Hey IMBA: Go Home, You're Drunk.

[dunfree]

This isn’t my fight, and I think IMBA should be more forthcoming and articulate on this matter, but it’s clear that Wilderness and public land in general is under attack in your country from people who don’t give a fuck about mountain biking, that the STC’s cause has been co-opted by these assholes to further their agenda, that mainstream environmental groups and key regulatory agencies appreciate this and are therefore mobilizing against it,

That's about right. Mountainbiking is squeezed between a rock and a hard place. Their human powered recreation perhaps kin beat them as a redheaded step child, the power sports people don't give a shit about them. Wilderness designation isn't the only way to lose access to land, maybe a couple decades have made people forget that. Or maybe it's just to most MTBers if they can't MTB on it they don't give a shit, in which case they deserve the political irrelevancy they'll continue to find themselves in.

[jono]

The STC bills are simple to read and the STC's efforts are restricted to passing those bills. How exactly can that be co-opted?

I mean, I understand the purpose of Saying they've been co-opted, if you happen to oppose the bill and want to mobilize people who don't read it but are ready to mobilize if the big scary right-wing is invoked, but in a literal sense, how does passing the exact words that LeeLau quoted on page 1 achieve anything?

Again, I feel I have to stipulate: I do understand that it accomplishes the very important goal of uniting mountain bikers with hikers, equestrians and other non-mechanized users. Obviously that would be hugely beneficial in fighting back against any attacks on public lands. But apart from that, what are the nefarious, ulterior political objectives?

[dunfree]

Do you believe Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee are friends of human powered recreation jono? I don't, I've seen fuck all from any of them to suggest they are friends or even allies or even lowered swords grudging dinner pals with human recreation and so I mistrust every fucking thing they do. But I hate DC.

I'd hope IMBA has hired people who know DC better than me, you, or many of the people on this board.

[jono]

I used to hope that, too. Then I started asking about IMBA's advocacy and learned that IMBA was leaning on their non-profit status as an excuse not to spend one thin dime on advocacy. Read their joint statement with STC from back before they decided to pull this recent nonsense, they stuck it right in there. Hope is the first step towards disappointment as it turns out.

I have no love for anyone in DC either, but when a bill becomes a law it's the words in it not the names of its sponsors that determine what it means. Sadly, in the case of the Wilderness Act, the sponsors can't change its interpretation after it's passed. Read the bill with open eyes and I think you'll have a hard time seeing what the gaslighters are suggesting. Want to stick it to those two Utah senators? See to it the bill passes: the next day every mountain biker in the country will be a 100% supporter of all things Wilderness and federal lands.

[TahoeJ]

^^ This!

[kidwoo]

Do you believe Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee are friends of human powered recreation jono? I don't, I've seen fuck all from any of them to suggest they are friends or even allies or even lowered swords grudging dinner pals with human recreation and so I mistrust every fucking thing they do. But I hate DC.

I feel the same way about the sierra club and these days, imba.

Imba is not a mountain bike advocacy group. They are an imba advocacy group. And yeah you want to push this hard on wilderness being the de facto level of 'protection' in this country? And the one group that self champions itself as the voice of mountainbiking showing all the efficacy of a limp dick? Then yup, this is what you get. Otherwise dead set political enemies siding with people like hatch and lee. Sorry.

[Danno]

^^ This!

x2

[Empty Beer]

Why is Lee/Hatch being brought up? That senate bill died with the end of the last administration. Tom McClintock (CA D4) is the current sponsor for the House bill, with 5 or 6 sponsors.

I'm in his district and he's been a champion of public access to public lands as long as I can remember, as well as an ally for mountain bikers over and over again.

When the USFS was imposing ridiculous permit fees on the Downieville Classic some years ago, putting the event at risk of not happening, McClintock intervened and made sure the event happened.

When the bike hating equestrians lobbied him HARD (for several years) to designate the Western States National Recreation Trail as a National Historic Trail (and also prohibit bicycles and dirt bikes), he shot them down under the premise that this is a public trail on public land and the NRT is the best designation for multiple use.

When the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative group needed help/support meeting with the USFS to hash things out several years ago, McClintock made sure they got that meeting and he sent his deputy director to it to participate.

He made a cool proclamation for a local HS MTB coach at a NorCal League race, recognizing all the good he's done and lives he's changed via getting kids mountain biking.

And he stepped up to the plate to sponsor STC's bill.

He has a long history of fighting the USFS when they are restricting public use and enjoyment of public land, whether it be by restrictions, regulations or cost prohibitive fees.

I trust him on this. Doesn't mean I agree with all of his politics. But he has said this bill is about access and has nothing to do whatsoever with any kind of land transfer/sale business. And because it only deals with Wilderness lands, I do not doubt him one bit.

[LeeLau]

IMBA's statement

https://www.imba.com/blog/questions-bikes-wilderness

Confirming they will cut off local trail advocates at the knees in furtherance of "long term goals" and citing commonality of interest with conservation at the expense of advocating for local decisions for go/no-go for access

So if you understand IMBA's "long term vision"; feel that they're the best group to achieve that vision; and will defer to IMBA's decisions at the expense of your local group's interest then IMBA is for you.

If you prefer local level action and local level land manager discretion then STCs approach is for you

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[jono]

Thanks Lee. Great opening:

This past week, IMBA took a stand that was unpopular with many mountain bikers when we submitted written testimony stating that we do not support HR 1349, a bill that would amend the Wilderness Act by reversing the ban on bicycles.

We’d like to discuss this further with our members and the mountain biking community.

That's how the best organizations do it, right? Take an unpopular stand first and discuss it with the members later?

I thought the close was almost as good:

We know that mountain bikers won’t always agree with our approach, and may choose not to support us. That’s okay. IMBA will continue to work for the long-term gains of mountain biking...

And continue to advocate for IMBA rather than seeking to actually be the voice of mountain bikers as they claim, since that would mean aligning their views with those they claim to speak for. But that probably goes without saying.

[smmokan]

It would be nice to see one of their big sponsors release a statement echoing the thoughts of the MTB community and pull their money.

[kootenayskier]

Strange bedfellows:
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...ndsEnemies.pdf

[TahoeJ]

IMBA: "We know what's good for you even though mountain-bikers have lost more access than they've gained since we've been around."

I think a new organization needs to rise from the ashes (STC is very specifically focused). IMBA is tainted goods and done for.

1. Fighting for access with local chapters and local viewpoints (not some over-reaching policy since every situation has its nuances and history). Now. Not in 30 years in some theoretical long game to try to get more donations.

2. Building new trails (and "fixing" others) that aren't giant sidewalks that might as well be paved under the guise of growing the sport. People truly fall in love with mountain-biking when they are forced to get a little better at it instead of having their bread buttered for them.

I know I'd join.

[Rip'nStick]

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.

Well put

Sent from my SM-G935V using TGR Forums mobile app

[Mazderati]

The whole situation is crazy to someone looking into it for the first time. Ran across an Outside magazine opinion piece where the editor likens mountain bikers to land-grabbing Trump supporters hell-bent on environmental exploitation. Quite sensational.

[jono]

^^Sensationalism is the new smart, though, isn't it?

Strange bedfellows:
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...ndsEnemies.pdf

So, per Charles Dudley Warner, you're saying this is politics?

Understanding that as a Canadian you may not have the same perspective or care as much about this as we have to south of the border, but our country is facing a major political upheaval right now and the major cause of it is things like that meme: light on information but heavy on identity politics. Better to know your enemy than know what's good or bad policy. It's ironic how much faster it is to read the actual bills than to keep up with the internet conversations. To the topic at hand, see Empty Beer's post above; this thread is not about the people in that wanted poster.

[LeeLau]

Strange bedfellows:
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...ndsEnemies.pdf

Quite a few opponents of the STC stance have pointed out the unpalatable views of the Bill's sponsors and their political affiliations. And have pointed to other possible ways things can get tacked on to the Bill to open Wilderness for resource exploitation.

That belies the fact of the simplicity of the Bill. All it does it rebut a presumption that bikes are banned from Wilderness. A presumption that was put in by the FS bureaucracy unilaterally. And once rebutted allows local FS officials working with local trail orgs to make local decisions.

As far as tack-ons to the Bill that happens with complex laws. Not one paragraph single issue bills

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[TahoeJ]

BTW - for anyone not believing what some are saying, my wife happens to be an open space planner for one of the most heated / contested trail areas in the country (it's in northern CA, you can probably guess where). There is no slippery slope with this bill. At all. If this bill passes, they will not be forced to open up the Wilderness trails to bikes. They will simply have the option to propose it... at which point they will be sued by various so-called "environmental" groups.

