Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: CORE Act

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    978

    CORE Act

    I know, it's IMBA, but this does seem like a positive step for them. Any body know more about it?

    https://www.imba.com/blog/speak-core-act-colorado

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    2,340
    I didn't have time to look into details and just assumed IMBA is giving away 100's of miles of backcountry trail to gain 10 miles of blown out front country trail. Hopefully I'm wrong.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    8,785
    No idea if it's good. I mostly just see it as IMBA narrowing their focus. They tried to be international. But really they were just U.S. And for the past few years, they've mostly just been Colorado.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    4,222
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    No idea if it's good. I mostly just see it as IMBA narrowing their focus. They tried to be international. But really they were just U.S. And for the past few years, they've mostly just been Colorado.
    And even here, they've largely been irrelevant since they publically/officially abandoned the Wilderness topic.

    "Abandoned" is probably the wrong way to describe it... but they came out and told their constituents and the general public, that access to Wilderness for human-powered cycling was not something they had interest in.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    8,785
    Quote Originally Posted by skaredshtles View Post
    And even here, they've largely been irrelevant since they publically/officially abandoned the Wilderness topic.

    "Abandoned" is probably the wrong way to describe it... but they came out and told their constituents and the general public, that access to Wilderness for human-powered cycling was not something they had interest in.
    Sounds like they've narrowed their focus to a 300 foot radius around Dave Wiens' house. Although it was probably another organization that built trails within that 300' radius that they just kinda took credit for.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    4,222
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    Sounds like they've narrowed their focus to a 300 foot radius around Dave Wiens' house. Although it was probably another organization that built trails within that 300' radius that they just kinda took credit for.
    Yeah - our local clubs are actually pretty good in the state, in general, I think. But IMBA is pretty irrelevant amongst most of the "serious" mt bikers in these parts.

    "Serious" 'cause it's mountain biking, after all. Srs bidness!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in your second home, doing heroin
    Posts
    14,589
    Quote Originally Posted by 406 View Post
    I didn't have time to look into details and just assumed IMBA is giving away 100's of miles of backcountry trail to gain 10 miles of blown out front country trail. Hopefully I'm wrong.
    Sounds like someone is quite familiar with IMBA!

    Fuck
    IMBA
    sky
    high


    that's exactly what's happening

    They didn't abandon the wilderness topic they became wilderness advocates. Read the provisions of that act. It's a conglomeration of several wilderness bills that all failed on their own just being repackaged with a bunch of new stickers and catchy name.

    "protecting" trails my ass. They were never in danger. And in the meantime they're pushing for shit tons of new wilderness acreage guaranteeing the sport they claim to advocate for will never have expanded trails there. That's the problem when you have a bunch of dirt roadies pretending to advocate for riding bikes in the mountains....for them it's a fitness thing, close to town, on some shitty flowless trail they built that sucks. IMBA is not a bike advocacy organization, they're an IMBA advocacy organization. They even go into competitive bidding battles with local community trailbuilding companies for projects.

    I think I just realized I have a trigger word. Someone should warn me!
    Besides the comet that killed the dinosaurs nothing has destroyed a species faster than entitled white people.-ajp

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    4,222
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    <snip> It's a conglomeration of several wilderness bills that all failed on their own just being repackaged with a bunch of new stickers and catchy name.
    Yup - the Summit/Eagle County one was previously called "Hidden Gems" and it got shot down...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    978
    IMBA did go to bat for mountain bikers recently on the Lionhead-Gallatin travel plan update, first time they've been active in our area in awhile. I was hoping they'd maybe turned a page.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in your second home, doing heroin
    Posts
    14,589
    Quote Originally Posted by panchosdad View Post
    IMBA did go to bat for mountain bikers recently on the Lionhead-Gallatin travel plan update, first time they've been active in our area in awhile. I was hoping they'd maybe turned a page.
    I don't know the lionhead area but they didn't just put a proposal out that does what they always do? Ask to keep one or two existing trails while suggesting wilderness designations elsewhere? I saw some pretty goofy maps that their little outdoor alliance group had that laid some really switchbacky trails around lion head but then surrounded it with new wilderness.
    Besides the comet that killed the dinosaurs nothing has destroyed a species faster than entitled white people.-ajp

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    I don't know the lionhead area but they didn't just put a proposal out that does what they always do? Ask to keep one or two existing trails while suggesting wilderness designations elsewhere? I saw some pretty goofy maps that their little outdoor alliance group had that laid some really switchbacky trails around lion head but then surrounded it with new wilderness.
    Well the switchbacky trails are already there, It's steep terrain so if you want something climbable they're kind of mandatory. I don't think they supported any kind of wilderness in the Lionhead.

    Just trying to get at the specifics of the CORE act from someone who knows the area, and not make this about IMBA.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    Sounds like someone is quite familiar with IMBA!

    Fuck
    IMBA
    sky
    high


    that's exactly what's happening

    They didn't abandon the wilderness topic they became wilderness advocates. Read the provisions of that act. It's a conglomeration of several wilderness bills that all failed on their own just being repackaged with a bunch of new stickers and catchy name.

    "protecting" trails my ass. They were never in danger. And in the meantime they're pushing for shit tons of new wilderness acreage guaranteeing the sport they claim to advocate for will never have expanded trails there. That's the problem when you have a bunch of dirt roadies pretending to advocate for riding bikes in the mountains....for them it's a fitness thing, close to town, on some shitty flowless trail they built that sucks. IMBA is not a bike advocacy organization, they're an IMBA advocacy organization. They even go into competitive bidding battles with local community trailbuilding companies for projects.

    I think I just realized I have a trigger word. Someone should warn me!
    Self appointed experts bring change without improvement. A few extroverts and a pipeline to grant money can do a lot of damage to community.
    Last edited by DaveVt; 10-31-2019 at 12:07 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in your second home, doing heroin
    Posts
    14,589
    Quote Originally Posted by panchosdad View Post
    Well the switchbacky trails are already there, It's steep terrain so if you want something climbable they're kind of mandatory. I don't think they supported any kind of wilderness in the Lionhead.

    Just trying to get at the specifics of the CORE act from someone who knows the area, and not make this about IMBA.
    Here's the form letter from the group IMBA is a part of now. Looks like what I thought. Keep the specific lionhead trails, kick out the dirty snowmobilers and dirt bikers, recommend wilderness and then more wilderness everywhere else.
    https://secure.everyaction.com/1nRZBhm98ki3w8E-0kLNnQ2
    Besides the comet that killed the dinosaurs nothing has destroyed a species faster than entitled white people.-ajp

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    4,222
    Sounds like the House passed CORE.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,451
    Quote Originally Posted by panchosdad View Post
    Just trying to get at the specifics of the CORE act from someone who knows the area, and not make this about IMBA.
    I looked into it briefly awhile back, for the areas near Summit County my main impression was that it more or less just solidifies the status quo. Pretty much motorized vehicles are allowed in the same areas they were before, bikes are allowed on the same trails as they were before, etc. I didn't see how it was a huge "win" for mountain bikers, as nothing really changed as far as I could tell.

    Now, I understood some of the stuff in central and sourthern Colorado to be more controversial, however I did not have time to investigate the details.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    2,340
    lots of info here:
    https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public....cfm?p=COREAct

    I just skimmed...

    I don't know SW CO that well, but looks like Calico Trail might be in one of the proposed Wilderness areas? Maps are not that detailed, but included on the page.

    One thing I found interesting: "The bill addresses a number of management issues in specific areas along the Continental Divide. It adjusts wilderness boundaries around the Trail River Ranch in Rocky Mountain National Park to ensure ongoing access to the property for youth and community education programs. " Too bad there isn't some adjustments to open up more COT to mtb, that is the kind of stuff I would hope IMBA would be part of if they are going to promote the bill.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in your second home, doing heroin
    Posts
    14,589
    Quote Originally Posted by 406 View Post
    Too bad there isn't some adjustments to open up more COT to mtb, that is the kind of stuff I would hope IMBA would be part of if they are going to promote the bill.
    heh

    The propaganda on this thing is strong. It's basically just a wilderness bill. One with some consideration for existing trails but then eliminating all chances for further bike use in some areas. All under the guise of 'increased recreation potential'.

    These 'recreation area' designations are almost always just an acknowledgement of existing use, making it sound like the activity is going to be introduced in an area.
    Besides the comet that killed the dinosaurs nothing has destroyed a species faster than entitled white people.-ajp

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    4,222
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    heh

    The propaganda on this thing is strong. It's basically just a wilderness bill. One with some consideration for existing trails but then eliminating all chances for further bike use in some areas. All under the guise of 'increased recreation potential'.
    And if you read the description of the bill in Countable, it says:

    "Should 200k Acres of Federal Land in Colorado be Withdrawn From Mining Uses?"

    WTF? Talk about a leading question...

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in your second home, doing heroin
    Posts
    14,589
    Full blown strip mine
    or
    wilderness

    No inbetween really. Can't be.
    Besides the comet that killed the dinosaurs nothing has destroyed a species faster than entitled white people.-ajp

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    15,304
    We have great trails on old reclaimed strip mines and in about 200 years they might even get re forested by nature.

    or it might turn to desert if you listen to some.
    watch out for snakes

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gapper Alley
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by kidwoo View Post
    Here's the form letter from the group IMBA is a part of now. Looks like what I thought. Keep the specific lionhead trails, kick out the dirty snowmobilers and dirt bikers, recommend wilderness and then more wilderness everywhere else.
    https://secure.everyaction.com/1nRZBhm98ki3w8E-0kLNnQ2
    This area is currently Recommended Wilderness. MTB (and in one small section snomo) have hung on to access by a thread around Lionhead. Outdoor Alliance in the action alert you link, support a plan that makes it un-Recommended Wilderness and moved into "BackCountry Area". Creating this category is hugely important for us to protect land and maintain access. Access stays the same in Lionhead with OAMT proposal, but we get a more stable management. Yes, some Wilderness areas are also recommended as part of the whole package.

    I don't know much about CORE, but I suspect it struck a similar balance. Being a part of deciding where new Wilderness is designated is advantageous for MTB compared to having fickle access and potentially losing all of the WSA, Recommended Wilderness, or having a boundary drawn on a section line that cuts a trail in half.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Shadynasty's Jazz Club
    Posts
    8,327
    Even more advantageous is allowing land managers to make these decisions so that the land doesn't have to be split and spliced into various versions of protection. IMBA is either very lazy or has the WS guiding their decisions, or both.
    Remind me. We'll send him a red cap and a Speedo.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in your second home, doing heroin
    Posts
    14,589
    livefreerdie:

    You guys got so screwed in Region 1, the birthplace of wilderness light via WSAs and Rec Wilderness, I understand anything codifying existing trails sounds good. That decision in R1 spilled over nationwide. But it's good to see what's an administrative decision (a forest supervisor creating defacto wilderness without congressional approval) get pulled back.

    Serious question for the both the CORE, and plan revisions in MT: of the wilderness additions, what are they being 'protected' from? Because any potential wilderness area will already be inventoried roadless, which 99% of the time prohibits any new road construction, IE: no mining or logging. So you're also losing the potential for trail expansion in a lot of cool places. These wilderness additions seem to make better donor emails than actual protection from real threats, like evil mountain bike trails being built somewhere. The real mountains in CA are largely inaccessible to anyone with a bike. I hate seeing other places become that. It's why I take road trips to the rockies to go bike riding. You can actually get into the mountains.

    That's my biggest gripe with plans like this. It's not a 'balance' when huge swaths get further reserved exclusively for hikers and horseback, and the only thing really "gained" is existing use for bikes. That's better than losing it yes, but it's not the 'win-win' they're always sold as. And given the groups that make up, OA, the two relevant to this discussion have a pretty long history of being full of shit.
    CORE looks similar in these recreation designations.
    Last edited by kidwoo; 11-01-2019 at 09:47 AM.
    Besides the comet that killed the dinosaurs nothing has destroyed a species faster than entitled white people.-ajp

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    978
    Here's the STC's take on it. It passed the house and is on to the Senate now. The grazing exemption (and accompanying allowance for motorized vehicles to service the grazing) for wilderness areas stinks, imo.


    There's been fruitful discussion of the CORE Act (i.e., a law to add Wilderness in Colorado) on our Facebook page in recent days. Here’s our take on the legislation, which passed in the House of Representatives recently.

    Amid the pages of legalese, the Williams Fork Mountains Wilderness section particularly caught our attention. It says:

    “. . . the [Agriculture] Secretary shall [decide] whether to authorize livestock grazing or other use by livestock on the vacant allotments known as—

    “. . . the ‘Big Hole Allotment’; and

    “. . . the ‘Blue Ridge Allotment’.

    “. . . .

    “(1) . . . If the Secretary permits livestock grazing or other use by livestock on [the Big Hole or Blue Ridge allotments] . . . a third party authorized by the Secretary . . . may use any motorized or mechanized transport or equipment for purposes of constructing or rehabilitating such range improvements as are necessary to obtain appropriate livestock management objectives . . . .”

    The latter subsection is titled, euphemistically, “Range Improvements.” What it really means is that roads can be carved into the Williams Fork Mountain Wilderness so ranchers can drive cattle in and out of the Wilderness in trucks, making it possible to graze them inside the Wilderness.

    The legislation not only protects grazing but invites more of it inside the Williams Fork Mountain Wilderness.

    If mountain bikers ride on the same roads that cattle trucks may use, we can expect to be cited and maybe have our bikes confiscated.

    This state of affairs reminds us of the Boulder–White Clouds debacle of 2015, in which influential interest groups made sure their interests, like motorized recreation and grazing, were protected, but mountain bikers were ousted from long-ridden trails.

    Indeed, if you look at Colorado Senator Michael Bennet’s website on the CORE Act, he talks at length about how motorized travel and grazing won’t be impacted by any Wilderness designations. He says nothing about the effects of the CORE Act’s Wilderness designations on mountain biking.

    The legislation could have grandfathered in trails for mountain biking or specified that future mountain biking access will be up to the local National Forests, rather than a nationwide no-bicycles Forest Service edict that originated in 1977.

    The CORE Act was sent on to the Senate and awaits a hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. We recommend that you decide how you feel about the legislation and tell your senators. If you live in Colorado, your voice is particularly important.

    https://www.congress.gov/…/116th-con...-bill/823/text

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,961
    I think grandfathering in uses that make the W viable is in keeping with Frank Church's take that Wilderness need not be pure and totally unused in order to be worth protecting. Congress clearly and frequently agrees. Unfortunately, since IMBA tells them (and all other relevant parties) that mountain bikers are the one group magnanimous enough to sacrifice their own interests for "preservation," we don't get a seat at the table and we don't get anything grandfathered in.

    Sorry, I know that's not the point for this thread. I just don't see a way out of the situation without ending their self-appointed spokesmanship. Maybe the members need to sue? The bylaws say they'd lose, but in order to make that argument IMBA would have to admit they only speak for their board and therefore their board only speaks for themselves. At least get that on record for the next time they lie to Congress. Or make the argument that by telling Congress they speak for us they have to listen to us. It was either a lie or it wasn't.

    I am trying to remember any time the IMBA strategy of going along to get along and asking nicely to please have a trail or two left out of a new designation actually worked. I keep coming up empty. Local to me, Long Canyon is literally the edge of a RWA and the line had to be drawn to include it in order to kick out bikes. Meanwhile IMBA's most prominent chapter in the area is represented by guys in "Will work for wilderness" shirts. It's not all IMBA, it's also the echo chamber of hikers thinking like bigots and telling each other that's virtuous. But IMBA makes it worse.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •