IMBA pledges ‘more assertive stance’ on Wilderness designation

Discussion in 'Trail Advocacy' started by CarlS, Feb 20, 2016.

  1. CarlS

    CarlS Member

    Location:
    Temecula, CA
    Name:
    Carl
    Current Bike:
    Walmart $50 special
  2. Mikie

    Mikie Admin/iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Lebec, California
    Name:
    Mikie Watson
    Current Bike:
    Santa Cruz Hightower/Yeti 5C
    I have lost my vision with IMBA. I look to more aggressive alliances. Like the former President of IMBA to be exact...
     
    Danmtchl, Cisco Roots and CarlS like this.
  3. Cisco Roots

    Cisco Roots Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Maple Valley WA
    Name:
    Cisco
    Current Bike:
    YT Jeffsy 29
  4. Mikie

    Mikie Admin/iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Lebec, California
    Name:
    Mikie Watson
    Current Bike:
    Santa Cruz Hightower/Yeti 5C
  5. Mikie

    Mikie Admin/iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Lebec, California
    Name:
    Mikie Watson
    Current Bike:
    Santa Cruz Hightower/Yeti 5C
    I wrote IMBA... again.

    Subject: PLEASE STOP representing Us in America

    Like the subject matter states.
    PLEASE! STOP! representing Mountain Biking in America. You no longer represent any of the values I hold true to cycling. My forum site is completely up in arms over your latest decision regarding wilderness trails access. Come and visit my Forum www.imtbtrails.com and explain to my membership why you are doing what you are doing. have them explain your reasoning and hear their frustrations.

    If you care at all about those who used to be loyal to you. Or do you even care?

    Mikie
    imtbtrals
     
    Danmtchl, AKAKTM, mtnbikej and 3 others like this.
  6. herzalot

    herzalot iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Laguna Beach
    Name:
    Chris
    Current Bike:
    '15 Intense Tracer 275c DVOish
    I would rather maintain the ban on MtB in Wilderness areas than do what was just done in Utah (undesignating a National Monument). I don’t want the government selling off our remaining parcels to mining, forestry, real estate or other commercial interests. If we can gain a little access for pedal bikes, but keep it from motorized travel or resource stripping, I would love it. Not sure if that’s possible, and I am guessing that is what Wiens and his advisors are thinking.
     
    HBkites, Danmtchl, mtnbikej and 9 others like this.
  7. tick

    tick Member

    Location:
    Orange
    Name:
    Tick
    Current Bike:
    Process 111
    I think we should clear up what the recent executive order did...it shrunk the boundaries of National monuments (I.e. not Wilderness) that were only just recently designated by executive order. The boundaries were drawn excessively large, in my opinion, specifically to pi$$ people off and provoke fights. (The last two presidents have been masters at the art of the troll, I didn’t vote for either one). I dont know precisely how big these monuments should be, but it doesn’t do us any good making them too big. You can tell if a publication supports or opposes the recent actions based on the photos they use in their articles—the beauty spots that should be and are being protected, vs the hundreds of thousands of acres of barren desert that are possibly better off fracked...

    I just heard that there hasn’t been a major piece of bipartisan legislation in 20 years. In the inspiring words of our president, “SAD!”
     
    HBkites, Danmtchl, Faust29 and 2 others like this.
  8. Mikie

    Mikie Admin/iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Lebec, California
    Name:
    Mikie Watson
    Current Bike:
    Santa Cruz Hightower/Yeti 5C
    I’m confused about your statement. How does giving mountain bikes access to an 18 inch wide strip of dirt in selected wilderness areas have anything to do with strip mining?
    Because of the VAST difference between the Pro and the Against, we have to ask for it all. It’s called negotiating. We ask for all access and get a little. Dave Weins, who I “used” to have respect for as a mountain bike racer, should have stuck to either retirement or racing. He ain’t no business man and certainly not a negotiator (apparently). However, with our illustrious off road cyclist leader oppose to this we gain NOTHING!
    Man I’m so pissed at IMBA right now I want to egg their corporate office.
     
  9. herzalot

    herzalot iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Laguna Beach
    Name:
    Chris
    Current Bike:
    '15 Intense Tracer 275c DVOish
    Nothing to be confused about. I would love for pedal bikes (I can't believe I have to say "pedal") to be allowed in Wilderness Areas, and maybe even trails in National Parks and National Monuments. However, there seems to be two camps - as usual. Designation as wilderness or open to most or all uses as a natural resource. I would rather have closed wilderness areas than opening everything for commercial interests. Better than that would be to allow pedal bikes only, but I don't know how likely it is that we can move the needle just a little.

    That said, yes, IMBA should be narrowly focused on gaining access for pedal bikes to virtually anywhere. That's what special interests do. They lobby for their special interest - which, in this case is my special interest.