[jm2e]

We don’t need an organization that helps us build trails. We need an organization that helps get us access to public land. Have local entities build the damn trails!

What I want to see is an effort to get all mountain bikers thinking about themselves as part of a bigger team. Enduro & downhillers should be Fighting for Rails to Trails and gravel grinders should be fighting for freeride/fall line trails. Everyone fighting for everyone is the only way we have a chance of surviving.
It continually baffles me that the huge bike shops (REI, Performance, etc) don’t make advocacy efforts a part of every sale.
How hard would it be to say, “All of our trails are threatened. And we all need to unite as a common voice!”

[jono]

Good points. A guy I work with is deep into rail trail advocacy and now I'm curious to hear his thoughts. Seems like a very similar pursuit. REI is likely even more conflicted that Patagoonia would be--imagine the fallout if the Sierra Club tells people to boycott REI? Then again, they're REI anyway.

Seems like the mountain bike world needs to replace IMBA with another way to access their present value adds. If STC covers DC, and locals cover their trails, what else is there? Insurance, membership management, maybe web templates?

I do expect that having a somewhat "uniform" set of guidelines for trail construction gives public land managers a warm fuzzy feeling, like they've done their due diligence without having to know anything. But that could be achieved without those guidelines being all sidewalks all the time. Better, they could just as easily favor diversity.

[Empty Beer]

Video clips of STC's testimony at the legislative hearing: http://www.sustainabletrailscoalitio...nal-testimony/

Bike hater people/groups are having a field day criticizing everything Stroll says, but they don't say why. And they are all up in arms that opponents of the bill weren't invited or allowed to testify. Apparently they don't understand what a legislative hearing is... and didn't notice that the other 3 bills had no opponents whining either.

[kootenayskier]

^^Sensationalism is the new smart, though, isn't it?



So, per Charles Dudley Warner, you're saying this is politics?

Understanding that as a Canadian you may not have the same perspective or care as much about this as we have to south of the border, but our country is facing a major political upheaval right now and the major cause of it is things like that meme: light on information but heavy on identity politics. Better to know your enemy than know what's good or bad policy. It's ironic how much faster it is to read the actual bills than to keep up with the internet conversations. To the topic at hand, see Empty Beer's post above; this thread is not about the people in that wanted poster.

Fair points, and I’ll accept that the Bill seems innocuous when read in isolation from the “major political upheaval” that I am also very concerned about. However I do work full-time in trail advocacy, and in many cases the long term value of maintaining positive relationships with landowners, regulators, and other interest groups exceeds indulging in positions or practices that many hardcore Mountain bikers would or wouldn’t support. Unauthorized trail building being an obvious example, but also prioritizing particular environmental and economic values over trails. I continue to be supported in taking this long term perspective because it is delivering results that my community uses and appreciates.
IMBA’s calculation on this issue seems to be reasonable from my perspective, but I understand that if they can’t deliver results, they’ll continue to lose support.

[pano-dude]

I am new to mountain biking. I appreciate them taking this stance. Plenty of places to ride without getting in a wilderness area.

Until you get 20 years of riding the same trails you won't understand. Once you ride in the alpine you will understand.

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[stuckathuntermtn]

The flaming on their FB page is awesome.
Have they just become an arm of the bike industry?

[stuckathuntermtn]

Quite a few opponents of the STC stance have pointed out the unpalatable views of the Bill's sponsors and their political affiliations. And have pointed to other possible ways things can get tacked on to the Bill to open Wilderness for resource exploitation.

That belies the fact of the simplicity of the Bill. All it does it rebut a presumption that bikes are banned from Wilderness. A presumption that was put in by the FS bureaucracy unilaterally. And once rebutted allows local FS officials working with local trail orgs to make local decisions.

As far as tack-ons to the Bill that happens with complex laws. Not one paragraph single issue bills

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

BTW - for anyone not believing what some are saying, my wife happens to be an open space planner for one of the most heated / contested trail areas in the country (it's in northern CA, you can probably guess where). There is no slippery slope with this bill. At all. If this bill passes, they will not be forced to open up the Wilderness trails to bikes. They will simply have the option to propose it... at which point they will be sued by various so-called "environmental" groups.

Yep and yep