the very least short-sighted in the context of the global timeline. If it's just a peice of paper, the places protected by that "piece of paper" will only be protected as long as people give a fuk about that paper. And as history proves, that isn't going to be "perpetuity".

    So during my time on this planet, I'm going to fight to be able to ride the places I enjoy riding. That's right, it's all about me and my enjoyment right here and now.

    "Can't there be some things in life just for me? Is that so selfish?" - George Castanza

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

  46. #46
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    [I]I'll gladly stop riding that trail if it means that those places will be protected in perpetuity[/I

    How noble. Dude probably never rode that trail.

    IB1

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    As I understand it, when areas are selected for wilderness designation they have to meet certain standards. What these standards are I do not know, the one thing I can see is they do allow established trails. I can't understand why an established trail being used by MTBRs before wilderness designation cannot be grandfathered in for it's continued use. They grandfather logging and mining roads and "cherry stem" around their areas of operation. But something as inocent as cycling is eliminated asap, no question, no debate. Where the he!! is our support, why are all the bike mfgrs and component mfgrs standing around with their hands in their pockets?

    Idoit boy 1 isnt such an Idoit boy. dabast's drivle and that of Mr. Carl Fisher seem very similar.

    P.S. SOC feels the are in charge of the Wasatch from Wellsville to Mt. Nebo, so we may want to keep our eyes peeled for threats on AF canyon, Ben Lomond areas, as well as all points south.

  48. #48
    on yer left
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    As I understand it, when areas are selected for wilderness designation they have to meet certain standards. What these standards are I do not know, the one thing I can see is they do allow established trails. I can't understand why an established trail being used by MTBRs before wilderness designation cannot be grandfathered in for it's continued use. They grandfather logging and mining roads and "cherry stem" around their areas of operation.

    Logging and mining are never grandfathered in. They are written into the WA 1964. Read it.

  49. #49
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Damn!

    As much as I'm opposed to losing Mill D in the summer. I'm more opposed to losing backcountry only access to Silver Fork, Days Fork, Grizzley, etc... in the winter.

    Read more here. The wise Wizard of the Wasatch (www.wowasatch.com) has spoken. I don't want to lose any of this personally.

    http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...0&postcount=40

    This sucks. It's like choosing whether I lose my right nut or my left nut. I want both!

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

  50. #50
    JMH
    JMH is offline
    Sugary Exoskeleton
    Reputation: JMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by dabast
    ...and if that means loosing a bike trail, so be it. I'll gladly stop riding that trail if it means that those places will be protected in perpetuity.
    We as a society have no desire to stop making more of ourselves, and that means more of ourselves out there. Maybe it is time we look beyond our own selfish desires and begin to think of these places that give back so much to the quality of our life.
    It's a 1.6 mile stretch of the Mill D trail that is being debated, not the wilderness designation in general. It's not at all selfish to stand up and say "hey, I support wilderness designation, but I really enjoy using that trail. Isn't there some way we can compromise on this issue?"

    If SOC is TRULY concerned about wilderness designations, they would be happy to concede a 8,440 linear foot section of trail to win thousands of acres of forest without complaint (and with potential support) from the cycling community. If they won't compromise, it goes a long way toward showing that eliminating bikes from Mill D is a higher priority than simply protecting land.

    JMH

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by radnasty
    Logging and mining are never grandfathered in. They are written into the WA 1964. Read it.
    Sorry, I read Special provisions # 3. and thought it was similar to provision # 1.

  52. #52
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    They won't compromise, look at their statement for cherry stemming. We have to fight this, mark my words they will come for the Crest. It is a matter of time. There is no compromise with these people, because to them there is no differance between a bike, a motorcycle, a quad, a helicopter or a Jeep. We all must be eliminated. Already there is no dogs, no horse traffic, no sleds, no Jeeps, no quads etc allowed in that part of the Wasatch. What they want is NO BIKES. We don't need this designated as wilderness. Do you really think they are going to build another ski resort there or a 7-11? No they are not. The land is fully protected from development without this designation. Look to Montana if you don't think that is true. The Montana Wilderness Society has gone after hundreds of miles of trail in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. If you want to lose your right to bike learn to compromise.

  53. #53
    Dr. Pepper drinker
    Reputation: catch22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by dabast
    Wilderness is anti-bike? Come on, give me a break. Have any of you actually read the wilderness act? It is a piece of legislation and as such, has no opinions. It isn't anti bike or pro anything. It's a piece of paper. Now the people who worked tirelessly to pass it, and the people who continue to work to increase wilderness, they have opinions. Some of those folks may not like bikes, I suspect most of them do however. But they value the concept of wilderness and if that means loosing a bike trail, so be it. I'll gladly stop riding that trail if it means that those places will be protected in perpetuity.
    We as a society have no desire to stop making more of ourselves, and that means more of ourselves out there. Maybe it is time we look beyond our own selfish desires and begin to think of these places that give back so much to the quality of our life.
    If they were that concerned about the wilderness and not their own selfish desires they would be pushing to eliminate any human presence in those areas all together, not just that of the mountain bikers.
    Sipping the Knolly Whisquillappa

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by dabast
    Wilderness is anti-bike? Come on, give me a break. Have any of you actually read the wilderness act? It is a piece of legislation and as such, has no opinions. It isn't anti bike or pro anything. It's a piece of paper. Now the people who worked tirelessly to pass it, and the people who continue to work to increase wilderness, they have opinions. Some of those folks may not like bikes, I suspect most of them do however. But they value the concept of wilderness and if that means loosing a bike trail, so be it. I'll gladly stop riding that trail if it means that those places will be protected in perpetuity.
    We as a society have no desire to stop making more of ourselves, and that means more of ourselves out there. Maybe it is time we look beyond our own selfish desires and begin to think of these places that give back so much to the quality of our life.
    Yea, kinda like "guns don't kill people, people kill people." It all depends on how it's used.

  55. #55
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Idiot Boy 1
    Do you really think they are going to build another ski resort there or a 7-11?.
    While I agree with you on the other points, the threat of the existing resorts expanding is very real. I'm hesitant to believe "Brahlta" will expand much, but "Brobird" would spread like crazy if not kept in check.

    I am torn on this issue. Big time. My winter self is punching my summer self in the balls right now and vice versa.

    Either way my balls hurt. Maybe I should go see a Dr.......

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

  56. #56
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    I don't think this actually has a chance in H E double hockey sticks of passing. One, ski resorts are BIG business here in SLC and we all know what is good for BIG business is good for the State of Utah. After all the state moto is "Industry". Second Heli skiing, which I will agree is totally lame and for fat out of staters, is well entrenched. And well entrenched means moneyed, and moneyed means lawyers and lawyers means lobbyist and a few well placed campaign contributions will kill this hippy fantasy dead in its tracks. If SOC knew what was good for it's cause it would "cherry stem" Mill D and enlist the help of folks like us I like wilderness and have spent much time in it. But here is the problem, they won't enlist us. They said they won't. Don't misunderstand them, bikes ARE the problem.

  57. #57

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    I'm thinkin' it has a pretty good chance.

    But cherry-stemming only works for roads/trails that reach into but not all the way across a proposed wilderness area. A cherry stemmed trail is an in-out trail, not part of a loop.

  58. #58

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    ----------

  59. #59

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Why doesn't SOC just drop that part of the proposal then? Where is the compromise?

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Bortis Yelltzen
    Damn!

    As much as I'm opposed to losing Mill D in the summer. I'm more opposed to losing backcountry only access to Silver Fork, Days Fork, Grizzley, etc... in the winter.

    Read more here. The wise Wizard of the Wasatch (www.wowasatch.com) has spoken. I don't want to lose any of this personally.

    http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...0&postcount=40

    This sucks. It's like choosing whether I lose my right nut or my left nut. I want both!

    B
    Here's an idea...why don't SOC just designate wilderness around ski areas if they're so worried about it, and drop Mill D? In fact, I'm sure a lot of people would be delighted with that. A lot easier to stomach because with ski area wilderness you aren't taking anyone's rights away, you're just limiting growth.

    I agree with others here. This has got nothing to do with ski areas and everything to do with cutting out bikers. The really outrageous thing, as far as I'm concerned, is the abuses of holders of patented mining claims in the Wasatch. Why aren't SOC targeting them? Probably because it's much more difficult work. SOC claim to be committed to protecting the Wasatch and people's use of it, but target the "little people" because it's easier to get success. A lapse in judgement, I believe; SOC are sniffing my chammy if they think we're going to stand for them acting unilaterally on this issue.

  61. #61

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleWhiteCaveman
    Why aren't SOC targeting them?
    We are. And if you wanna help out, feel free to contact me.

    More to the point, if you're interested in getting in on the negotiating floor for this Wilderness bill - or interested in laying out some new trails - get in touch ASAP.

  62. #62
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    More to the point, if you're interested in getting in on the negotiating floor for this Wilderness bill - or interested in laying out some new trails - get in touch ASAP.
    PM sent.

    The rest of us here are going to have to organize to fight this I guess. Bikers are unorganized. Mainly because we don't understand why people have to be pricks and territorial about this stuff. Why someone would want to exclude a non-polluting trail user from these trails is beyond me. It just makes SOC look like a bunch of self-rightous a-holes. Share and share alike is how I think about this stuff. I never knew I had to spend all my time fighting for my freedom to ride. Times are changing I guess.

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

  63. #63
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    We are. And if you wanna help out, feel free to contact me.

    More to the point, if you're interested in getting in on the negotiating floor for this Wilderness bill - or interested in laying out some new trails - get in touch ASAP.
    Why do we have to work with you, are you the self appointed guardians of the Wasatch? Is your organization going to save the Wasatch? Seems a bit self rightous doesn't it?

    You don't want our input, you want us eliminated. You could easily work in an agreement to allow the trail to exist with bikes. I have worked with your types in the past, was a donating member of the Wilderness Society. I realized long ago that it reallly is a cult of hikers who strongly dislike the presence of anything not like them in there prescious woods. It is a group think mentality. What kills me is most of the members spend very little time in the backcountry. I strongly believe that these organizations love to push around the little guy, it makes them feel better about their lives. I will say this again, we must fight them, they will take more if we don't.

  64. #64
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Idiot Boy 1
    Why do we have to work with you, are you the self appointed guardians of the Wasatch? Is your organization going to save the Wasatch? Seems a bit self rightous doesn't it?
    While I agree with you to some extent you need to remember the old saying " you catch more flies with honey than vinegar".

    They are organized and hence have a larger voice. In order to compete we will have to organize and work with them. It is a sad reality. If we can get WAFTA or the local IMBA involved in fighting this on our behalf I will sign up for both of those I guess. Up until now I always saw trail access as something other people were losing. Now it is personal and I guess it is time to get involved.

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

  65. #65
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    I contacted IMBA and waiting to hear back. I offer up my services to help fight this, hopefully with the guidance of IMBA. I'm unsure as how to proceed but proceed I will.
    James

  66. #66
    yelgatgab
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    459
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't WPG been dropping clients into Wilderness since...forever? I thought one of SOCs biggest battles was to prevent this. If I'm right (which is rare, I admit), this designation has little to do w/ Heli skiing except, perhaps, to secure future heli-free lands should they succeed in banning helicopters from Wilderness Areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    Well, I'm doin' my dead level best to make this designation happen, and I know a few of the people in SOC. Cherry-stemming Mill D won't work - it goes to the Crest trail, which is outside the proposal. WPG - whatever.
    Yeah, I've signed off on a few exclusions, reductions, compromises, giveaways & negotiations so far to keep this process on track. Dick still thinks he's entitled to White Pine, Onno still wants his road realigned so ev'ryone can redline it up to the Flagstaff lift, our legislators confuse the Wasatch with suthern Ootah ...

    So I'm lookin' for a few Wasatch mountain bikers who will actually do something.
    Like help lay out, design, support and build some five miles of high Wasatch mtb trail to make a better loop up there, from Deso to Guardsman.

    The USFS is negatively interested. Last time I looked for people willing to show up at an IMBA / SOC / USFS / WMC / anybody else who gives a damn / meeting regarding Wasatch trails - nobody could be bothered to even say they'd show up.

    So I'll try again. Anyone here interested?

    .................................................. ...................

    The meeting last year had nothing to do with closing anything, Baker.
    It was about getting the word from actual trail users directly to the Forest Service. They wanted input on all aspects of trails. From you.

    If bikers were any less organized, they'd be unicyclists.

    As for impacts - depends on how and where the trails are built.
    Well, if the trail work is anything like what's happened to Mill D, I'd say the environment is doomed.

    And, perhaps this is why nobody showed up. Aside from this thread, I didn't hear a word from the FS regarding input from the cycling community. What I did hear was that they were taking it into their own hands to "improve" Mill D, and they wanted our help. Pardon me, but I prefer not to **** where I eat.

    A climb replacing a DH, and additional mileage in Mill Creek are both insults to the cycling community. You can build 100 miles of replacement trail, and I can guarantee it won't hold a candle to that couple of miles down from Deso. You can continue to pretend that you're trying to work with us, and continue to insult us. Or, you can truly make an effort to work on a compromise, and get us on your side. You do that, and I guarantee people will "show up".

  67. #67

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by bagtagley
    Or, you can truly make an effort to work on a compromise, and get us on your side. You do that, and I guarantee people will "show up".
    Name a time and place. I'll be there.
    Will you?

  68. #68
    yelgatgab
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    Name a time and place. I'll be there.
    Will you?
    If what you want to discuss is the creation of new trails, I don't see the point. If you're truly interested in exploring options that will keep Mill D open to cyclists, then I think the appropriate thing to do would be to organize an official meeting between interested parties and advocacy groups.

  69. #69
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    I will be there. Seeing how we MTBers don't have a club house we will have to work out a time and place with SOC.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    150
    David,

    I've been involved with the TOC that is lead by Rachael at SOC. I'm part of WAFTA and I thought the whole point of that group is to:

    - Share ideas, input, and discuss conflicts
    - Pool resources for work days for volunteers
    - Inform each other of our individual groups goals and otherwise work together

    I've been to every TOC meeting since I was first invited. It doesn't really meet in the winter as far as I know, but this is something I'd be happy to discuss - whether there or with you.

    Please PM me with your telephone number and I'll call you.

    Thanks,

    Steve

  71. #71
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    Since David is actively posting and reading this thread, I will ask my previous question again.

    Why?

    What is the motivation behind this new proposal? Is there a significant benefit to be gained from pushing these additional lands through as Wilderness? How will the impact on the land change from what it is at now?

    Or, is this just a way to "target" bikers and heli-skiers? Why does SOC feel the need to target anyone? The Wasatch Front and surrounding areas already have a lot of wilderness area designated. I support the principles behind the WA of 1964. There are some areas that should be limited in their access. Keep the wild, wild. But why is there a need to push for more? Especially in areas that are so close to a large urban population.

    And isn't proposing new trail to be built counter-intuitive? Wouldn't building an additional 5 miles of trail have more impact on the area than the continued use of what is already in place?

    Is this less about actual impact and "saving the canyons" than it is about pursuing your chosen cause in life?
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    We are. And if you wanna help out, feel free to contact me.

    More to the point, if you're interested in getting in on the negotiating floor for this Wilderness bill - or interested in laying out some new trails - get in touch ASAP.
    That's more like it! Thanks for the offer, David. I'm a member of WAFTA and would like to see them first about organizing our efforts. Based on TheProf's response it looks like they're interested. In any event I will be getting involved. Perhaps you could post a link or an email or some other contact information?

    Alister

  73. #73

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Steve, I think you're right. The next TAC should be in early May. I think the USFS has already settled on what trails need maintenance this summer, so maybe we can spend the whole meeting on Wilderness & MTB trails.

    Bag, James - the official meetings and advocacy groups have already been organized and done, and they'll be done again. And again and again and again.

    IMBA has been meeting with SOC on this proposal for a year or two now. At least Ryan would show up & talk, so we could get some input & adjust boundaries to avoid nearly all MTB trails.

    Both SOC and the USFS have been trying - for years - to find some group of MTBers who would provide some input from their point of view. A lot of MTBers won't touch IMBA because of their alliance with the BRC, so we try to include the MTB section of the WMC as well. I've even stooped to trolling internet forums for input.

    One more time: you guys wanna meet, name a time and place. I'll be there. I'll see if I can bring Carl along & you can call him names to his face.
    And we can talk about whatever you wanna talk about. Shoot, if you'll show up, I'll even cover the beer!

  74. #74

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Gotta go right now, but: [email protected]

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Sorry for the repition, y'all. I want to re-post at the bottom of the thread for David's attention.

    David is putting out a hand here. We moaned about not having a say. Now is our chance. Whether we are being co-opted or truely asked for guidance is something we can decide once we hear what SOC have to say.


    "That's more like it! Thanks for the offer, David. I'm a member of WAFTA and would like to see them first about organizing our efforts. Based on TheProf's response it looks like they're interested. In any event I will be getting involved. Perhaps you could post a link or an email or some other contact information?"

    Alister

  76. #76

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Dave,
    Since when has anyone convinced you of anything? You have the reputation as being a know-it-all, stubborn, self-righteous, pompous ass who thinks he knows what is best and has the right to tell other people how to live their lives. You do it all of the time.
    What makes you think that people are going to think that negotiating with you in real life is going to be anything different than on the internet?

  77. #77
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    I don't have a clubhouse either, but if someone can offer a place, I will surely be there to discuss solutions. I think there are enough reasonable brains among the biking community (mine not included) that we can come up with some ideas. A meeting would be good to get more details. Things like, are there other designations besides "wilderness" that would achieve similar goals, but still allow bikes? I am just not well versed enough to know what other options are available to prevent development on this land. I'll do some more research on it I guess.
    I am torn like bortis on this one, because the winter and summer sides of me are at odds (Although I haven't gone quite so far at to punch myself in the nuts yet).
    As far as the cherry stemming goes.....I got this from SOC, and thought others might be interested:
    The problem is that it would not cherry stem, but cut our contiguous lands in two pieces. A cherry stem requires wilderness on 3 sides.

    The only downside is that it would break up the wilderness land, but perhaps I am missing the big deal there?

    This would indeed, break up the wilderness lands, hence disqualifying all lands that lie to the east of Mill D since is will then be a non-contiguous piece of land that is less than 5,000 acres. This land, is what we might consider “prime real estate” in the Wasatch. Most of this land is relatively flat and has existing private property.

    This is something that we have been struggling with for quite sometime. We were hoping that for the sake of the protection of lands, people would give up a portion of this trail and embrace the new section of trail that we are currently working on. The descent from Desolation Lake to the Junction where you begin climbing up to Dog Lake remains open in our proposal.

    Anyone got an idea for a place to meet? As far as time, anything works for me.

  78. #78
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    Since David is actively posting and reading this thread, I will ask my previous question again.

    Why?

    What is the motivation behind this new proposal? Is there a significant benefit to be gained from pushing these additional lands through as Wilderness? How will the impact on the land change from what it is at now?

    Or, is this just a way to "target" bikers and heli-skiers? Why does SOC feel the need to target anyone? The Wasatch Front and surrounding areas already have a lot of wilderness area designated. I support the principles behind the WA of 1964. There are some areas that should be limited in their access. Keep the wild, wild. But why is there a need to push for more? Especially in areas that are so close to a large urban population.

    And isn't proposing new trail to be built counter-intuitive? Wouldn't building an additional 5 miles of trail have more impact on the area than the continued use of what is already in place?

    Is this less about actual impact and "saving the canyons" than it is about pursuing your chosen cause in life?
    I'll try to save David some time. Here is an quote from an email I recieved from him today.

    In short, as I see it: the Mill D area of the proposal is in the
    crosshairs for big development; it is very valuable and rare habitat
    in the Wasatch; so it really needs Wilderness protection. Since it's
    too small to be designated as an isolated Wilderness, it has to be
    attached to a nearby Wilderness area, and the only way to do that
    would cut off the Mill D trail.

    There's a substantial private inholding in Mill D that was recently
    bought by an aggressive real estate development company, and the easy
    road access has already allowed a slow growth of random McMansions
    around that area. All it would take to open that up to more
    development is a flick of the pen by the USFS brass, and they obey
    their political masters. The gentle topography and healthy vegetation
    in that area make it very appealing to third-home buyers. For the same
    reasons, it's very valuable wildlife habitat - the richest part of the
    ecosystem, next to the creeks themselves, but also the most impacted.
    And some of the most loved by visitors.

    In the next twenty years, we'll see extremely strong pressures for
    high-priced development everywhere in the Wasatch - enough pressure to
    warp and eliminate the restrictions that have kept development down in
    the Canyons. I've seen it happen repeatedly here in the last decade.
    There's no end to the string of reckless multimillionaires working
    their way through corrupt politicians to get around every ordinance on
    the books, and all it takes to bulldoze an area is one lucky developer.

    If it wasn't for those facts, SOC would already have dropped that
    section from the proposal (like the Little Peak area). Mill D has come
    up many times in board meetings - SOC has many members who are
    mountain bikers, including board members. The final decision can't be
    made within SOC, so we're sort of punting on it - the final decision
    will be up to everybody who cares enough to get involved.
    In short we all need to get together and talk. David invited me to talk, I accepted but it might be good if we all get together as I am no mountain bike advocate and am not a member of IMBA, WAFTA, etc... (yet). I'm just a rider that is pissed at the thought of losing one of my favorite trails.

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

  79. #79

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    I'm telling you guys, Witherspoon is a scare-monger. He will use any tactic to get his way. Just research some of his posts at TGR. He' s pretty much the most hated person there because of this.You have been warned.

  80. #80
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    I'm telling you guys, Witherspoon is a scare-monger. He will use any tactic to get his way. Just research some of his posts at TGR. He' s pretty much the most hated person there because of this.You have been warned.
    I know Dave and I know his history. I know him from telemarktips.com, TGR, etc..... as I post there as well as Unruly Baker.

    Simple reality is that he knows the system and is in a position to help OR hurt us. So it is best to figure out how to work WITH him. He's a nice guy in person. I sold him some tele skis. He will make a better friend than foe in the long run.

    My $0.02 on it.

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

  81. #81
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    If development is the key concern, there are alternatives to a Wilderness Designation. The area could be proclaimed a National Recreation Area, with provisions written into the act to prevent any future development.

    To quote from IMBA:

    This option reflects the notion that Wilderness is not the only way to protect land. A diversity of designations protect natural areas while allowing bicycle access. Like Wilderness, most of these designations prohibit the building of roads or structures, commercial timber harvest, motorized access and other resource protection measures.
    After doing more research at SOC it is clear they have a very real vendetta against Heli-skiing. I can't help but feel this proposal is a direct attempt to ban Heli-Skiing in the Tri Canyon area. Bikers are unintentional (or not...) collateral damage to that effort.
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  82. #82
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Bortis Yelltzen
    I sold him some tele skis. He will make a better friend than foe in the long run.

    My $0.02 on it.

    B
    So in essence he paid you off? Just kidding . I agree whole-heartedly. Who would you rather negotiate with, a real estate conglomerate, a privately owned ski resort, the USFS, or SOC? I know my vote. It isn't going to hurt to just LISTEN to what anyone has to say. And personally David doesn't really "scare" me unless he is 250# and knows brazillian jiu jitsu, then I am scared.

  83. #83
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    After doing more research at SOC it is clear they have a very real vendetta against Heli-skiing. I can't help but feel this proposal is a direct attempt to ban Heli-Skiing in the Tri Canyon area. Bikers are unintentional (or not...) collateral damage to that effort.
    Anyone who backcountry skis in LCC and BCC has a vendetta against Heli-skiing in the Wasatch. I hate WPG. Almost more than I hate the thought of losing Mill D, but not quite.

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

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6
    Hello all,
    I was informed of this discussion by one of the previous posters.

    I'm aware of the proposal and have been in discussions with SOC on the matter. We've expressed to them that IMBA will not support their proposal unless they exclude the trail or provide a reasonable alternative (like the Bear Trap Trail, which is also within their proposed boundaries), which they have not. My suggestion to you and the group is to start emailing SOC and your state representatives (cc me as well) and express to them that this is not an acceptable proposal and that they should work with IMBA to devise one.With over a million people along the Wasatch front it is unacceptable for any reason to loose a trail that has historically been used by mountain bikers. Congestion on other trails will only increase. Not to mention, the number of viable mt bike trails in the are are limited and many are on ski resort land which can be close at the drop of a hat as soon as the resort owners decide the liability is too much. We understand why they want to include the land up canyon from Mill D, but frankly we believe it's a reasonable sacrifice for them to make to get the mountain bike community on board for this proposal.

    Feel free to email me anytime at imba.utah (at) gmail.com

    Thanks,
    Ryan Miller
    IMBA Utah Rep.

  85. #85
    Enduroist
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    67
    This is am extremely tough one. The canyons are in no doubt facing enormous pressure for development. The existing curbs on future development (watershed, foothills protection overlay, etc.) did nothing to even slow down the Tavaci development at the base of Big Cottonwood Canyon. Losing Mill D would be uncool, but having another eyesore like that piece of crap in the Mill D area (or any where else for that matter) would be far worse, in my opinion.

    A lot more is at stake, as I see it, than one section of downhill trail. The thought of Alta expanding across the canyon to Flagstaff, or Dick Bass extending Snowbird into White Pine Canyon, or a Cul-De-Sac of McMansions going into Mill D makes me want to puke. Losing Mill D also makes me sick to my stomach.

    The question to me is this: Is wilderness designation the only way that we can protect the canyons from further development? Is there any other course of action which would protect that area (and the rest of the canyons from more development), but still allow existing modes of recreation to continue.
    "If I stop drinking all at once I am afraid the cumulative hangover would kill me."

  86. #86
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Recreation Area. You could do wilderness to the Mill D trail followed by National Recreation Area on the other side. I think this would allow for the trail to go through.

  87. #87
    Wandervans
    Reputation: smilycook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,084

    NRA and NPA

    National Recreation Areas and National Protection Areas are very viable alternatives for this area that can prevent future ski resort development without closing a single trail.

    The fact is that wilderness organizations make there money by designating more wilderness so they never really seem to be too keen to consider other alternatives.

    My suggestion is to create your own bill and try to get it passed to protect the area as a NPA. This is what we are experimenting with in Idaho.
    Live to ride!
    18 Cannondale Jekyll Carbon
    16 Diamond Back DB8

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

  88. #88
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186

    National Recreation Area

    Quote Originally Posted by smilycook
    National Recreation Areas and National Protection Areas are very viable alternatives for this area that can prevent future ski resort development without closing a single trail.

    The fact is that wilderness organizations make there money by designating more wilderness so they never really seem to be too keen to consider other alternatives.

    My suggestion is to create your own bill and try to get it passed to protect the area as a NPA. This is what we are experimenting with in Idaho.

    Awesome. So how are you doing that. I was thinking we could take the SOC draft and substitute National Reacreation Area for Wilderness and be done with it. Circulate it around with a nice letter explaining how we would love to this trail to be available for mountain biking for future generations.
    James

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    [QUOTE=David Witherspoon]
    Both SOC and the USFS have been trying - for years - to find some group of MTBers who would provide some input from their point of view. A lot of MTBers won't touch IMBA because of their alliance with the BRC, so we try to include the MTB section of the WMC as well. I've even stooped to trolling internet forums for input.

    This forum has been here for years and years David. And as far as you having to "stoop" to trolling forums, I think quite the opposite has happened. Our forum began putting pressure on your proposal, pressure your org found they couldn't ignore anymore and forced you to recognize we are a threat to SOCs WP, and thereby forcing you to show your face and begin barganing. It's is easy to see by your condescending attitude the last thing you wanted to do was to have us all at the same table.

    Edit 4/19 I've withdrawn my decision to meet with with you, due to previous experience.
    You're one smart guy.(no joke) Way too smart for me.(no joke) You'll never compromise.(no joke) Ammaroo's right! Sooooooo right.

    This being said, I would like to add. I am in complete agreement with the idea of wilderness designation as a way to protect wild areas for future millenniums of generations. BUT as it's been stated here before, to religate a non-polluting, rider powered transportation device from trails is absurd, especially since our only agenda is to ride the trails and enjoy the beauty of the great outdoors. Membership in groups like SOC would explode if they were to work with us and have the ban on bikes overturned.
    Last edited by Shelbak73; 04-19-2008 at 02:02 PM.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    [QUOTE=alizbee]
    (And isn't proposing new trail to be built counter-intuitive? Wouldn't building an additional 5 miles of trail have more impact on the area than the continued use of what is already in place?)

    It's not counter-intuitive when it's a lie used to placate.
    Last edited by Shelbak73; 04-18-2008 at 06:42 PM.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by mahatmaguy
    Hello all,
    I was informed of this discussion by one of the previous posters.

    I'm aware of the proposal and have been in discussions with SOC on the matter. We've expressed to them that IMBA will not support their proposal unless they exclude the trail or provide a reasonable alternative (like the Bear Trap Trail, which is also within their proposed boundaries), which they have not. My suggestion to you and the group is to start emailing SOC and your state representatives (cc me as well) and express to them that this is not an acceptable proposal and that they should work with IMBA to devise one.With over a million people along the Wasatch front it is unacceptable for any reason to loose a trail that has historically been used by mountain bikers. Congestion on other trails will only increase. Not to mention, the number of viable mt bike trails in the are are limited and many are on ski resort land which can be close at the drop of a hat as soon as the resort owners decide the liability is too much. We understand why they want to include the land up canyon from Mill D, but frankly we believe it's a reasonable sacrifice for them to make to get the mountain bike community on board for this proposal.

    Feel free to email me anytime at imba.utah (at) gmail.com

    Thanks,
    Ryan Miller
    IMBA Utah Rep.
    Mahatamaguy / Ryan / IMBA REP.:

    Why, if you knew about this threat, didn't you post about it earlier?

  92. #92

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    [QUOTE=Shelbak73]
    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee

    It's not counter-intuitive when it's a lie used to placate.
    Exacty! It also shows that they aren't really concern with the 'impacts' at all. They just want to have the place to themselves and they will use any, scare tactic, excuse, or lie to get their way.

  93. #93

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    What is the motivation behind this new proposal?
    New? This proposal is more than a decade old. The motivation is to protect the watershed and natural ecosystem values of the areas that would be designated, including the chunk between Butler Fork and Willow Fork, including Mill D North and Beartrap Forks. I personally place a very high value on the wildlife & natural vegetation of those areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    Is there a significant benefit to be gained from pushing these additional lands through as Wilderness? How will the impact on the land change from what it is at now?
    As I said in my email above - that land got voted "Most Likely to Get Paved" in the yearbook. Salt Lake City Public Utilities drew up a proposal to make that area a Wilderness many years ago, to protect SLC's watershed, and still supports it today.

    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    Or, is this just a way to "target" bikers and heli-skiers? Why does SOC feel the need to target anyone?
    No.
    (1) Neither I nor SOC have the time to waste "targeting" anyone - let alone bikers, who make up a good chunk of our membership. Heli-skiing has been used as a tool to keep areas open for potential ski resort expansion - Wilderness protection is the primary goal.
    (2) WPG hasn't used those areas in over a decade. It's sad enough that someone would pay $200 a run to do laps on Little Water Peak, but Mill D? No, not even WPG.

    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    The Wasatch Front and surrounding areas already have a lot of wilderness area designated. I support the principles behind the WA of 1964. There are some areas that should be limited in their access. Keep the wild, wild. But why is there a need to push for more? Especially in areas that are so close to a large urban population.
    Precisely because it's so close to a large urban population. That's the reason you love it and the reason I love it - because it's right there, you can get there in half an hour, and it's as close to wild as you're gonna get near any city as big as SLC. But it ain't gonna stay that way without some heavy-duty protection.

    Mill D North has a lot of layers of regulatory protection on it - and I've seen every single one of those layers brushed aside in various developments in the Wasatch. Even when SOC was there, dogging the developers, ratting out the politicians, annoying the bureaucrats, and lining up lawyers. It ain't enough. When the pressure really ratchets up - when hundreds of folks whose annual disposable income is ten times SOC's budget start thinkin' they'd like a nice place in the mountains, except close to the city - you're gonna be biking past privacy fences and McMansions. If they let you get that close at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    And isn't proposing new trail to be built counter-intuitive? Wouldn't building an additional 5 miles of trail have more impact on the area than the continued use of what is already in place?
    Depends on where and how that trail is built. But if you don't want it, give Carl a call and tell him to quit wasting staff time on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    Is this less about actual impact and "saving the canyons" than it is about pursuing your chosen cause in life?
    That's not real friendly-sounding ... you lookin' for a flamewar?
    Last edited by David Witherspoon; 04-18-2008 at 10:11 PM.

  94. #94

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Witherspoon,

    Why don't you reveal the name of the developer who is supposedly going to develop in Mill-D?

  95. #95
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    New? This proposal is more than a decade old. The motivation is to protect the watershed and natural ecosystem values of the areas that would be designated, including the chunk between Butler Fork and Willow Fork, including Mill D North and Beartrap Forks. I personally place a very high value on the wildlife & natural vegetation of those areas.

    As I said in my email above - that land got voted "Most Likely to Get Paved" in the yearbook. Salt Lake City Public Utilities drew up a proposal to make that area a Wilderness many years ago, to protect SLC's watershed, and still supports it today.

    No.
    (1) Neither I nor SOC have the time to waste "targeting" anyone - let alone bikers, who make up a good chunk of our membership. Heli-skiing has been used as a tool to keep areas open for potential ski resort expansion - Wilderness protection is the primary goal.
    (2) WPG hasn't used those areas in over a decade. It's sad enough that someone would pay $200 a run to do laps on Little Water Peak, but Mill D? No, not even WPG.

    Precisely because it's so close to a large urban population. That's the reason you love it and the reason I love it - because it's right there, you can get there in half an hour, and it's as close to wild as you're gonna get near any city as big as SLC. But it ain't gonna stay that way without some heavy-duty protection.

    Mill D North has a lot of layers of regulatory protection on it - and I've seen every single one of those layers brushed aside in various developments in the Wasatch. Even when SOC was there, dogging the developers, ratting out the politicians, annoying the bureaucrats, and lining up lawyers. It ain't enough. When the pressure really ratchets up - when hundreds of folks whose annual disposable income is ten times SOC's budget start thinkin' they'd like a nice place in the mountains, except close to the city - you're gonna be biking past privacy fences and McMansions. If they let you get that close at all.

    Depends on where and how that trail is built. But if you don't want it, give Carl a call and tell him to quit wasting staff time on it.

    That's not real friendly-sounding ... you lookin' for a flamewar?
    Thanks for taking the time to answer.
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by smilycook
    National Recreation Areas and National Protection Areas are very viable alternatives for this area that can prevent future ski resort development without closing a single trail.

    The fact is that wilderness organizations make there money by designating more wilderness so they never really seem to be too keen to consider other alternatives.

    My suggestion is to create your own bill and try to get it passed to protect the area as a NPA. This is what we are experimenting with in Idaho.
    Smilycook, thank you very much! Your input is always welcome.
    It seems IMBA has this same approach in mind. I've been mining through the USFS site in search the regulations for NRA's and NPA's to see their framework, but it's turned into a granny gear slog. Any tips or links you could share, by post or pm, would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks again.
    SB

  97. #97
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    I don't run SOC with an iron hand, so I can't just "take it out."
    Not that I would if I could.
    From another forum... "it" referring to removing Mill D from the WP.

    That kind of attitude is ridiculous. It is clear that a lot of mountain bikers would jump to action to help conserve and protect the Wasatch Front. But not when it is at OUR expense.
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Wow! Nice expose' alizbee. Very telling.

  99. #99

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by alizbee
    It is clear that a lot of mountain bikers would jump to action to help conserve and protect the Wasatch Front.
    The only reason that's clear to me is 'cause I know a goodly number of mountain bikers who are active members and supporters of SOC - and supporters of this proposal.

    Anyway, for those of you who care: Monday night between 6 and 9 pm. Email for location. I'll be there, maybe some others. Beer, questions, answers. If that time's not convenient, pick another and I'll be there too.

    If yer too scairt o' me, call the SOC office & bug them. If yer too scairt to actually talk to anyone, send 'em an email.
    (Keep in mind that "I'll never give you another dime!"* sounds kinda funny if you've never given 'em a dime before.)

    *True story.

  100. #100

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

    If yer too scairt o' me, call the SOC office & bug them. If yer too scairt to actually talk to anyone, send 'em an email.
    (Keep in mind that "I'll never give you another dime!"* sounds kinda funny if you've never given 'em a dime before.)

    *True story.
    Can you be any more condescending?

  101. #101
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    Can you be any more condescending?
    My advice is to PM him and take him up on his offer and meet up to talk about this stuff. I am. I'd feel kind of crappy after all the posts I made on this thread and the TGR thread on this to not at least sit down with him/them face to face (over beers even) and hear each side of the story. This way, if we do lose Mill D I can feel like I tried to keep it and understand why it was taken away.

    My $0.02.

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

  102. #102
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Alright I will meet, but we need more notice and we need to meet with the higher ups of SOC, not just David.
    James

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6

    A letter to SOC

    Thank you all who have sent letters already. I've received several CC's, but not surprisingly our own Mr. Argyle (from Utahmountainbiking.com) worked his magic keyboard and whipped up a great letter. I'm posting it here so that others may blatantly plagiarize it if writers block strikes them. Hope you don't mind Bruce.
    *************************

    Lisa Schmidt, Executive Director
    Save Our Canyons

    Lisa,

    I applaud the efforts of Save Our Canyons to limit further urbanization and degradation of our Wasatch Front mountains. However, I strongly oppose any change that would close the Mill D North Fork Trail to mountain bikes.

    As you know, a federal wilderness designation would outlaw "mechanized travel" -- meaning bicycles -- on existing trails regardless of current use. Mill D is a longstanding and well-used bike route linking the middle of Big Cottonwood to the top of the Wasatch Crest Trail. It allows riders to make a loop ride of the Wasatch Crest, returning either via Dog Lake from Mill Creek, or descending directly from Desolation Lake.

    Without this loop option, riders are forced to shuttle: A car drives to the top of the canyon, then after the ride, another car drives to the top and two cars drive out. To exit Mill Creek (the only option if Mill D is closed), cyclists must dodge auto traffic riding out of Mill Creek or use another car to shuttle riders down that canyon. The result is more traffic and exhaust in BOTH canyons, more global warming, plus a longer less enjoyable day for the cyclists.

    Studies show that the impact (degrading effect) on a trail by a single mountain bike is about 1/10 that of a horse, or about equal to 1.3 hikers. Cyclists in Utah also perform significant amounts of voluntary trail maintenance. The UtahMountainBiking.com race team alone did 132 hours of voluntary trail work in 2007. Unlike many hikers, we do not carry cigarettes or beer cans into the woods. Any argument that mountain bikers must be banned for the good of the trail is seriously misinformed.

    As the leading information resource for mountain bikers in Utah, UtahMountainBiking.com is very aware of how trails on the Wasatch Front are being used, and of the consequences of trail closure. Please see our information page on Mill D at http://www.utahmountainbiking.com/trails/mill-d-n.htm for an overview of cycling routes using this trail.

    We ask you to please support a solution that preserves mountain bike access to existing routes through this area.

    Bruce Argyle
    UtahMountainBiking.com

    ***************************
    _________________
    Ryan Miller
    IMBA Utah Representative

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    The only reason that's clear to me is 'cause I know a goodly number of mountain bikers who are active members and supporters of SOC - and supporters of this proposal.

    Anyway, for those of you who care: Monday night between 6 and 9 pm. Email for location. I'll be there, maybe some others. Beer, questions, answers. If that time's not convenient, pick another and I'll be there too.

    If yer too scairt o' me, call the SOC office & bug them. If yer too scairt to actually talk to anyone, send 'em an email.
    (Keep in mind that "I'll never give you another dime!"* sounds kinda funny if you've never given 'em a dime before.)

    *True story.

    David,

    It might be more effective to post a time and place right here so we can all see. I'll be there.

  105. #105

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    In deference to others who initially chose not to broadcast this on the web, I haven't done so either.
    See you tonight!

  106. #106
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Will someone PM with the time and place?
    James

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: johnnyspoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    958
    Yeah, I'd like to know too. Not sure if I can make it, but if the location is conducive.....

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Idiot Boy 1
    Will someone PM with the time and place?
    James

    Can anyone think of a reason why we shouldn't post the venue here?

  109. #109
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Alrighty, I won't name the place but I'll be there at 6:30. I am very civil in person so don't stress about me freaking out.
    James

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    150
    As for the meeting tonight, it's not that it's a secret or anything about where/when, but what I had asked for from SOC was a review by them of their proposal, an opportunity for us to ask them questions, and then we (as the WAFTA leadership) could inform our members about what we think we should do when it comes to this issue. That's why I'm not disclosing meeting details on a public forum as I want to give them an opportunity to explain.

    So, I'm sorry if that seems that I'm excluding anybody from the opportunity but think it best to meet as a smaller group at first with a larger meeting possibly to follow.

    Steve

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: johnnyspoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    958
    As for the meeting tonight, it's not that it's a secret or anything about where/when, but what I had asked for from SOC was a review by them of their proposal, an opportunity for us to ask them questions, and then we (as the WAFTA leadership) could inform our members about what we think we should do when it comes to this issue. That's why I'm not disclosing meeting details on a public forum as I want to give them an opportunity to explain.

    So, I'm sorry if that seems that I'm excluding anybody from the opportunity but think it best to meet as a smaller group at first with a larger meeting possibly to follow.
    This sounds reasonable to me. So, do you think it would be appropriate to post back what the gist of the meeting ends up being later tonight/tomorrow for those of us in the "not" know?

    Thanks.....

  112. #112
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    So, if we aren't part of WAFTA then we are disinvited?
    James

  113. #113
    Grizzly
    Reputation: alizbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    695
    I can't be there tonight. But a small meeting between community leaders sounds good. Keep us "masses" updated.
    GrizzlyAdam.net
    Read my book
    Follow me on Twitter

    "The only thing better than solitude, is society."

    ~Ed Abbey

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    150
    I will make sure that we post back with what's going on after our meeting, without a doubt. It's obvious this is an imporant subject.

    And no, just because the WAFTA guys asked for the meeting, it doesn't mean that if you knew and wanted to show up you shouldn't. Again, a different place capable of handling a larger group may be in order and we'd also participate in that.

    Cheers -

  115. #115
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Well, I went to the meeting and was surprised at the turnout. Figured it would be a handful of people but it was actually well attended by all sides. IMBA, WAFTA, SOC and normal unaffiliated jerks like myself of all levels were present.

    The attitude was polite and no one got rude or loud. SOC kept the beer and food flowing and for that I say a big THANKS! SOC is all good people and they have great intentions. Carl, Lisa and David are all good people as were all the other SOC folks (didn’t get everyone’s names), there was even one of the founders of SOC present. So Idiot Boy got his request for the higher ups.

    There was a lot of discussion from SOC on the proposal and alternatives presented by the others. In the end all groups are reluctant to compromise, as no one wants to bend to pressure. All groups feel once they bend once, they will be expected to bend again and again. The problem is when something is taken away people take it personally even if it wasn’t intended to be a personal attack.

    IMBA seems to have the stand I personally agree with most - NO LOSS OF EXISTING BIKE TRAILS! I didn’t hear WAFTA’s take but I bet it is similar. SOC has great intentions and banning bikes is not their goal. Banning bikes is basically "collateral damage" in the fight to preserve the Wasatch front in the way they feel is "best". Are there other ways to protect these areas? Yes, and they were discussed and SOC promised to look into them but the WA of 1964 provides the highest amount of protection and is SOC’s preferred method.

    In the end I came away as torn as I was going into it. I am for 99% of the SOC proposal based on my backcountry skiing perspective. I just don't want to lose Mill D and that 1% or whatever it is would really suck for me personally. Crest to Mill D is the trail I ride most often from July-Sept when it’s 100 degrees in SLC. Bikers have less than a handful of trials within 40 minutes of SLC where we can beat the heat and get in an after work ride from July-Sept, and the Crest to Mill D in my opinion is by far the best of those options. If SOC were to work with us on Mill D, I would support them in their quest. I'd hate to not protect the other 99% because of this tiny (but awesome) piece of trail. Ideally SOC would compromise.

    I view our (mountain bikers in SLC/UT) primary problem as we need to organize, and whether that means joining IMBA and WAFTA and working with them or creating our own group so be it. Bottom line to me is that until we are as organized as SOC, SOC has the louder voice. If we organize SOC will have little choice but to work with us, especially if our numbers are large enough. The simple truth is IMBA and WAFTA have more in common with SOC than they are opposed. All are groups if people that enjoy the outdoors and want to see them protected.

    So what am I going to do as a result of this? I came straight home and joined IMBA and plan on joining WAFTA and I will continue to watch this situation and try to be active in creating a resolution I can be happy with.

    What did you other attendee’s hear?

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

  116. #116

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Its not just Mill-D that is going to be affected, it is White Pine, Mineral, and the Upper Quarry Trail from the Tanners campground and many more; all places that we can legally ride our mountain bikes now which we soon will not be able to; not to mention that the plan precludes the future development of those trails. IT IS NOT JUST MILL-D THAT WE ARE AT RISK OF LOSING.


    Remember, the road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 04-21-2008 at 09:20 PM.

  117. #117
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    Its not just Mill-D that is going to be affected, it is White Pine, Mineral, and the Upper Quarry Trail from the Tanners campground and many more; all places that we can legally ride our mountain bikes now which we soon will not be able to; not to mention that the plan precludes the future development of those trails. IT IS NOT JUST MILL-D THAT WE ARE AT RISK OF LOSING.
    You bike in White Pine and Mineral? I've never heard of anything in there and from what I know of skiing in there in the winter it is pretty steep and rocky. I don't ride Upper Quarry, so I don't know what I'd be missing. I hear Quarry is not that great and is typically very crowded, which is why I generally ride other places. \

    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    Remember, the road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'
    So the road to heaven is paved with bad intentions? And the road to no where is paved with no intentions? How should I proceed? Please advise.

    I'm not trying to take SOC's side, I'm just saying a compromise will have to occur and I'm all for keeping Mill D open to bikes.

    B
    Last edited by Bortis Yelltzen; 04-22-2008 at 03:27 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  118. #118

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    ---------

  119. #119

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    Yeah, White Pine is a great trail, so is Mineral. They are a bit harder, advanced technical, so a lot of beginners don't do them, and thus they are less known, but I would hesitate to just brush them aside without having done them. They would be 'epic' if someone actually took the time to care for them.
    You should do them before they 'go away', while you still have the chance.


    I'm not trying to argue with you, but I think the whole 'compromise' thing is total B.S. If they want 'compromise' they should propose odd and even days, like millcreek. Banning bikes from whole areas is not 'compromise'.

    This whole thing was brought on by SOC and they are using lies,fear and scare tactics to get people to their side. Wasatch already has protected wilderness designated areas. Once they get this one passed, in ten years they will have another 'compromise', and so on, until mountainbiking in the Wasatch is a thing of the past. We need to take a stand.
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 04-22-2008 at 06:25 PM.

  120. #120
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by AMMAROO
    I'm not trying to argue with you, but I think the whole 'compromise' thing is total B.S. The This whole thing was brought on by SOC and they are using lies,fear and scare tactics to get people to their side. Wasatch already has protected wilderness designated areas. Once they get this one passed, in ten years they will have another 'compromise', and so on, until mountainbiking in the Wasatch is a thing of the past. We need to take a stand.
    I'm no "compromise-ologist" but I'm pretty sure when multiple groups are fighting over something they can't all have it their way. One thing SOC made clear tonight is they are not going to give up on this proposal.

    I don't want to lose any trails. But even if SOC folds there is a real threat to White Pine and Mineral from Snowbird and Alta. So pick your poison. Do you backcountry ski? Do you like the Powder Birds? If Snowbird, Alta, the Canyons, etc... buy this land or lease it they can ban bikes just as easy as SOC with their proposal, easier actually. Plus they will eat up prime BC riding areas that I don't really want to see them take.

    I agree with you, but I'm also a realist. And the reality is a change is coming. So try to make time to push for the changes you want. You want more trails not less, get involved. That's what I've decided I need to do.

    B
    Last edited by Bortis Yelltzen; 04-22-2008 at 06:36 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  121. #121

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    And yes, I am an avid backcountry skier. I am not going to get into that discussion here. But I do feel that SOC is using the threats of ski area expansion to scare people like yourself to their side.

    There is a difference between when Snowbird was constructed and now, and it is called NEPA which came into effect after Snowbird was already under construction. There was never an EIS for either Snowbird or Alta(SOC does not want you to know this)

    Nowadays they(ski areas and developers) have to go through extensive environmental analysis and public comment and review, with every proposed project or expansion. As far as I know those expansions would have a very hard time going through because of NEPA, so I don't believe the wilderness is a necessity, to 'protect' the canyons if you will.

    But if and when those issues come up, the public will have their say, and SOC will have their chance to gain support then and fight them on the merits. SOC just wants to, bypass the public input process, and change the game board, with an act of congress, so they don't have to argue the merits. That is where the crime is here. The people who live here in SLC will have absolutely no say in this, (unless they go to one of SOC's, one-sided, bullshite 'compromise' meetings where they will have no say.) Thats un-fair, un-democratic, and its B.S., extreme and totally over the top IMO. Its just wrong. Its not how our system is supposed to work.
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 04-22-2008 at 02:17 PM.

  122. #122
    Dr. Pepper drinker
    Reputation: catch22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,627
    Maybe a stupid question but I'd like to hear an answer from someone in the know on this. Is it completely impossible to have designated bike routes that are grandfathered into a Wilderness area or would it just make the process much more difficult and that's why noone is considering it as an option? Seems like a very logical step in a situation like this and a perfect compromise. Bikers lose the chance of future trails in the area but keep the ones they love and the area gets the protection that some people think it needs. If not, why not push for this to be a first? Seems like it could be a nice feather in someone's cap. The National Park Service's relationship with IMBA has been coming along nicely, why not take similar measures here? Even if it hasn't been done before, there's a first time for everything.
    Sipping the Knolly Whisquillappa

  123. #123
    DOH!
    Reputation: SprungShoulders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    473
    I tend to agree with Ammaroo on this. SOC's usage of wilderness designation in this case is akin to plying a sledge hammer to tap in a finishing nail. IMHO it's not the appropriate tool.

    Public lands usage should not and is not an all-or-nothing kind of thing. Yes, we need to protect against the true enemies of our trails - out of control commercial/private development and natural resource exploration and extraction - but we can't, to use a tired cliche, throw the baby out with the bath water.

    You cry Wilderness Wolf too often and eventually the calls will go unheeded.... There needs to be a less draconian solution/compromise.

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by catch22
    Maybe a stupid question but I'd like to hear an answer from someone in the know on this. Is it completely impossible to have designated bike routes that are grandfathered into a Wilderness area or would it just make the process much more difficult and that's why noone is considering it as an option? Seems like a very logical step in a situation like this and a perfect compromise. Bikers lose the chance of future trails in the area but keep the ones they love and the area gets the protection that some people think it needs. If not, why not push for this to be a first? Seems like it could be a nice feather in someone's cap. The National Park Service's relationship with IMBA has been coming along nicely, why not take similar measures here? Even if it hasn't been done before, there's a first time for everything.
    Disclaimer: I am definitly not "in the know". However, i did hear at the meeting last night (and not just from SOC) that it would be next to impossible to seek an exemption from the WA for bikes. The logic is that if you exempt bikes, then at some point you could exempt motorized vehicles. From SOC's perspective the rigidity of the WA is exactly why they want to apply it here, even though it appears that legislation like the NRA is more appropriate. Their position is that it would difficult, in this state, to make an NRA that didn't include ATVs and motorbikes.

  125. #125
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by catch22
    Maybe a stupid question but I'd like to hear an answer from someone in the know on this. Is it completely impossible to have designated bike routes that are grandfathered into a Wilderness area or would it just make the process much more difficult and that's why noone is considering it as an option? Seems like a very logical step in a situation like this and a perfect compromise. Bikers lose the chance of future trails in the area but keep the ones they love and the area gets the protection that some people think it needs. If not, why not push for this to be a first? Seems like it could be a nice feather in someone's cap. The National Park Service's relationship with IMBA has been coming along nicely, why not take similar measures here? Even if it hasn't been done before, there's a first time for everything.
    No. Can't grandfather a trail in. The way this has been done in the past is to make to seperate wilderness areas with a trail running throuth it. The problem is the east side of their proposal is too small to make into a seperate unit.

    I also went and found the SOC'ers to be earnest, honest and disarmingly nice. I found that the younger staff members were willing to look at compromises, possibly because they grew up at the same time as mountain biking took off. That said, I did find the older board member (who is a very nice gentlemen) not as willing to listen to compromise such as a National Recreation Area and I'm afraid he may be more reflective of the SOC views as a whole. I also found them to be very honest about their objective which is to make as much wilderness as possible. They didn't hide this objective at all. For this reason I can not support their proposal in any way at this time, which is a shame because I hold very similar views. Like Bortis I also joined IMBA and am willing to either join/form or whatever a local organiztion that will fight for trails.

    Bottom line is neither side is willing to compromise. We as mountain bikers better get organized if we want to keep riding the Wasatch. The SOC has 1700 paying members and four full time staff members so they have a better start. What they don't have is the full support of the Utah's congress members and that will make this proposal very difficult for them to pass. But nothing is impossible.

  126. #126
    Wandervans
    Reputation: smilycook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    Smilycook, thank you very much! Your input is always welcome.
    It seems IMBA has this same approach in mind. I've been mining through the USFS site in search the regulations for NRA's and NPA's to see their framework, but it's turned into a granny gear slog. Any tips or links you could share, by post or pm, would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks again.
    SB
    Check out this site:
    http://www.imba.com/resources/land_p...on//index.html

    Lots of links on land protection and alternatives to wilderness.

    We are actually working on a new NPA in northern idaho currently and are trying to basically lock in existing uses and protect the area. Mountain Bikers and Snowmobilers agreed on boundries and drew up a bill. The bill is being shopped around the halls of congress and we hope we can pass it and undermine any future wilderness designation since the main users of the area are bikers in the summer and snowmobiles in the winter.

    Chris
    Live to ride!
    18 Cannondale Jekyll Carbon
    16 Diamond Back DB8

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

  127. #127
    Wandervans
    Reputation: smilycook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,084

    Lies about IMBA

    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    A lot of MTBers won't touch IMBA because of their alliance with the BRC, so we try to include the MTB section of the WMC as well. I've even stooped to trolling internet forums for input.
    Having been an IMBA state representative and currently a board member of BRC. I would like to make it clear that there are no alliances between IMBA and BRC, this is instead just an excuse for not working with groups like IMBA and other mountain bikers.

    IMBA has actually signed agreements with the Sierra Club and other enviromental organizations to work toegther on future wilderness designations. This agreement was signed around 2000 and I have not seen much use of it since then.

    Chris
    Live to ride!
    18 Cannondale Jekyll Carbon
    16 Diamond Back DB8

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

  128. #128
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    A repeated claim last night is that National Recreation Areas are created by the local FS manager and can be overturned at the local level. This may not be true. I found this in this on nps.gov concerning the designation of a NRA.

    "National Recreation Areas shall be established by an Act of Congress. Legislation to establish National Recreation Areas will be processed in accordance with established procedures for handling legislation. Upon request of the Executive Office of the President, the Recreation Advisory Council will review specific National Recreation Area proposals, based upon studies made or prescribed by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. For those proposals referred to it, the Council will recommend appropriate action regarding authorization, modification; priority of establishment; and the responsible management agency or agencies."

    It appears that an act of Congress is needed to implement this. An act of Congress would be very difficult to overturn by a beurocrat at the local level, unless he wants to get fired immediatly. I believe that this is a viable option no matter what SOC says.
    James

  129. #129
    yelgatgab
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by Idiot Boy 1
    What they don't have is the full support of the Utah's congress members and that will make this proposal very difficult for them to pass. But nothing is impossible.
    All the more reason to work with the cycling community and increase their chances of success. The resorts and developers have far more money and pull, already making this a tough battle. I don't see the point of adding an additional adversary that could so easily be an ally.

    I'm bummed I was unable to attend the meeting, it sounds like it at least cleared the waters a bit.

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Last night SOC talked about some options that indicated that SOC had put some thought to this. One of the most attractive (IMO) was the idea of making two wilderness areas around Mill D. One east and one west, which then allows full access along Mill D to the crest. In other words, a cherry stem with no cherry.

    Ostensibly, the problem with this is that the eastern portion would be smaller than 5000ac, and therefore would not qualify as a WA. SOC mentioned their frustration in finding precendence for WA smaller than 5000ac but that SOC would be happy to pursue that option if only there some model to go on.

    It turns out there is plenty of precendence which is all easily available through this excellent website ( http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS ). A very quick search indicates at last 5 WAs that are less than 5000ac.

    Do we have something to get started on here?

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152

  132. #132
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186

    I count 37

    Quote Originally Posted by SingleWhiteCaveman
    wilderness area less that 5K acres in Forest Service possesion.

  133. #133
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Idiot Boy 1
    wilderness area less that 5K acres in Forest Service possesion.
    I like!


    SOC made it sound like it would be so hard to find this. Maybe their powers of the interweb need work?

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

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    150
    Sorry about the delay in posting about the meeting last night. As has been mentioned here, it was well attended and very informative. We appreciate SOC taking the time to review this with us.

    After we met with the SOC folks, the WAFTA folks met separately and discussed what we thought. The primary issue discussed was regarding the Mill D trail and alternatives around how their goals of reducing development, reducing motorized access, and protecting the watershed can be achieved. There were alternatives and ideas presented, and hopefully I’ve recalled them all here:

    - A ‘cherry stem’ can’t work because it is primarily for an in-out trail. This one would separate one section from the rest, and a minimum of 5,000 acres for Wilderness Area (WA) designation wouldn’t be met with the separated piece (I believe it was between 3,000 and 4,000 acres). SOC was looking for precedence for a smaller wilderness area but hadn’t discovered any yet. (SingleWhiteCaveMan found differently). Discussion about a ‘ladder’ up and over a section of wilderness that would link the two was discussed but we’re not sure that is viable.

    - An alternate trail was proposed, and I believe approved, but it would exist on private property (owned by The Canyons). We felt that this has a few flaws: a) it isn’t on the Salt Lake side of the ‘crest’, b) private land ownership doesn’t require public approval to either change or close trail access therefore this may not be a permanent solution, and c) the ability to ‘shuttle’ on the trail wouldn’t be present.

    - There was discussion about developing alternate trails down the Beartrap and Willow Heights areas, which would increase the WA size but until these trails were determined as feasible and built, we felt that compromise wouldn’t be acceptable.

    - Discussion around making the section a National Recreation Area was held, and the primary reasons we heard for not pursuing this were: a) SOC was concerned about setting precedence in this area as NRA’s can allow motorized traffic, b) Changes to NRA’s are easier to make than WA’s therefore exposing greater risk, and c) their primary efforts are focused to WA’s.

    - The question was asked about whether or not the WA designation could be changed to include mountain bikes rather than exclude them. Most people who have knowledge about this believe this would be an even larger change than the WA designation that SOC is proposing, as it would have more far reaching ramifications.

    WAFTA’s mission is for development of mountain bike trails in the Wasatch area – and closing any trail to mountain bikes is seen by WAFTA and IMBA as detrimental and we cannot support this proposal. However, we encourage everyone to research the issue and form their own opinion. The link for the ‘official’ WAFTA news release can be found at http://www.waftautah.com/PR2008-004.html if you are interested.

    Thanks -

  135. #135

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4
    deleting the video link might be a good idea too.
    Last edited by slippy; 04-22-2008 at 03:26 PM.

  136. #136

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    we are talking about different things
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 04-22-2008 at 02:17 PM.

  137. #137
    yelgatgab
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    459
    I'd marry Mill D, if she'd have me.
    Last edited by bagtagley; 04-22-2008 at 11:07 PM.

  138. #138

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52
    But anyway, my main point is, that if this legislation gets pushed through, there will never ever be any mountain biking allowed in that area in the future, ever.
    Last edited by AMMAROO; 04-22-2008 at 06:26 PM.

  139. #139

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4
    anyways.....carry on.
    Last edited by slippy; 04-22-2008 at 03:27 PM.

  140. #140
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Edited because of the stuff with the things.
    Last edited by Bortis Yelltzen; 04-22-2008 at 06:37 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5

    Interesting discussion here...

    I've been following this information fairly recently and as one who can be considered a material witness relating to wilderness management and legislation (as well as a very avid mountain biker), I thought I'd chime in here. First of all, at the current time, I'm in total agreement with many of you on the wilderness proposal. I do not feel this is the appropriate tool for management of development along the Wasach front.

    That being said, as some have pointed out already, there is some precedent to designating wilderness areas below 5,000 acres. The Eastern Wilderness Areas Act of 1975 designated several areas in the eastern Uniteds States that do not meet the 5000 acre minimum requirement. So obviously, there are exceptions, but those exceptions must be recognized by Congress (as would any official wilderness designation).

    A ladder or bridge that crosses over wilderness land, but does not touch (at least I think that was discussed above) is not legal under existing Forest Service policy (Forest Service Manual 2320).

    Exceptions can be made to grandfather existing trails, uses, buildings, and other facilities in wilderness areas. In fact, I'd wager most wilderness designation nowadays by Congress have some use that is normally prohibited grandfathered in. These include airplane landings and airstrips in a Montana wilderness, motorboat use in wilderness lakes in Wyoming, guzzlers for Bighorn sheep in Arizona and Nevada, and the use of motorboats, airplanes, snowmachines, and non-motorized surface transportation (including bicycles) in wilderness areas in Alaska. As mentioned before though, this is all dependent on the whims of Congress.

    That being said, this is just a proposal by one group. It does not mean anything other than that group's policy and stance on development and the efforts to combat it along the Wasach front. This does not confer any legal status to require the Forest Service to manage the area as wilderness. Actually, if they wish to bring this forward for the Forest Service's consideration, they would best be served to compromise with other user groups to move this forward.

  142. #142
    Enduroist
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    67
    -------------------
    Last edited by JoshP; 04-23-2008 at 10:55 AM.
    "If I stop drinking all at once I am afraid the cumulative hangover would kill me."

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by smilycook
    Check out this site:
    http://www.imba.com/resources/land_p...on//index.html

    Lots of links on land protection and alternatives to wilderness.

    We are actually working on a new NPA in northern idaho currently and are trying to basically lock in existing uses and protect the area. Mountain Bikers and Snowmobilers agreed on boundries and drew up a bill. The bill is being shopped around the halls of congress and we hope we can pass it and undermine any future wilderness designation since the main users of the area are bikers in the summer and snowmobiles in the winter.

    Chris
    Thanks, much appreciated.

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    [QUOTE=Bortis Yelltzen]You bike in White Pine and Mineral? I've never heard of anything in there and from what I know of skiing in there in the winter it is pretty steep and rocky. I don't ride Upper Quarry, so I don't know what I'd be missing. I hear Quarry is not that great and is typically very crowded, which is why I generally ride other places. \

    First off I would like to thank you, Idoit boy 1, the prof and single white caveman for reporting on the meeting and keeping the rest of us informed.

    White pine and Mineral are (like Ammaroo said) more advanced and due to this they don't get much press. If you'd like to test your fittness give-em a try. White pine tops out at 10,500ft. (I believe mineral is open to atv traffic tho.) As far as Temple quarry being crowded, this could be a sign of things to come as more mountain bikers move to the Wasatch, and the options for biking trails decrease.

  145. #145
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    First off I would like to thank you, Idoit boy 1, the prof and single white caveman for reporting on the meeting and keeping the rest of us informed.
    No problem, these types of things are not something I typically spend my free time doing. But this potential loss is something that I couldn't handle. I figure the more of us come out of hiding for this the better.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelbak73
    White pine and Mineral are (like Ammaroo said) more advanced and due to this they don't get much press. If you'd like to test your fittness give-em a try. White pine tops out at 10,500ft. (I believe mineral is open to atv traffic tho.) As far as Temple quarry being crowded, this could be a sign of things to come as more mountain bikers move to the Wasatch, and the options for biking trails decrease.
    I guess since I live more towards downtown I spend more time on BST, City Creek, Bobsled, etc..... since those are trials I can get to quick after work. Folks in Sandy and areas near the Cottonwoods probably spend more time on Quarry for the same reasons. I may venture down there and check it out though. Can't hurt, always nice to ride something new. And it couldn't be much more crowded than BST and Bobsled was last weekend.

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

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by Bortis Yelltzen
    ( And it couldn't be much more crowded than BST and Bobsled was last weekend. )

    B
    Care to put some money on that?

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    907
    BY - Thanks for the thoughtful and balanced report of the meeting. I do think its crap that bikes get whacked by the '64 WA....I hope a compromise can be worked out - mill-d-crest-loop is also my after work ride, and I don't know if i could live without it! You are probably right on the organization thing...prolly need to get off my lazy ass and get involved too...

  148. #148

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    21
    If compromise is not an option for SOC, then I get to decide to fight them, join them, or watch what happens. I think I will actively oppose SOC in this instance. I do not agree with the "mechanized travel" limitation of the Wilderness act.

    Organizing sounds good. I wonder what Mountain Trails Foundation thinks about this issue?

  149. #149
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Anybody have an idea for organinizing? Join an existing group or start a new one? I myself, like most of our generation, am not much of a joiner but we really need to get something rolling. I am part of the Montana mountain bike alliance www.montanamountainbikealliance.com/ which is super low key and requires no fees. They have a website and use email to keep people informed on access issues which seem to be a real issue all over the country lately. This model is nice since mountain bikers seem to be more independant than wilderness junkies. This type of organization gives us a list of people who are willing to write letters when informed but aren't particulary interested in a "Big" cause since that would get in the way of riding bikes.

  150. #150
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Would have been nice to crash a party.

    http://www.telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=45384

    B

    ***Edited because I'm an idiot and just noticed this was last night. Some work weeks just fry me, need to go for a ride............
    Last edited by Bortis Yelltzen; 04-25-2008 at 02:39 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    Unruly Bortis, Way to go! Haunting david's posts.
    I think I may adopt this tactic also.

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545
    I just got back from a visit to the Utah mountain bike site and I've got to say, MTBR members are the greatest! It seems our Utah IMBA rep Ryan started this same thread on the same day on that site, and to this day had 1100 views and 26 responses.

    I would like to thank MTBR for creating this forum, but it's the individual members who through sharing their knowlage and experience make it the great resource it is.

    Thank You, all of you.

  153. #153
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Thread bump!

    Just because I'm still pissed about this and want to keep some pressure on SOC about editing their proposal to be more in line with the MTB communities interests.

    Those of you who agree please continue to pepper SOC and our elected officals with emails, phone calls and letters about this proposal. I'll be doing my round 2 of emails this weekend.

    Have our IMBA and WAFTA reps been contacted by SOC recently or is SOC hoping we forget about this?

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

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Bortis Yelltzen
    Have our IMBA and WAFTA reps been contacted by SOC recently or is SOC hoping we forget about this?
    I haven't been contacted by SOC again, not sure about the other WAFTA reps. I encourage you all to voice your opinions on this to your elected officials - the ones in Washington D.C. - as I understand they will be responsible for introducing the proposal (or not).

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by TheProf
    I haven't been contacted by SOC again, not sure about the other WAFTA reps. I encourage you all to voice your opinions on this to your elected officials - the ones in Washington D.C. - as I understand they will be responsible for introducing the proposal (or not).
    My bad. I did hear back from SOC. I shared this already with some of us but forgot to post it.

    I encouraged Lisa (SOC) to read our posts on precedents for sub-5000ac wildrness areas, and got this response "...I appreciate your [WAFTA] well thought out suggestions and questions. Thank you for sending along the examples, it will really help. We have really been working on the proposal from so many different angles, this particular part has been on our list of possibilities, but we hadn’t had the time to focus on it directly. I am planning on talking to the Wilderness Society this afternoon about the smaller acreage proposal and I will let you know what they have to say".

    I will follow-up and see what the news is.

  156. #156
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleWhiteCaveman
    My bad. I did hear back from SOC. I shared this already with some of us but forgot to post it.

    I encouraged Lisa (SOC) to read our posts on precedents for sub-5000ac wildrness areas, and got this response "...I appreciate your [WAFTA] well thought out suggestions and questions. Thank you for sending along the examples, it will really help. We have really been working on the proposal from so many different angles, this particular part has been on our list of possibilities, but we hadn’t had the time to focus on it directly. I am planning on talking to the Wilderness Society this afternoon about the smaller acreage proposal and I will let you know what they have to say".

    I will follow-up and see what the news is.
    Great, thanks for posting that.

    Anything from IMBA UT?

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

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    204
    Funny how things work. I found a link to this thread through a 4x4 website. Seems that Mountain Bikers and Jeepers / 4 wheelers (I'm both) are on the same side of the fence at times. One of these days, all of us are going to realize that together we can provide a stand against those wishing to close down trails. As this example shows, Mt biking trails are not exempt from their grasp. Wheelers have been fighting this battle for a long time.

    Before too many people launch into me about how environmentally irresponsible 4x4 vehicles and their operators are, please remember that every user group has it's bad apples (there are no exceptions - there are plenty of irresponsible hikers). I know many wheelers who believe in the tread lightly philosophy and want just as badly as you and I to save our public lands for the enjoyment of the future generations - regardless of which user-group they choose to belong to.

    Wouldn't it be great if IMBA, WAFTA and U4WDA (Utah 4wd association), USA-ALL (Utah Shared Access Alliance) actually got together and combined their strength? Imagine what might be possible if the strength of the seperate organizations combined....

    I truly do wish you folks the best in keeping the Mt biking trails open out there. I moved away from Utah (Oakley / Weber Canyon) in 2005 and miss it a lot. The state is full of beautiful places for all types of recreation.

    jd
    member of U4wda and Red Rock 4 Wheelers (Moab)
    member of Upstate SORBA / IMBA (South Carolina)
    am I a walking conflict of interest?

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.