    I misspoke above. I mentioned the Utah re-designation, but those areas were National Monuments, not Wilderness Areas.
     
  10. da big hills

    da big hills Well-Known Member

    Location:
    pearl harbor
    Name:
    cagey
    Current Bike:
    enduro 29
    Wilderness trails are open to those who know how to be stealthy. Or so I have heard. I would never be put in a position that would require me to write a $20.00 check payable to: National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia
     
  11. herzalot

    herzalot iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Laguna Beach
    Name:
    Chris
    Current Bike:
    '15 Intense Tracer 275c DVOish
    But not the current one certainly. Mr. Twitter never trolls.
     
  12. evdog

    evdog Well-Known Member

    Location:
    San diego
    Name:
    Evan S
    Well, to clear things up a little further I should point out that mining is allowed in Wilderness, in some circumstances. There is an active mine in the Sheep Wilderness near Mt Baldy. They are allowed a dozen or so mining truck trips on the road each day to access the mine. But we cannot ride bikes on that same road because, guess what - its pristine Wilderness, untrammeled by man, of course... The Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in ID has a huge mining operation with accompanying road. I'm sure there are plenty of others. Mining is grandfathered because the Mining Act pre-dates the Wilderness Act, so if certain conditions are met mining is allowed. That is a big reason why the Boulder White Clouds is now Wilderness rather than National Monument. National Monument designation is actually more restrictive to mining because it restricts the impact a mine could create on recreation, resources and views to the point where mining is nearly impossible

    Commercial guiding and pack stations seem to be in every Wilderness too so that fat lazy tourists can get their adventure on and then glamp it up in walled tents with all the luxuries of home. That definitely sounds like what Wilderness was meant to be. Have you ever hiked a trail out of a major pack station? Next time up at Camp Nelson go for a hike on the trail leaving from the Golden Trout Pack Station. It's a good 20 feet wide and completely pummeled with 12" deep silt and sand. Again, totally pristine, obviously. Maybe I'll round up my 25 head of horses and head in for a week. Because that is allowed in Wilderness. Or my 25 pack goats. Also allowed. I just can't go in there myself with my bike. You know, in case I ruin someone else's sense of solitude and isolation. Apparently 25 horses or goats and all the resultant piles of crap isn't enough to do that.
     
  13. herzalot

    herzalot iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Laguna Beach
    Name:
    Chris
    Current Bike:
    '15 Intense Tracer 275c DVOish
    Yikes. Thanks for that enlightenment. I was too lazy to research such.
     
    Danmtchl, DangerDirtyD, Mikie and 3 others like this.
  14. BonsaiNut

    BonsaiNut Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Laguna Hills
    Name:
    Greg P
    Current Bike:
    Custom XTR 29er
    Mining is allowed in Cleveland National Forest too, for what it's worth. Even now there are active mining claims in CNF - and yes you can get vehicle access though you will need to buy an Adventure Pass.

    What are the rules for prospecting for gold and staking claims in the National Forest?

    Prospecting, mining and claim staking activities are permitted on National Forest system unappropriated land. Claimants have an express and implied right to access their claims when permitted under Forest Service surface use regulations (36 CFR;228). Check with the Bureau of Land Management Office for land status pertaining to mining claims and the appropriate Ranger Station for land appropriation status. Visitors using the forest for recreation may be required to purchase an Adventure Pass for a fee, which is required to park their vehicles while recreating in certain recreation sites.
     
    Mikie, DangerDirtyD and Faust29 like this.
  15. Runs with Scissors

    Runs with Scissors iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    West Anaheim
    Name:
    Mark Whitaker
    Current Bike:
    2015 Giant XTC Advanced 1 29er
    And let's get to the root of it...if you choose to live by Executive Order, you will die by Executive Order.

    This is a fact-checkable statement because all you have to do is read it for yourself: The United States has no constitutional basis for proclaiming either wilderness or monument (Not to mention National Parks, but I can imagine the firestorm denying that will create). The Antiquities Act (under which monuments, wilderness, and National Parks are created), is not a power that was ever delegated to Congress. They, in turn, had no authority to delegate it to the President.

    I invite you to read the document that established the federal government and find for me the part that allows them - as far as land ownership goes - anything other than "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."

    That's Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 of said Constitution, and please note that Virginia gave the feds the finger and took back their piece of that "10 miles square." They decided not to cede that area after all. That's why DC is irregularly shaped.

    So please, tell me, where are the forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings located in the national monuments and national parks? I must have missed those. The token dollar the feds paid Utah (if that) for Bears Ears and Escalante-Staircase doesn't make it okay. And please note that Utah's Senators requested that the monument status be reduced. It wasn't fiat by the president.

    Yes, I know @herzalot and others will say "but it's WILDERNESS." It's a GOOD THING!!! And the Constitution is a dead letter!!!

