Hey IMBA: Go Home, You're Drunk.

[jono]

Wow, if that's the case, IMBA really needs to die a slow and miserable death.

They could go quickly if it would help. STC needs membership roles so they can cite a constituency and push IMBA off their perch. But that's a lot of legwork considering the timeframe: maybe easier if they got a huge number of $10 individual donations.

After that, it's probably a good idea to reach out to Yeti (and JensonUSA and ??). Maybe call their offices and talk to a human in case they already have email filters doing their filing for them. But changing IMBA's mind seems like a low probability play and in the long run they'll probably just need to go. In the near term it would seem at least as important to email McClintock and let him know that IMBA has lost the thread and doesn't speak for us.

Would it muddy the waters to forward McClintock IMBA's explanation that their "not supporting" 1349 is really a poorly-worded neutral stance? That seems to be the excuse they've given and published on their own website, maybe he should know that IMBA claims they're sitting this one out.

From their blog:

IMBA’s position in its testimony (which was a response to “what does IMBA think of this legislation?”) simply says that we do not support the legislation. The wording was pulled directly from the joint statement that the STC signed and shared with IMBA.
The joint statement reads as follows: “IMBA reciprocally respects STC’s approach and does not oppose it, but chooses not to support STC’s legislative reform efforts, partially in order to safeguard and strengthen positive working relationships with other stakeholders.” And our testimony reads as follows: “IMBA is not supporting H.R. 1349.”

[Danno]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at an IMBA board meeting.

[jono]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at an IMBA board meeting.

What's the story with open meeting laws in Colorado? If somehow IMBA manages to skirt them entirely (through their bylaws?) it would be good to know that about them. Say, if their name is going to be invoked during debate, for instance.

[toast2266]

What's the story with open meeting laws in Colorado? If somehow IMBA manages to skirt them entirely (through their bylaws?) it would be good to know that about them. Say, if their name is going to be invoked during debate, for instance.

IMBA isn't a government entity. Other than an annual meeting, I highly doubt they're required to open their meetings to anyone.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[jono]

Doesn't that depend on their bylaws? I was on a non-profit board a while back that was subject to open meeting laws, but not CO.

[S_jenks]

This entire thread has been a very interesting read. And some of the linked articles have been very good.

Thought that I'd leave a word or two on this. It'll certainly be biased as a native MT, but here goes:

It absolutely sucks that there are not more trails to ride in the state, and seeing some access removed during my life for mountain bikers is a huge downer for those in that community. Having a certain level of access for trail riding is important if you spend a good chunk of your summer on two wheels, and seeing new restrictions amidst what feels like an already small-level of access elects a huge emotional response. It takes the form of disgust, angst, anger, and envy to name a few. It's inarguable that a great many of us are incredibly respectful of the wilds, and much of the fight for greater access is just and rooted in good intentions.

But if we really wish to truly integrate mountain biking into the fight for public access, then we've first got to overcome the perception issues that are present, both within the community and those looking for the outside. I see a lot of (justifiable) anger in this thread, but I also see people defending the greater use of mountain bikes as if they have no downsides whatsoever. The desire to 'act and do something' especially in light of IMBA's recent actions is huge, and it got my blood boiling at first too.

But (and here is where my personal bias comes in) I don't think that STC's approach was an inherently good idea. Legislation and the laws governing use of public lands are extraordinarily tricky to draft (as has already been mentioned in here), especially when you're trying to figure out how it's going to be interpreted/applied for the next 30, 50, or 100+ years. Hell, the language itself surrounding 'human-powered transport' is convoluted and tricky to use, even from a law standpoint. It constantly puts bikes in a legal gray area, and we've been fighting over the wording ever since.

How we write the new law(s) on public land access will have enormous implications down the road, because it's interpretation has to be rock solid. There is a vast array of players in the public access debate (motorized, animal, guiding, foot, for-profit, tourism, preservation-only, etc.), and everyone is suspicious of the other to some extent. Bikes in general have always struggled with how they are perceived by others, and it shouldn't come to any surprise that they often get left out/ignored.

