Hey IMBA: Go Home, You're Drunk.

[smmokan]

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/

[banzaibikes]

Done w IMBA.

[Bunion 2020]

I stopped supporting IMBA about 7 years ago when it became clear they wouldn't fight for access.

Fuck them.

[Vt-Freeheel]

How sad is that..

[smmokan]

^^^ 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?

[beaterdit]

Total fucking Bullshit. Glad I don't support them.

[SchralphMacchio]

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.

[jono]

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.

[jm2e]

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.

[goldenboy]

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.

[nest]

WTF? What is an organization that fights for access that I can support?

[LeeLau]

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.”.

[doebedoe]

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.

[zlatham]

WTF?? Unreal, exactly why I haven’t donated in the past few years as well. Sad. Thanks for the heads up.

[BFD]

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

[jono]

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.

[camlax]

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.

[jono]

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.

[cmcrawfo]

On the plus side, there may be less protected wilderness areas in the future.

[jono]

^^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.

[jm2e]

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.

[jamal]

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.

[phallic-menace]

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

[gravitylover]

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.

[skaredshtles]

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.