Whats the consensus on the IMBA?

[rideit]

Do you ever stop talking about yourself, bro?
Can't you just cross post whatever drivel you posted on Gene's site?
Thanks.

[toast2266]

You are just stating conclusions. I like you as a person a lot more than I like (or don't) Wendy, so I'll just say this: you're wrong, and you are too inexperienced as a lawyer to see that your generalized, law-school-based conclusions are not reality.

I would suggest reviewing some Administrative Law decisions, as well as the line of cases which flow from Dean Milk. Regulatory interpretations are rejected or overturned when they are irrational. There are numerous avenues to show irrationality in the weird interpretation of "mechanized" through which MTBs are targeted. I would happily discuss them in-person.

Well, technically I'm not wrong - agency interpretation of statutes is given deference. I can give you a whole shitload of citations if you want. Of course that doesn't mean that those interpretations can't be overturned.

But that aside, I definitely agree that there's lots of ways to argue about the irrationality of the regulatory interpretations. But I would wager a shiny nickel that the most likely outcome of that lawsuit would be 1) no change, or 2) some of the other "exceptions" to the regulation end up getting banned - which would suck, because I like skiing in the wilderness. Irrationality of the regulatory interpretations aside, the Wilderness Act explicitly disallows mechanical transport. We can piss and moan about it all we want, but at the end of the day, it seems pretty clear that bikes are mechanical transport.

But more importantly, I think the lawsuit is a bad idea because the consequences for anything but an outright victory are high, and that sort of victory is far from assured. The risk / reward dynamics don't make it worth it, at least in my book.

[rideit]

Don't pay attention to Creaky, Toast...he doesn't give a shit about change or forward motion...all he enjoys is the tearing down, never the building.

[creaky fossil]

Don't pay attention to Creaky, Toast...he doesn't give a shit about change or forward motion...all he enjoys is the tearing down, never the building.

The narcissism never ends. People who know me personally know what I've done, and I don't need to spew about it in 99% of my TGR posts -- unlike you. But to stifle your constant basking in your own glow, Narcissus, let me just ask if you know what kind of work I did 2009-2011. Answer when you know.

Well, technically I'm not wrong - agency interpretation of statutes is given deference. I can give you a whole shitload of citations if you want. Of course that doesn't mean that those interpretations can't be overturned.

See, here's the law school perspective I was talking about. I had the same views for the first few years. Work in the trenches will change that, though here in MT the volume isn't high enough for the changes to happen rapidly. I'd give it 10 years here. The citations to existing cases show a very small part of regulatory practice. If you're doing litigation now, you probably know how discovery, and deposition questioning, can change the posture of what a claim or case initially looks like. How many cases filed actually end up going to trial? Why is it such a small %? Surely there's a lot of precedent out there which would suggest it's a win for one side or the other, right?

But that aside, I definitely agree that there's lots of ways to argue about the irrationality of the regulatory interpretations. But I would wager a shiny nickel that the most likely outcome of that lawsuit would be 1) no change, or 2) some of the other "exceptions" to the regulation end up getting banned - which would suck, because I like skiing in the wilderness. Irrationality of the regulatory interpretations aside, the Wilderness Act explicitly disallows mechanical transport. We can piss and moan about it all we want, but at the end of the day, it seems pretty clear that bikes are mechanical transport.

Litigation isn't always about instant change, or a win. I'm not going to discuss the strategy further on a public-access forum. Let's just say I think you need to expand your imaginative energies here.

But more importantly, I think the lawsuit is a bad idea because the consequences for anything but an outright victory are high, and that sort of victory is far from assured. The risk / reward dynamics don't make it worth it, at least in my book.

Sounds like a PR statement from IMBA. Not everyone has the intellectual chops to handle this kind of seeming failure.

[rideit]

Whatever you did in 09'-11', it looks like you fucked it all up!
Always with the tearing down, the bashing...
Sad

[creaky fossil]

Jesus.

I told you, Wendy, you need to get the fuck off the internet. It's not all about you and whether every person here posts something reflecting positively on Wendell Stam's crazy-ass Walter Mitty life.

[rideit]

Don't be mad because some people are just inherently more...interesting...than you!

[creaky fossil]

Tomorrow, when you read this thread, you aren't going to be so proud of yourself.

[wendigo]

damn creaky. for a silver spoon fed missoula yuppie you sure do bitch (and fuck up threads) a lot.

[Gripen]

Yes! Creaky made an appearance!

Thread=subscribed.

[east or bust]

Not a huge fan of IMBA, but I can't deny there successes. They've done a great job of opening up land in NJ for bikers. But I share the same peeve as others, their trails are BORING.

You'd be surprised with the potential of the land in North/West NJ for making some sweet trails. All of the trails that they've made in the area are very low speed and techy. Which I like, but I also like being able to open it up sometimes. IMO they do not have enough variety when it comes to building trails. They are all very heavily weighted toward the XC side of the sport, no jumps or berms (you don't need them when you never break 10mph). There have been attempts by people to create there own trails stemming from the IMBA trails with cool features but they get an extremely bad rap with the local IMBA weenies on MTBR. That should be the first sign that they are doing something wrong...

After being in VT for two years I've found a local spot that is managed by a smaller club, and the trail system as a whole blows away that in NJ. Not because it's all "buff" riding, but they literally have trails/features for every type of rider. I can go out one day and session a jump line and the next I can get a good cardio workout. It's refreshing.

[kidwoo]

the Wilderness Act explicitly disallows mechanical transport. We can piss and moan about it all we want, but at the end of the day, it seems pretty clear that bikes are mechanical transport.

From what I've read for eons in multiple citations, the OG Wilderness act actually used the term motorized transport. It was the reinterpretation in the 1980s that got it changed to mechanized. But certainly everything you see now is that mechanized term. Either way imba needs to be pushing other designations and not rolling over as frequently as they do. I'm all for wilderness and bike free areas to a point but they're not doing what a bike group should.

Back on topic before the catfight, my biggest gripe with imba isn't the character of trails they advocate. What I see as overly sanitized with too many switchbacks (derp 'climbing turns' derp derp) is someone else's dream come true. I dislike the trend and what their involvement does to the shape of dirt but that's personal preference and interpretation.

What gets me far more than anything else is how they handle other advocacy groups. Look at the very first two questions in that mtbr thread that rideit linked to. The answer is absolutely yes. They piss all over local efforts for no other reason than to get their name prominently on projects that they think will garner them attention, many times to the detriment of the projects themselves. They're far more interested in their own perpetuation than actually helping the mountain bike community these days. Anyone who's worked with them who knows what goes on in the world beyond imba sees this.

[toast2266]

From what I've read for eons in multiple citations, the OG Wilderness act actually used the term motorized transport. It was the reinterpretation in the 1980s that got it changed to mechanized. But certainly everything you see now is that mechanized term. Either way imba needs to be pushing other designations and not rolling over as frequently as they do. I'm all for wilderness and bike free areas to a point but they're not doing what a bike group should.

The Wilderness Act itself hasn't changed - it's just the regulations that interpret the language of the Act that have shifted. Here's the part of the Act that talks about mechanical transport:

Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), 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.

The Forest Service is charged with implementing / enforcing the Act, so when it was first adopted, the FS came up with rules and regulations to guide their enforcement efforts. Included within those original 1966 regulations was an interpretation of "mechanical transport." Originally, that interpretation said that "mechanical transport" meant "any contrivance ... propelled by a nonliving power source," thus allowing bikes. In 1977, the Sierra Club and some other groups began a push to get that interpretation changed. In 1983, that push was successful and the regulation became what it is today, which specifically outlaws bikes, hang gliders, game carts, and some other stuff. There wasn't really any challenge to the Sierra Club's push since mountain bikes barely even existed at that point.

Here's the current regulatory interpretation of "mechanical transport."

Mechanical Transport. Any contrivance for moving people or material in or over land, water, or air, having moving parts, that provides a mechanical advantage to the user, and that is powered by a living or nonliving power source. This includes, but is not limited to, sailboats, hang gliders, parachutes, bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons. It does not include wheelchairs when used as necessary medical appliances. It also does not include skis, snowshoes, rafts, canoes, sleds, travois, or similar primitive devices without moving parts.

[hick]

From what I've read for eons in multiple citations, the OG Wilderness act actually used the term motorized transport. It was the reinterpretation in the 1980s that got it changed to mechanized. But certainly everything you see now is that mechanized term. Either way imba needs to be pushing other designations and not rolling over as frequently as they do. I'm all for wilderness and bike free areas to a point but they're not doing what a bike group should.

Back on topic before the catfight, my biggest gripe with imba isn't the character of trails they advocate. What I see as overly sanitized with too many switchbacks (derp 'climbing turns' derp derp) is someone else's dream come true. I dislike the trend and what their involvement does to the shape of dirt but that's personal preference and interpretation.

What gets me far more than anything else is how they handle other advocacy groups. Look at the very first two questions in that mtbr thread that rideit linked to. The answer is absolutely yes. They piss all over local efforts for no other reason than to get their name prominently on projects that they think will garner them attention, many times to the detriment of the projects themselves. They're far more interested in their own perpetuation than actually helping the mountain bike community these days. Anyone who's worked with them who knows what goes on in the world beyond imba sees this.

Well put. Solid effort to get the thread back on the rails.

[Hugh Conway]

In 1983, that push was successful and the regulation became what it is today, which specifically outlaws bikes, hang gliders, game carts, and some other stuff.

Thought Hang Gliders were disallowed per the whole "aircraft" thing. But carryon toast, you are clearly more core than some housewife.

jesus though, he posts the fucking act and people still cling to their fantasy's. It's awesome.

[toast2266]

Thought Hang Gliders were disallowed per the whole "aircraft" thing. But carryon toast, you are clearly more core than some housewife.

Yeah; not sure on what the rationale behind the hang gliders thing is. Pretty sure that the 1983 revisions were the first time they were specifically mentioned though.

Anyways, back on track, my point about all of the Wilderness interpretations is that it's plausible that IMBA is deliberately taking their current course of action with the long term goal of dramatically expanding bike access. In other words, play nice now and advocate for a bunch of sanitized wheelchair accessible trails, get on the land managers' good side and build clout, then push for more interesting trails in the future. Short term sacrifices for long term gains.

Creaky will say that's being overly optimistic and naive, and he may well be right. But I'm not sure how viable any of the alternatives are.

[Hugh Conway]

Given "hang gliding" didn't exist in 1964, same as "Mountain Biking", that's a safe bet.

[skiergirl]

Mixed. Trails that meet their standard make nice cruisers. Steamboat (RCR) just became an IMBA member in the last year. I'm 100% sure that has some influence on them getting the Bell Built grant for some new DJ lines (beyond the fact that you prolly had to be an IMBA member to take part?).

Steamboat is slated to be their darling as we just voted to apply a lodging tax to the Trails Alliance proposal that will = $5M of spending on paved/dirt trails over the next 10 years. Trails Alliance had their shit together and ducks in a row long before the IMBA chapter creation, but I bet every trail built will meet IMBA groomer standards. Which is par for the course in this town (other than 1 new GL trail at the ski area).

Edit to add that Steamboat was given Bronze level ride center status right before the election. This was shared far and wide. Election results were 71% for appropriating the $$ to trails. So I don't think it was IMBA that tipped the scales (bc TA has done a damn fine job) but it helped.

[creaky fossil]

damn creaky. for a silver spoon fed missoula yuppie you sure do bitch (and fuck up threads) a lot.

Good job Wendy, using your other handle. Remember that it's you who comes from wealthy Brooklyn stock and lives off the trust fund. My family isn't even remotely rich, and any silver-colored spoon you saw me holding? It was tin, and tarnished.

Keep playing the Binny Netanyahu game! Lies about others, to cover your own privileged attitude? Win/win/win/win/win/win x 2, covering all 12 dimensions of your brilliant Star Trek Chess Strategy.

***************

I notice that while people say I cunted up the thread, nobody's added anything useful to the discussion regarding what IMBA's been able to do, or why IMBA's attitudes are helpful. A few people praise IMBA on globally general ideas (they've done so much good! or, on balance they're better than not) blah blah blah. Sometimes I wonder how any of you trustafarian lifestylers with your $100k SportWagons and AWD LuxoEuroSedans managed to get through your expensive prep schools and elite colleges with your deficit in critical thinking.

Criticism of an entity is not hatred, no matter what Binny Netanyahu Stam tries to sell you. Criticism is the tool for improvement. Unless you're already at perfection. Which none of us is. Including Wendy. Or IMBA.

Toast insists litigation would be bad. Which he says as a lawyer of all of 3 years practice? or 2 years? Yeah, just like on TeeVee, the rookie lawyer knows everything, especially strategic subtlety. That's why he wants to discuss strategy on a public forum. Because in litigation, you ALWAYS share your case strategy with the other side. It's the best way to roll!

At least Woo isn't ruining things too much with his grandiosity, for a change.

[toast2266]

Toast insists litigation would be bad. Which he says as a lawyer of all of 3 years practice? or 2 years? Yeah, just like on TeeVee, the rookie lawyer knows everything, especially strategic subtlety. That's why he wants to discuss strategy on a public forum. Because in litigation, you ALWAYS share your case strategy with the other side. It's the best way to roll!

Since when is internet postulation "case strategy?"

You're doing a lot of bitching about everyone else - where's your substantive contribution?

[wendigo]

meh - IMBA should stick to national advocacy.

creaky should accept that he is a "trustafarian" and not hate on people with less than him.

[rideit]

Who the hell is a trustafarian?
I thought I was you.

[wendigo]

i don't know anyone (other than creaky) who has used that term since 2002.
maybe you are?
wait, i'm you aren't i. shit.

[rideit]

Hey, can you feed the team of thoroughbred Shetland's their caviar tonight? I'm busy selling off twitter stock.
Thanks!

[rideit]

Reasoned POV from some dude in Tennesee. (long, but he has some points)

I've been holding off on this for a long time, because I have VERY mixed feelings about IMBA and "what it does for me" so to speak. So everyone needs to go get some salt before the read this.

I've been riding for 25 years. I remember when there weren't trails. Now there are trails. Did IMBA do all of that? Nope. Does that make IMBA bad? Nope. Did IMBA do some of it? I have to believe they did. In fact, I KNOW they did, in places. And that makes IMBA good. But it's not a blanket thing.

Do a lot of people look at IMBA's trail "guidelines and best practices" and then build crappy trails because they don't know how to do anything else "within the bounds of those recommendations?" Yes. Is that IMBA's fault? Nope. I've also personally been involved in the building of quite a bit of trail that is very entertaining to ride, is sustainable, and really, it's enjoyed by the majority of people that use it.

Lets get down to local. Local for me is Middle Tennessee. Yes, I'm an IMBA member. I have been for some time. I go to work days for the local chapter when I can. Most of the time, that involves quite a drive. The local chapter, named MidTN IMBA/SORBA covers from Murfreesboro to Clarksville. Sadly, Clarksville, where I am, doesn't get much love. The flip side of that is that the local chapter does have their hands full with projects in Nashville. Now, that's an hour away from me, but hey, trail is trail. And a lot of it is good trail too. We really do have great things happening within the chapter. However, as I mentioned, it's all an hour away, when we have things in Clarksville that get no love at all.

So I get the what have you done for me lately thing, on a local level. Except that when Clarksville wanted trails built, they contacted MidTN IMBA/SORBA. While the chapter couldn't do anything (they REALLY do have their hands full of projects....) they did refer the city to me. I'm now handling that for the city with a small group of local volunteers. No pun intended. But some of these guys want to help, and have no experience. I know what I'm doing, but I'm not the greatest teacher in the world. I've been working patiently with them, but I can't teach all of them everything fast enough for everyone to keep up. I've tried sending them to chapter work days, but they don't see the chapter here, so they wonder, why spend time there? Frustrating, because they could learn a lot from those guys who are better teachers than me, but understandable - why drive all that way to help someone who won't help us in return? Ack. Yes, they have their hands full. Seriously. I'm not kidding. Still, we'd be no where on the new Clarksville project if they hadn't been pointed to me, and at least we had a chapter that a municipal government could look to for that sort of advice.

So we're back to why they looked to them. Well, locally, they (we? I? Us?) are the face of IMBA, and IMBA is a strong lobbying organization that promotes responsible access for mountain bikers, and frankly, other recreational trail users as well. And that....is good. So for me, I'll keep plugging along, supporting IMBA with my membership, my two hands, and the tools I make to build trails in my garage, and the trails I build, and by telling the people I talk to where they can find information how to approach other trail users so as not to cause problems - stuff like that. All the while, I'll be hoping for more support at a local level, but thankful for the little I get, because even that little bit has been very important - it's gotten us from one park with 7 miles of trail, to another park with 9 miles of trail under construction, and another park in the immediate future.

I'm going to say this publicly: Mark, thank you for taking part in this conversation. It's just this sort of individual interaction that I think people miss with larger organizations like IMBA (wait, we have a large mountain biking organization? How'd that happen!?!). I appreciate that you are willing to stick out the conversation even though everyone wants to attack the biggest guy in room. Do I see things that need improvement? Yes. Do these things outweigh the benefits I've seen since IMBA organized and stepped up to the plate? No, they don't.

There are three kinds of mountain bikers. Those who remember when we didn't have any place to ride, and had to build everything we have, those who don't remember not having anyplace to ride, and take what was built for granted, and those who don't care because "it's a free country." To those last two groups...I'd say: Open your eyes.