Hey IMBA: Go Home, You're Drunk.

[ADKmike]

Maybe this is why those Sock Guy IMBA socks were so cheap on STP...shit guess I can't wear them anymore.

[cmcrawfo]

Maybe this is why those Sock Guy IMBA socks were so cheap on STP...shit guess I can't wear them anymore.

they are great for hiking.

[BFD]

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

thank you for the link. I agree 100% with the stance IMBA has taken.
This bill is just having its first hearings. It is a long way from becoming law. There are many other users who are kept out of wilderness. Do you really think they are going to stand by and watch the Wilderness Act get amended without including them?
kootenayskier
Strange bedfellows:
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...ndsEnemies.pdf
interesting list do you really thin McClintock would object to changes to the bill allowing motorized use?

The Sustainable Trails Coalition is a nonprofit working to reverse the ban on bicycles in Wilderness areas. However, just as we’re opposed to the blanket ban, we’re also opposed to a blanket permit. We ultimately believe the trails in our Wilderness areas need a big dose of cooperation, common sense, and repair; living power sources like hikers, cyclists, equestrians, cross country skiers, snowshoers, etc., need to get along, work together, and partner with land managers to decide what is in the best interest of each trail.
really and all other users should have no say?
it is sad to see mountain bikers leading the charge to gut the wilderness act

[kidwoo]

it is sad to see mountain bikers leading the charge to gut the wilderness act

GUT!! With entrails!!

You can tell by the mention of condos, freeways, and unregulated resource extraction all laid out in STC's proposal. Gutted to the point that the preservation of wilderness character means NOTHING!



haha! you fucking serious? It's a bicycle.

[SchralphMacchio]

Did any of you pro-STC complainers forget to send the HR committee a note?
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...support-HR1349

[skaredshtles]

<snip>
it is sad to see mountain bikers leading the charge to gut the wilderness act

I'm not sure how returning to the original intent of the Wilderness Act could be considered gutting it.

[smmokan]

^^^^ this.

[jono]

it is sad to see mountain bikers leading the charge to gut the wilderness act

Another great example of the bill being a quicker read than the internet discussion...LeeLau addressed this "what if" red herring quite well up thread. I'm not even sure there's a whole paragraph in the bill; there's definitely nowhere to hide big scary changes to public policy. There is a chance to bring us all into the same tent when it comes to defending public lands, though. And getting more Wilderness designated. If you've read this far you've spent more time than it takes to read the bill.

Do you remember how the Boulder-White Clouds got passed? With no amendments after it left committee, that's how. Unanimous support for placing a Wilderness Area on several long established bike trails which have never altered the land's Wilderness quality. And that was a whole Wilderness area complete with maps and borders and one of its sponsors explicitly stating that it was Not a referendum on bikes in Wilderness. That was a separate discussion. This one, as it happens. I'm sure the expediency of that argument was welcome at the time to all the hikers who got what they wanted. Now it's time to fix this simple issue. And if not now then on every single wilderness bill that comes up from now until it passes. Fighting to keep responsible users out is a tiny little bit of hypocrisy in the conservation movement but fighting so hard to preserve that hypocrisy is an indicator of a much uglier problem.

[MakersTeleMark]

I'm not sure how returning to the original intent of the Wilderness Act could be considered gutting it.

^^^^ this.

[Phall]

https://trivialmtb.wordpress.com/201...lind-squirrel/

Trivial wrote an interesting piece on this, and I agree with him. A quote from Steve Rinella, author, hunter, public lands advocate, general bad ass:
Question to Rinella:
How do you access “wilderness” if you have lung cancer and cannot hike, are an amputee and cannot work, are older and don’t have stamina? In short, what YOU want is a place where a tiny percentage of young people can use, where their parents and grandparents cannot.
Response:
“There’s many ways to explain that, I’ll point out one that if you came to me, let’s say, took a favorite patch of wilderness I like, let’s say some pure-ass wilderness, and you said to me ‘Steve, you got one or two choices. You could never step foot on the North Slope of the Brooks Range again, ever, on penalty of death, OR, we’re going to road it all up.’ I would say ‘Ok, I’ll miss it’.
So it’s bigger than, having wilderness is bigger than just saying that I want it for me and me exclusively. It has tremendous implications for wildlife, clean air, clean water, sanctuary. Its doing more than just being a place for people to go. If there are activities that we can conduct in wilderness that do not damage the integrity of wilderness, all the better. I don’t think the goal of every patch of ground on earth is to increase its accessibility to all folks and all forms of use.

[jono]

Response:
“There’s many ways to explain that, I’ll point out one that if you came to me, let’s say, took a favorite patch of wilderness I like, let’s say some pure-ass wilderness, and you said to me ‘Steve, you got one or two choices....

False dichotomy is false. When reasonable arguments stand against your position, you can always rely on a metric ton of fallacies, though, so it's got that going for it.

[Phall]

I'm not looking at this issue from the stance of a hunter, or a MTB rider, of which I am both, I am looking at this issue as a purely conservation standpoint.

I personally would rather see wilderness fenced from access then to start the ME TOO argument about access. Do i want to ride my MTB in boulder whiteclouds, or other wilderness areas around the country? FUCK yes, I do, but I have a greater respect and understanding of what wilderness represents to go around trying to change a designation on lands in this country. "What about me" advocacy kind of sucks.

[jono]

If that had been the original intent, and if the B-WC had been passed with that understanding, I could agree with you. But what we have here is a politically cynical maneuver to exclude people who helped advocate for and protect the land in the first place. When that happens the objectives have been co-opted and I guess I should stop being surprised that people keep claiming that will happen with bike access: the conservation lobby obviously speaks from experience there.

[SchralphMacchio]

Well, IMBA now has at least a year to reformulate their position, if they so choose ...

[TahoeJ]

STC just accomplished more in one year than IMBA ever has. Of course, it's not over yet... still have some major hurdles to clear.

[kidwoo]

False dichotomy is false.

Nope. Those are the only two options: Difficult to reach and, 6 lane highway into a strip mine, with a landing strip suitable for 747s. There is nothing in between.


The idea of Wilderness has made people positively insane.

[Danno]

I'm not looking at this issue from the stance of a hunter, or a MTB rider, of which I am both, I am looking at this issue as a purely conservation standpoint.

I personally would rather see wilderness fenced from access then to start the ME TOO argument about access. Do i want to ride my MTB in boulder whiteclouds, or other wilderness areas around the country? FUCK yes, I do, but I have a greater respect and understanding of what wilderness represents to go around trying to change a designation on lands in this country. "What about me" advocacy kind of sucks.

You could view at as a ME TOO type of thing, but I prefer to view it as a non-motorized type of thing. We allow other forms of mechanized travel (skis, rafts). I prefer a dividing line as far as blanket bans to be motorized/non-motorized.

[skiracer88_00]

STC’s bill passed committee and will be referred to the house!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[doebedoe]

I'm a mtb-er, bikepack-er, hiker and skier.

I'm fine with no bikes in WAs if -- and only if -- we also ban guns and pack animals. If people want some sort of proto-sanctuary, guns and pack animals are just as ecologically destructive and distant from some imagined "pristine" Wilderness that hasn't existed since prior to human settlement of North American as are newer user groups like mtbers.

In my view laws for WA should either stick to the narrative of pure, unadulterated places and therefore recognize that some of the grandfathered uses are as far from that narrative as newer user group. Or WA laws should allow new groups to be consider if they can prove they are no more damaging than existing users. Else WAs aren't pure-unadulterated spaces, they are spaces that are locked into whatever their use was in 1950s, or asked to revert to that time period when designated. And that is some hypocritical bullshit.

[SchralphMacchio]

Just so the actual language being proposed is clear ...

Here is the link to the amended language by McClintock: https://naturalresources.house.gov/u...lintock__1.pdf...

And here is the original HR1349: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/h...15hr1349ih.pdf

Combined, I believe they result in this language that was approved in committee today:

SECTION 1. USE OF CERTAIN WHEELED DEVICES NOT PROHIBITED IN WILDERNESS AREAS.
Section (4) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(8) Allowable uses. Each agency administering any area designated as wilderness may allow the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized bicycles, strollers, wheelbarrows, survey wheels, measuring wheels, or game carts within any wilderness area.’’

Agree or disagree, send a note to your Rep with your concerns!

[stuckathuntermtn]

Whoa, they may allow wheelbarrows?! Might as well just turn it all into an open pit mine!!!

But seriously, nothing about chainsaws for fire prevention got left in?

[toast2266]

Whoa, they may allow wheelbarrows?! Might as well just turn it all into an open pit mine!!!

But seriously, nothing about chainsaws for fire prevention got left in?

Wheelbarrows = game carts.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[jono]

Christmas shopping list just got a little bigger:

https://www.customink.com/fundraisin...ails-coalition

[skiracer88_00]

https://trivialmtb.wordpress.com/201...lind-squirrel/

here is a quote from that article:
"Due to the inherently complicated nature of bloated bills put up for law, I doubt that it just said, “Hey, let’s let some bikes in already, eh guys?”"

Actually, that is almost exactly what the bill states. The bill is seriously less than one page long, READ IT, then base your arguments in fact rather than speculation on something you haven't read.

[skaredshtles]

Just so the actual language being proposed is clear ...

Here is the link to the amended language by McClintock: https://naturalresources.house.gov/....349_mcclintock...

And here is the original HR1349: https://www.congress.gov/.../hr1349/...15hr1349ih.pdf

Combined, I believe they result in this language that was approved in committee today:



Agree or disagree, send a note to your Rep with your concerns!

These links are broken. Here is the current language: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...bill/1349/text