    Maybe. But it really isn't a federal obligation, and it certainly isn't a federal power. States can, if they (meaning the people in them) so choose, designate areas that will do the same thing. And you would find that in that situation there would be states that would cure their cranial rectumitis and actually allow all sorts of recreating in those places. The Sierra Club and their ilk would lose much of their power.

    So before your knee jerks so hard it hits you in the jaw, stop and think: If you want the state of California to have the Sheep Wilderness in the San Gabriel Mountains, then petition your state representatives to do it. Tell the feds to pound sand because it isn't their frickin' land, or their responsibility. It really is time to abolish the US Forest Service, along with a host of other illegal entities.

    Have at it.
     
    Danmtchl, Mikie and pperrelle like this.
  16. herzalot

    herzalot iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    Laguna Beach
    Name:
    Chris
    Current Bike:
    '15 Intense Tracer 275c DVOish
    You are very wrong here.
     
    Danmtchl and Mikie like this.
  17. Runs with Scissors

    Runs with Scissors iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    West Anaheim
    Name:
    Mark Whitaker
    Current Bike:
    2015 Giant XTC Advanced 1 29er
    You've said it to my same argument before, if not in so many words.
     
    Danmtchl and Mikie like this.
  18. MattB

    MattB Member

    Name:
    Matt B
    I'm certainly no lawyer or constitutional expert (serious understatement), but this surprised me and seemed like it might be cherry-picking just one part of the constitution. So I did a little light reading, and best I can tell, that clause of the constitution is dealing specifically with the District of Columbia and apparently military property. However, that is not the only property that can be owned and managed by the federal government according to the constitution.

    According to Article 4, Section 3, clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

    According to the Congressional Research Service's report linked to below: "The U.S. Supreme Court has described this power as “without limitation,” stating that:

    while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a State by the State’s consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress’ powers under the Property Clause. Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause.... And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause."
    -Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 542-543 (1976)

    I may be taking some of this out of context as well, but it doesn't seem like federal land management is as narrow as you claim based on the rest of the constitution and the Supreme Court's past rulings of constitutionality.

    Here's a link to the Congressional Research Service's report on "Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention"

    I'm not going to try to get into whether or not congress had the authority to delegate powers to the President with the Antiquities Act, but it certainly looks like this section of the constitution gave them Congress authority to manage federal lands in the first place.


    ... and now back to discussions about mountain biking:whistling:



     
    Danmtchl, Mikie, OTHRider and 5 others like this.
  19. Runs with Scissors

    Runs with Scissors iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    West Anaheim
    Name:
    Mark Whitaker
    Current Bike:
    2015 Giant XTC Advanced 1 29er
    Agreed...just because the Supreme Court got it wrong (think Dred Scott) doesn't mean they can't continue to get it wrong....

    If anyone wants to know what the constitution was meant to do, read "The Federalist Papers." Those articles were written by the same dudes who wrote the constitution.

    And you will note that your citation deals with new states admitted to the union...not property administered by the feds as federal property under Article 1.
     
    Danmtchl, Mikie and MattB like this.
  20. MattB

    MattB Member

    Name:
    Matt B
    Agree that mine is just one more specific citation, and in some ways that reinforces my point that I don't think either clause has all of the answers by itself. The Constitution, subsequent amendments, legislation built on those foundations, and Supreme Court decisions are complicated. I get skeptical when anyone takes a complicated topic and tries to turn conventional understanding on its head by picking one clause/quote/line. It doesn't mean their point is wrong and that conventional understanding is right (we'd never have progress if conventional understanding was always right), it just makes me skeptical that there isn't a little more to the issue.
     
  21. Runs with Scissors

    Runs with Scissors iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    West Anaheim
    Name:
    Mark Whitaker
    Current Bike:
    2015 Giant XTC Advanced 1 29er
    Healthy skepticism....I like it!! However, one must pit the citation against reality. Fact is that the folks that wrote it never anticipated their descendants would try t own so much. But yeah, back to mtb schtuff.
     
    Danmtchl, Mikie and MattB like this.
  22. DangerDirtyD

    DangerDirtyD iMTB Rockstah

    Location:
    La Verne, CA
    Name:
    Dennis (AKA Dio)
    Current Bike:
    2013 Trek Slash 9 (26er)
    4178398D-8D48-459F-A676-E1C05BFF5CD1.jpeg Don’t tread on me. And take a hike. And ride a bike. And the night time is the right time.
    6E1A988F-2241-420F-9B8C-AD0A62A624E5.jpeg

     
    Danmtchl, Faust29, Mikie and 3 others like this.
  23. Cyclotourist

    Cyclotourist iMTB Addict

    Location:
    Redlands
    Name:
    David
    Current Bike:
    Santa Cruz Chameleon
    Koch Exploration Flow Trail can be seen on the left.
    Enjoy your access!