If bikes are to get anywhere in the political/legal fight for access, then there needs to be greater cooperation between riders to figure out how THEY best want to approach it. It can't just be about preservation of the wilds, nor can it be fueled by the 'what about me' desire for greater access. How we use land as a public is a huge question in this shrinking world, and the myopia that exists within people need to be overcome if we are to find compromise.

Rant over. Hope I didn't waste too much time here.

[adrenalated]

Doesn't that depend on their bylaws? I was on a non-profit board a while back that was subject to open meeting laws, but not CO.

Colorado does not require non-profits to open board meetings to the public or share minutes from the meetings.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at an IMBA board meeting.

I'd love to be a guy with a baseball bat.

[toast2266]

Doesn't that depend on their bylaws? I was on a non-profit board a while back that was subject to open meeting laws, but not CO.

Yeah, their bylaws could certainly dictate that all of their meetings are open to IMBA members (or the public). But I'd be surprised if their bylaws actually said that - opening a board meeting up to a broader population tends to be unattractive to the board for obvious reasons. But if you're an IMBA member, I bet you can get a copy of the meeting minutes if you sent them a written request (edit: scratch that per Adrenalated).

[adrenalated]

Yeah, their bylaws could certainly dictate that all of their meetings are open to IMBA members (or the public). But I'd be surprised if their bylaws actually said that - opening a board meeting up to a broader population tends to be unattractive to the board for obvious reasons. But if you're an IMBA member, I bet you can get a copy of the meeting minutes if you sent them a written request (edit: scratch that per Adrenalated).

Yeah it would be up to the organization. I have no idea what IMBA's bylaws state. I just know it's not required by law.

[jono]

Yeah it would be up to the organization. I have no idea what IMBA's bylaws state. I just know it's not required by law.

I gathered that much from Google before asking, so I really should have worded that better: has anyone that knows CO law also looked at IMBA's bylaws with respect to their transparency responsibilities?

[jono]

I'm not sure what I hoped to find, beyond confirming the obvious, but I read through IMBA's bylaws. 6 pages of just what you'd expect: 'members' have more say in the management of REI.

IMBA has no voting members, and affiliates are also non-voting. Only the board votes, including on who makes up the board. No one else matters at all. The board can meet by whatever method they choose as long as they can hear each other. They take notes but no mention of ever publishing any of them. There is supposed to be a conflict of interest policy but since it only applies to transactions and money, it's fine for the board to choose its members from the rolls of the Wilderness Society. Perfect recipe here if anyone wants to form an International Wilderness Hikers Association:

https://www.imba.com/about/bylaws

[jm2e]

/\ /\ /\ /\
Thanks for that summary. Kind of sobering stuff. Seems like a shitty organization and hard to believe they've been able to prosper.

[meter-man]

Gianforte (MT-R) pulled his support of HR 1349. http://helenair.com/news/state-and-r...bc2fb61e0.html

I've heard elsewhere on the internet that HR 1349 won't go to the House floor for a vote.

[jono]

So "constituency" means people who make money (or might make less) based on the proposed legislation. Shocking.

I like his assertion that he's always felt the "backcountry" should only be accessed by feet and horses. I'm sure he was just confused when he voted for 1349 in committee. Sounds like a representative to be proud of. Really knows his stuff.

[evdog]

Mailer I got from IMBA today: "Stronger when we stand as one". Fuck you, IMBA

[skaredshtles]

So "constituency" means people who make money (or might make less) based on the proposed legislation. Shocking.

I like his assertion that he's always felt the "backcountry" should only be accessed by feet and horses. I'm sure he was just confused when he voted for 1349 in committee. Sounds like a representative to be proud of. Really knows his stuff.

Yup. Fuck that old fucker.

[LightRanger]

I still don't understand what the IMBA board was thinking with their congressional testimony.

It was obviously a bad idea at the time. If you don't support the bill, just don't say anything.

In terms of how to move forward, I still wonder if a bill that had a strict time limitation in terms of the areas it covers would be more able to pass. E.g., as I suggested way upthread, adding something like, "This section shall only apply to Wilderness designated after January 1, 1998." Or whatever date seems correct.

I strongly suspect something like that would get a lot more support. (It would get my support, which the current bill doesn't have.) The more recent the date, the more support it would receive. But that would involve compromise from Stroll, which wouldn't seem to be forthcoming.

[jono]

You really think Stroll isn't willing to compromise? This bill is completely toothless compared to last year's Senate bill, and he didn't seem to balk at the (admittedly meaningless/window dressing) change to the language in committee. What makes you say that? Honest question, I don't claim to know the guy.

[LightRanger]

Just the general sense I get from his statements I've seen. I don't know him either. I think you're making a bit of a fallacious comparison between the bills though. When you're making a major change from the status quo, making it somewhat less major isn't necessarily compromising. It's kind of similar to when a developer puts out a totally unrealistic number for total units, and then it gets whittled down to their actual goals during the permitting process. Doesn't mean it's still reasonable versus the baseline. (We can quibble about whether the subcommittee bill is "major," but the point is that a lot of folks see it that way.)

I suppose we'll see. Like I said, I contend that a time-limited bill like I've suggested throughout our various threads on here would have a much better chance of passing and would garner much greater support.

[jono]

The problem with leaving the oldest WA's closed to bikes is that the oldest ones were open to bikes until 1984 and were generally the least "pure" in terms of protection and original compromise. Airstrips in the Frank Church, mining still allowed in pretty much all of them etc. I'd like to see 1349 coupled with language to protect against mining, but who's going to take up that challenge? Find the legislator who would sponsor that and this whole thing could be very positive.

I agree with the concept of stipulating some limits, though. In a perfect world I'd like to see all the trails that were bike trails after about 1997 default to being reopened. Maybe leave everything else until travel plans are being reworked and then require use decisions to be science-based.

[evdog]

Is compromise really needed in this bill? Seems to me compromise is built in by the fact that land managers would be able to decide where to allow bikes or where they will remain prohibited, and that decision would no doubt come out of some sort of public input process. All the bill does is remove the absolute that bikes are prohibited in all Wilderness.

Making this change only for WA designated after a specific date, but that ignores the fact that some trails in WAs prior to that date would be appropriate for bikes, as much as some WAs designated after a given date would not be appropriate.

As much as I'd like this bill to go through and be successful, I don't think there are enough riders who want it, who would actually go out and ride trails in Wilderness if opened. Which actually supports the argument that they could be opened successfully, because they wouldn't be overrun by bikes like the fearmongering HOHA sierra clubbers would have you believe.

[jono]

As much as I'd like this bill to go through and be successful, I don't think there are enough riders who want it, who would actually go out and ride trails in Wilderness if opened. Which actually supports the argument that they could be opened successfully, because they wouldn't be overrun by bikes like the fearmongering HOHA sierra clubbers would have you believe.

This is exactly right. Those who say "I'm a mountain biker but I oppose opening any trails in WA's to mountain bikes" are generally both unwilling to undertake these rides and blind to the modern use of the designation. (The number who believe the line about Wilderness being our best environmental protection is staggering as well, but I digress.)

Your TR's in this forum represent a rare display of what long backcountry riding really looks like. That material needs a wider audience, but I doubt if it would increase the number of riders so much as it might open a few eyes to just how few there would ever be.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Surprising that creationist fuckhole didn't jump at the chance to weaken the Wilderness act. No idea why he wouldn't. Oh, maybe it's because this bill is actually sensible, and he's against anything like that.

[toast2266]

Surprising that creationist fuckhole didn't jump at the chance to weaken the Wilderness act. No idea why he wouldn't. Oh, maybe it's because this bill is actually sensible, and he's against anything like that.

I'm sure the hook and bullet crowd was lobbying him. That's his demographic.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk