Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 77
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    13,139

    Hey IMBA: Go Home, You're Drunk.

    Wow... what a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Here's hoping they lose droves of local IMBA chapters in 2018.

    https://www.singletracks.com/blog/tr...es-wilderness/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Roseville CA
    Posts
    4
    Done w IMBA.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    8,499
    I stopped supporting IMBA about 7 years ago when it became clear they wouldn't fight for access.

    Fuck them.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    base of the Bush
    Posts
    7,433
    How sad is that..
    www.apriliaforum.com

    "If the road You followed brought you to this,of what use was the road"?

    "I have no idea what I am talking about but would be happy to share my biased opinions as fact on the matter. "
    Ottime

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    13,139
    ^^^ Agreed. That's one thing... but publicly stating you won't oppose STC (and more specifically, that they'd form a unified front) and then pulling this shit?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Land of Brine Shrimp and Magic Underwear
    Posts
    5,651
    Total fucking Bullshit. Glad I don't support them.
    There's nothing better than sliding down snow... flying through the air.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    6,594
    That’s BS doubling back on STC ... but local chapters are dropping them because IMBA wants too much fees take and offers not much in return for clubs not in metro areas.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,827
    IMBA had been an unofficial wing of the WS and Sierra Club for years already. This is just IMBA being more honest about who they are. Fuck IMBA.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    3,835
    So, what exactly do they do? I honestly don’t know of any service they provide other than teaching classes in Trail Paving.

    IMBA is laughable if you compare them with a group like The Access Fund. Especially given the sheer number of cyclists out there.

    Even if they just made some effort to convince all mountain bikers to stop fighting each other, I might think they’re doing something good.
    If you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it tubeless, I will. I got spare time.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    cb, co
    Posts
    3,196
    I just shot my friend at the local chapter and told them they better dump IMBA.

    Such bullshit. I don't get why they couldn't have at least said, "no comment" and left it at that.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Where the center is on the right
    Posts
    584
    WTF? What is an organization that fights for access that I can support?
    "If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    9,916
    This is the amendment that IMBA opposed

    Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized bicycles, strollers, wheelbarrows, survey wheels, measuring wheels, or game carts within any wilderness area.”.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    1,680
    What is the part of that IMBA objected to? The bikes?

    I've got a buddy why has challenged the motorized wheelchair thing with varying luck around the West. Dude built himself an offroad wheelchair hacked together from a segway. We had a run-in with a very angry ranger who found him hiking with me in a Wilderness Area.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    313
    WTF?? Unreal, exactly why I haven’t donated in the past few years as well. Sad. Thanks for the heads up.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    cordova,AK
    Posts
    2,214
    I am new to mountain biking. I appreciate them taking this stance. Plenty of places to ride without getting in a wilderness area.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,827
    Quote Originally Posted by BFD View Post
    I am new to mountain biking. I appreciate them taking this stance. Plenty of places to ride without getting in a wilderness area.
    If that's true where you live, congratulations. As you get more involved with the sport you'll notice that there are plenty of places where Wilderness has been used for no other purpose than to ban bikes. A little research and you'll find that bikes are better for trails and for the land than horses and comparable or better than hikers, since bikes allow you to avoid environmentally costly overnight stays. There is research on this topic, funded by non-bike money (often USFS or other federal entities) and the conclusions aren't really in contention.

    And, unfortunately, in places where most Wilderness and recommended wilderness exist literally hundreds of miles of trails have been closed to mountain bikes, despite decades of responsible use and in many cases maintenance by mountain bikers.

    Wilderness mountain biking is hike-a-bike. It's not Redbull Rampage. It's A to B, not building kickers and getting rad. Using a bike instead of a backpack does not degrade the environment.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post

    Wilderness mountain biking is hike-a-bike. It's not Redbull Rampage. It's A to B, not building kickers and getting rad. Using a bike instead of a backpack does not degrade the environment.
    Agreed. Bikepacking responsibly in remote areas is an amazing experience and would not degrade trails in the wilderness any more than pack trains of horses. On a similar note, if the proposed national park is created in Escalante, it will close a pretty awesome spot to bikepack.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,827
    Quote Originally Posted by camlax View Post
    Agreed. Bikepacking responsibly in remote areas is an amazing experience and would not degrade trails in the wilderness any more than pack trains of horses. On a similar note, if the proposed national park is created in Escalante, it will close a pretty awesome spot to bikepack.
    Also worth noting the bill does not open all Wilderness to bikes, it just stipulates that nothing in the existing WA can be interpreted as a ban. Plenty of room to keep bikes (or better yet, horses) out of environmentally sensitive areas.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Vernon BC
    Posts
    669
    On the plus side, there may be less protected wilderness areas in the future.
    "Its not the arrow, its the Indian" - M.Pinto

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,827
    ^^I'd like to be more saddened by that prospect. If something doesn't change it'll be a while before the backstab of the Boulder-White Clouds wears off.

