Hey IMBA: Go Home, You're Drunk.

[jono]

BFD, it was a step too subtle, I'll grant, but I think you missed the key word in my post that you quoted: no one wants to Use pads 20 miles from help because by the time you're using them there's a significant risk of something quite survivable becoming life threatening. I might even wear a pair myself if the weather's cool enough, but no chance do I want to use them for their intended purpose. I ride very conservatively in backcountry areas and I make sure my bear bell is at least twice as loud as my bike. That's not going to change.

I strongly appreciate your position re: slickrock. I had a similar experience myself this fall and found that if I'm riding trail-free on slickrock I make it a point to treat untouched dirt spots as off-limits. Makes the route-finding a lot more interesting. If the USFS and BLM continue to require bikes to stay on established trails that will be an excellent use of their authority.

The better the technology gets the lighter our tracks become, but as long as we're human-powered bikes can only get just so good. I have a workstation pc that's 6 years old and keeps up with my newer ones. Ten years ago that would have sounded ridiculous, but as we approach optimal designs there is just less and less to improve. Bikes are getting there, as some recent discussions here can attest.

Re: IMBA aand GBM, I used to have a pic of the original signs at GBM that went up when it became official. They offered personal thanks to the brothers Harris and Bike Zion but I don't recall mention of IMBA and in talking with Morgan Harris at least ten years on he was still pretty irritated with the lack of support and outright obstruction provided. GBM was a grass roots local effort. But IMBA does a bang up job of taking credit, so I'm sure they've gotten their name attached by now.

[Dantheman]

the important part they have played in getting mountain biking to where it is today.

Oh they've played a critical role, but not a good role. What have we gotten exactly? An overabundance of lame flow trails? Lost access to thousands of miles of trails in WAs designated in the last 15 years? Rolling over on the coming e-bike fight?

[LightRanger]

Unless Congress specifically exempts a management agency allowing bikes in wilderness from the National Environmental Policy Act, such a decision would be subject to NEPA and trigger the analysis process.

Creating a new CFR rule isn't subject to NEPA but it is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. And then once the new CFR rule is created, then each individual management unit may allow bikes or may not. It's unclear from the current legislation what the trigger for this would be. Say, hypothetically, that the Tahoe National Forest creates a proposed action that says, "evaluate whether the Granite Chief Wilderness Area is appropriate for bicycle usage," and then the TNF undertakes a study and says, "no it isn't." That decision would be subject to challenge as an "arbitrary and capricious" decision under the APA. (There's a whole body of caselaw on what constitutes A&C.)

If, say, the Sawtooth National Forest decided that it wanted to open up some or all of the newly closed trails in the BWC to bikes, they would notice a proposed action to do that and go through NEPA analysis.

At this time with the current language, I don't see how every management unit in the country wouldn't have to at least go through the hypothetical I sketched out for Granite Chief, if not the second hypothetical. It's possible the new CFR might require a trail management plan for all WAs--similar to the Subpart B (summer) and C (winter) travel management rules for non-Wilderness FS land. Hell, the trigger (that I mentioned in the third paragraph above) for WAs could be that when the management unit does its next summer travel management plan, it must analyze whether to allow non-motorized wheeled conveyances into any WAs under its jurisdiction). I think that's what jono was suggesting yesterday. If that's what folks want to happen, then it should be made explicit in the statutory language.

TL;DR: Congress of course has the authority (within constitutional bounds) to modify anything done by statute with a new statute. E.g. when the BWC was designated, they could have specifically allowed bikes on all trails that were open to them then. Or they could create a specific NEPA carve out or trigger mechanism here. But they haven't done that--leaving the management agencies with shit for guidance, IMO.

[LightRanger]

Acts of Congress aren't subject to NEPA. NEPA is required anytime an agency takes action that might have an impact on the environment. Congress isn't an agency, so they can do whatever they want.

So if Congress passes a bill clarifying that bikes can be allowed in Wilderness, no NEPA process would be required. But if the FS then moves to allow bikes on a particular trail in the Wilderness, that'd require a NEPA process since it's an agency action.

Or, to flip it around, if Congress says bikes are allowed in Wilderness unless explicitly banned, there'd be no NEPA. But if the FS then moved to ban bikes on most (or all) trails in Wilderness, that'd require a NEPA evaluation.

This is exactly what I want to see exempted. They should include a NEPA exemption for the agency action of re-opening any trails that have been open to bikes in the last 15 years, then everything else can be handled as travel plans come up at no meaningful cost.

(Some of the rest of my post was a bit facetious, in case that wasn't obvious.)

That's generally correct. But the current bill language doesn't do that. It's vague and I (and other nerds) foresee problems.

And that's setting aside the funding issues for studies and EIS-writers.

[kidwoo]

Oh they've played a critical role, but not a good role. What have we gotten exactly? An overabundance of lame flow trails? Lost access to thousands of miles of trails in WAs designated in the last 15 years? Rolling over on the coming e-bike fight?

Clearly you underestimate the real value IMBA provides: A sense of accomplishment for uppity white people who've never lifted a finger for trail access or construction, redeemed by just sending in checks.




I'm enjoying the schadenfreude of all this


https://www.bcha.org/blog/2017/05/06...opp-to-hr1349/

The infant STC organization, formed in 2015, thinks they can dictate the terms of how people access and enjoy Wilderness.

"that's OUR job dammit!"

[jono]

That's generally correct. But the current bill language doesn't do that. It's vague and I (and other nerds) foresee problems.

And that's setting aside the funding issues for studies and EIS-writers.

It would benefit from adding some clarity for sure. On the other hand, if it doesn't get the NEPA exemption I'd prefer, the problems would still be limited by the resources of the bike community and its ability to sue. Without suits the whole thing takes a long time to resolve in summer (and winter, perhaps) travel plans but shouldn't cost anything.

What I fear is that the discussion breaks away from what's right as people accept the science and even the political argument, and focus instead on cost as an excuse to only pass a bill that specifically protects the land managers from ever having to do anything at all. That would be one way to address the cost concerns, but as it's been said, a law without enforcement is just good advice.

In the long run we should be more concerned about public support for these agencies and getting them some free volunteer labor. Other problems are short term but those last a long time. The reduction in perceived public value over the last few decades has not been kind to the USFS.

[toast2266]

This is exactly what I want to see exempted. They should include a NEPA exemption for the agency action of re-opening any trails that have been open to bikes in the last 15 years, then everything else can be handled as travel plans come up at no meaningful cost.

(Some of the rest of my post was a bit facetious, in case that wasn't obvious.)

That actually would worry me a bit. I think the opposition's slippery slope argument is mostly bullshit, but setting precedent for Congress to legislate around nepa doesn't seem like a road we want to go down.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Dantheman]

I'm enjoying the schadenfreude of all this

https://www.bcha.org/blog/2017/05/06...opp-to-hr1349/

The infant STC organization, formed in 2015, thinks they can dictate the terms of how people access and enjoy Wilderness.

"that's OUR job dammit!"

In the continental U.S., less than 3% of the land is designated wilderness. That’s just 3% of the landscape to which horseman can escape and be assured of a relatively primitive recreational experience. Further, according to the U.S. Forest Service, 98 percent of all the trails on land it manages outside of designated wilderness are open to bicycles.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[jono]

That actually would worry me a bit. I think the opposition's slippery slope argument is mostly bullshit, but setting precedent for Congress to legislate around nepa doesn't seem like a road we want to go down.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Of course it would be better to just re-open all trails that have been open in the last 15 years, making it non-discretionary and step around NEPA that way, but I have a feeling that's less politically viable. I'm not sure there's such a thing a congressional precedent, though; they can do it if they want and it could be argued that they have done so every time an agency takes any non-discretionary action. After all, how else are federal agencies compelled? Better by an act of Congress than at the whim of the executive, surely.

[skaredshtles]

Clearly you underestimate the real value IMBA provides: A sense of accomplishment for uppity white people who've never lifted a finger for trail access or construction, redeemed by just sending in checks.




I'm enjoying the schadenfreude of all this


https://www.bcha.org/blog/2017/05/06...opp-to-hr1349/

The infant STC organization, formed in 2015, thinks they can dictate the terms of how people access and enjoy Wilderness.

"that's OUR job dammit!"

"Worse still would be safety hazards for persons leading a pack string, where a bike startling the least-trained horse or mule among the pack string could bolt and/or endanger the entire
party."

I like how they use the *single* human activity BY FAR which causes the most damage in Wilderness Areas as a reason to oppose cyclists.

[kidwoo]

I also enjoy the dichotomy of wilderness existing to preserve wildlife........but it is also completely legal to hunt in.


Like everything Wilderness related, it's all just high-minded bullshit from the particular user groups who happen to benefit, or are not excluded.

The erosion trenches literally packed with horse shit running into the wilderness areas out of mammoth lakes are a disaster, environmentally, ecologically, and quite frankly ethically in terms of wilderness 'intent'


But keep worrying about the bicycles tearing apart the idea of protected lands, piloted by a million or more potential allies in preservation. That's really gonna be the downfall.

[muted]

Just say all the trails were closed by Obama and the Trump admin will open everything back up in no time.

[evdog]

I've been thinking we should all send in letters to Trump praising him and pointing out he could give all the liberal enviro nuts a heart attack by opening up W to bikes.


NEMBA and SDMBA started a petition demanding that IMBA not lobby against bikes in Wilderness. Sign it here, if you wish... already 2,400 or so signatures.

https://www.change.org/p/board-imba-...share_petition

[Danno]

I'm no expert on any of this, but to chime in on the NEPA stuff: first off, the act is triggered by a "major federal action", IIRC, and changing a trail use to add bikes may our may not qualify (no idea what the law is on this), so maybe NEPA won't come into play. But assuming it is triggered, that does not mean there has to be an expensive EIS (environmental impact statement). In all likelihood, it would be a relatively simple EA (environmental assessment) with a FONSI (finding of no significant impact). The wilderness advocates will likely claim otherwise, but opening an existing trail to bikes should be a pretty easy call, environmentally. The environmental impact is all in the existence of the trail and people traveling on it; adding a new user group or human powered bikes won't have any significant additional impact, based on what I have read.

[TahoeJ]

I also enjoy the dichotomy of wilderness existing to preserve wildlife........but it is also completely legal to hunt in.

This part has always blown me away. And also:

"Bikes are noisy and disturb wild-life."

"A bike rider will come around the corner and I won't even hear him coming."

[SchralphMacchio]

Let alone the allowance of pack animals and even freaking pets in Wilderness. I'm more against being able to bring my dog into the wilderness than my bike. My bike won't shit in the water and poop seeds from an invasive plant. My bike won't jump at wildlife, and as long as I have chain lube (see drivetrain maintenance thread!) my bike won't bark at every damn hiker or bird it sees.

And I love my freaking dog more than I love my bike.

[jm2e]

/\ /\ /\
Not cool to bring a domesticated animal into the wilderness, but totally fine to kill the native animals?
Is this really documented as a big problem in the wilderness? Dogs chasing animals and barking? And shitting Kudzu seeds?

[Dantheman]

relatively simple EA

That's what EAs were supposed to be, but they often get ballooned into something closer to an EIS these days. In a rational world it would be a CATEX.

Let alone the allowance of pack animals and even freaking pets in Wilderness. I'm more against being able to bring my dog into the wilderness than my bike. My bike won't shit in the water and poop seeds from an invasive plant. My bike won't jump at wildlife, and as long as I have chain lube (see drivetrain maintenance thread!) my bike won't bark at every damn hiker or bird it sees.

And I love my freaking dog more than I love my bike.

Remember these morons?

[SchralphMacchio]

DTM, at least that dog appears to be on a harness and leash! I've seen and been in WA's with those not on leash.

jm2e, I have no idea how big a problem it is, probably not as big an issue as grandfathered (*and specifically poorly managed*) grazing operations ... I'm more pointing out the mixed legal positions, mixed impacts, and mixed personal standards people hold when it comes to various uses of Wilderness Areas.

And to be clear, my personal position is that any existing poor use of Wilderness does not automatically justify additional uses like bikes ... but I think that bikes have a potential to practically reduce pack animal and camping impacts in many areas, which, as long as properly regulated (with speed limits and such), could actually reduce trail and land impacts in many WA's. Bikes are way cheaper than horses/mules and easier to "store" over the winter.

[evasive_MT]

That's what EAs were supposed to be, but they often get ballooned into something closer to an EIS these days. In a rational world it would be a CATEX.



Remember these morons?

Is that the dipshits who protested the protest ride into the Italian Alps? I was actually coming out from an overnight backpacking trip in the Lima Peaks that day.

[plugboots]

OK, I've read this whole thread, and I still want a TL;DR version. I get that IMBA sucks, but who should I support that will work to get mountain bike access to wilderness areas?

BTW, I believe it would be nice to just have certain bits be open to bikes, not all areas of all WA's. How about that nice little 3 mile stretch that would be the connector to make a nice loop perhaps? Or have a version of a WA that allows bikes because there are bike trails in there already.

[Dantheman]

OK, I've read this whole thread, and I still want a TL;DR version. I get that IMBA sucks, but who should I support that will work to get mountain bike access to wilderness areas?

BTW, I believe it would be nice to just have certain bits be open to bikes, not all areas of all WA's. How about that nice little 3 mile stretch that would be the connector to make a nice loop perhaps? Or have a version of a WA that allows bikes because there are bike trails in there already.

1. STC

2. This is what STC is trying to do. Restore access to trails in WAs that were designated in the last decade or so, grandfather access in new WAs, and generally open access to trails where it is reasonable to do so.

[plugboots]

Thanks.

[jono]

... I think that bikes have a potential to practically reduce pack animal and camping impacts in many areas, which, as long as properly regulated (with speed limits and such), could actually reduce trail and land impacts in many WA's. Bikes are way cheaper than horses/mules and easier to "store" over the winter.

From that standpoint the opposition from horse groups makes sense: companies running pack trains stand to lose a few customers if more eco friendly options exist. And if land management decisions start to consider impacts of different uses as they should, it seems like horses might lose some access.

[that dude who did that thing]

OK, I've read this whole thread, and I still want a TL;DR version. I get that IMBA sucks, but who should I support that will work to get mountain bike access to wilderness areas?

BTW, I believe it would be nice to just have certain bits be open to bikes, not all areas of all WA's. How about that nice little 3 mile stretch that would be the connector to make a nice loop perhaps? Or have a version of a WA that allows bikes because there are bike trails in there already.

Here's the TL/DR - STC wants to let bikes in Wilderness and to accomlish that, it is teaming up with GOP politicians who just want to weaken public land protections. IMBA is opposed because they think the current proposal is the wrong way to gain access to Wilderness. Conservationists are pissed at STC for betraying conservation principles. Some mountain bikers are pissed at IMBA for not being stronger advocates for bikes everywhere. Uninformed dentists spew stupid shit about wilderness, ecology, and law that is funny as long as you remember that these folks have tunnel vision on advancing their own interests.

Here's another view, although it's still too long: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...219-story.html