    Perhaps the most transparent part of the IMBA testimony:
    We also want to briefly highlight a growing need for Congress and the federal agencies to more carefully consider the differences between mechanized and motorized uses of trails and public lands. Frequently, legislation will give direction to agencies regarding “mechanized or motorized” uses, lumping both platforms into a single sentence. In many cases, treating these uses as the same or even substantially similar does not reflect important differences in patterns of use and unique management requirements.
    IMBA's desire to separate mechanized from motorized is straight from their owners' playbook: when the act was written in 1964 it was all too clear that the definition of "mechanized" includes (but is not limited to) "motorized" (neither of which describe human-powered bicycles). The attempt to redefine that in the opposite sense (clearly failing to understand either term) is fundamental to the effort to create support for the 1984 rereading of the Wilderness Act as banning bicycles (and rolling wheels) under a broader definition of "mechanized." The IMBA testimony seems bizarre, unless you read it as simply fighting for the agenda of the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club and for their own position within the status quo. Then it makes perfect sense.

    Ironically, the next likely stand on a Wilderness designation has already been opposed by numerous local voices on precisely the basis that hunters want to use game carts. Fix this minor issue and people unite in support. Why is that such a problem? I could chalk it up to modern blind partisanship if this hadn't been going on for so long.

    I'll be asking vendors, clubs and anyone in the industry if they support IMBA and letting them know that I don't. Really don't want to see IMBA anywhere at this point. STC seems a logical replacement.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    3,835
    Quote Originally Posted by BFD View Post
    I am new to mountain biking. I appreciate them taking this stance. Plenty of places to ride without getting in a wilderness area.
    Yup. As I say; the biggest obstacle to overcome in mtb trail access is cyclists. Somehow each sub-sub-user is only out for their own issues and incapable of thinking about improving access for everyone. It’s why we spend so much time fighting over scraps rather than securing new terrain.
    If you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it tubeless, I will. I got spare time.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by BFD View Post
    I am new to mountain biking. I appreciate them taking this stance. Plenty of places to ride without getting in a wilderness area.
    Wilderness is a great thing and we need more of it. But when established mountain bike trails get closed off because of it I have a problem with that.

    I was ok with no bikes in wilderness right up until the boulder-white clouds thing. Then we lost a bunch of trails in the bitterroot, a bunch in the blackfoot-clearwater thing which was declared a success for cyclists, there's one up north, and the great burn wilderness study area.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Your couch?
    Posts
    135
    Came to sprocket rockets forum to start my own thread. Its a blessing to be amongst all you guys and the shared passion. Fight the good fight. Down with the imba. Our movement is gaining momentum and soon we will be victorious

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Southeast New York
    Posts
    5,526
    Quote Originally Posted by jamal View Post
    Wilderness is a great thing and we need more of it. But when established mountain bike trails get closed off because of it I have a problem with that.

    I was ok with no bikes in wilderness right up until the boulder-white clouds thing. Then we lost a bunch of trails in the bitterroot, a bunch in the blackfoot-clearwater thing which was declared a success for cyclists, there's one up north, and the great burn wilderness study area.
    Guess you missed some of the early closures in the late 80's/early 90's in CO that shut us out of trails that were all sorts of fun and very remote. I'm glad I got to ride some of them because there's no way I would ever have the time to walk them now. Those were the shots across the bow and very few people realized how extensive it was going to become so not much was said or done about it.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    772
    Quote Originally Posted by gravitylover View Post
    Guess you missed some of the early closures in the late 80's/early 90's in CO that shut us out of trails that were all sorts of fun and very remote. I'm glad I got to ride some of them because there's no way I would ever have the time to walk them now. Those were the shots across the bow and very few people realized how extensive it was going to become so not much was said or done about it.
    This - there are so many great trails in Colorado that USED to be open to bike that have since been tied up in Designated Wilderness. Some time have a look at this map just to see the extent:

    http://www.wilderness.net/map.cfm?xm...x=4702105.6758

    And often times it's small sections of trail that go in & out of small Designated Wilderness Areas... which, for all practical purposes, makes the trail unusable as a bicycle route.

    I, as an avid cyclist and backpacker, would LOVE to be able to support lots of new Wilderness legislation... however, I will NOT as long as the blanket ban on (human-powered) bicycling exists.

Posting Permissions

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