    Strip_coal_mining.jpg
     
    Danmtchl, Mikie, littlewave and 2 others like this.
  24. MattB

    MattB Member

    Name:
    Matt B
    If we limited our society strictly to what the founders or anyone else alive in the 1700's could have anticipated we wouldn't have mountain bikes ;)... and lots of other things would be pretty different, too.
     
  25. Runs with Scissors

    Runs with Scissors iMTB Hooligan

    Location:
    West Anaheim
    Name:
    Mark Whitaker
    Current Bike:
    2015 Giant XTC Advanced 1 29er
    Ummm, no...because the only restrictions in the founders' notes were the restrictions on the power of the federal government.
     
  26. MattB

    MattB Member

    Name:
    Matt B
    Ummm, you're either missing my point or we just see things very differently (more likely). Things change a lot over the centuries, and laws sometimes need to be written or changed to address those changes, including some that involve increasing or decreasing the role of the federal government. To keep it simple, they likely couldn't imagine commercial air travel, so they likely didn't think about whether safety regulations of air travel should be under federal control. Some could (and probably do) argue that those federal regulations are an overreach, but personally I'm glad they're there when I fly. As long as these laws were created based on the foundation of the constitution, by the governing bodies designated in the constitution, and supported by the Supreme Court if needed, I think it's a good thing.

    I would argue that they likely couldn't anticipate the current level of population and development of our now limited land, and therefore wouldn't have anticipated the need to preserve places like Yellowstone, Yosemite, etc. for future generations to experience and enjoy. Just this summer, I visited Great Basin National Park where I toured Lehman Cave. In the cave you can see hundreds of stalactites that were cut off by visitors when the cave was first discovered and exploited. Some of them were thousands of years old, and the original owner of the cave sold them to visitors as souvenirs. Around a hundred years later, you can still see the stumps hanging from the ceilings. It was a sobering reminder of how quickly even one person can destroy something that took nature thousands, or even millions of years to create.

    Many people that I'm guessing are smarter and/or more well versed in constitutional law than any of us, have created and upheld the laws that gave us our National Parks and other protected federal lands as constitutional. Maybe they were wrong, but I don't think so and I'm glad those lands are protected.

    And now ... I'm out. Time to get some sleep and hopefully ride tomorrow.
     
    HBkites, Danmtchl, Mikie and 5 others like this.
  27. DangerDirtyD

    DangerDirtyD iMTB Rockstah

    Location:
    La Verne, CA
    Name:
    Dennis (AKA Dio)
    Current Bike:
    2013 Trek Slash 9 (26er)
    Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves.
     
    HBkites, Danmtchl, Mikie and 3 others like this.
  28. SnakeCharmer

    SnakeCharmer iMTB Addict

    Location:
    Crescenta Valley
    Name:
    Mike, aka "Snake"
    Current Bike:
    Vassago/Trek
    As far as mining in designated Wilderness zones, it's likely that the mining operation has been going on since before the zone was designated, so the mining operation would be or could be Grandfathered in.
     
    HBkites, Danmtchl, Mikie and 2 others like this.
  29. AKAKTM

    AKAKTM Member

    Name:
    Tony A
    Current Bike:
    Ibis Ripmo
    STC's HR1349 bill before Congress now is a very good bill we should all vigorously support. The bill is very readable and the testimony is available on-line for those interested in knowing exactly what's going on. The authors of the bill are mountain bikers that have been disturbed by the loss of historic trails and opportunities by overused Wilderness designations and by improper changes to the Wilderness designation that banned bikes without cause or vote. All this bill does is attempt to restore the Wilderness Act to the original intent by NOT automatically banning bikes. This bill does not automatically allow bikes in Wilderness, but rather allows local land managers to work with user groups to determine when or if and where bikes would be allowed in Wilderness areas on a local, context specific basis.

    IMBA got it badly wrong on this one and I've taken the time to let them know both on the informational email address and at the IMBA board level. I hope you'll each write IMBA and write your elected officials. Below are some resources:

    Sustainable Trails Coalition: http://www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org
    IMBA general email: https://www.imba.com/contact
    IMBA board email: board@imba.com

    Almost nobody is opposed to Wilderness, particularly as designed under the original Wilderness Act (64). That Act did nothing to prohibit bikes and allowed local managers to make the determination as is being proposed in HR1349. In addition, the original act was intended to apply to a few untouched and untrammeled by man areas, often remote to preserve the way it was in the natural state. The intent wasn't to use it as an activist tool to designate old mining areas or previously worked areas adjacent to cities to stop development. Today the Wilderness designation is grossly overused and often used as an activist tool, sometimes specifically used by the hiking communities and Sierra Club (among others) to shut down cycling. If you take a minute to study Apple Maps it shows not only Wilderness, but proposed and recommended Wilderness and that map should scare any mountain biker or off-road enthusiast. There are Wilderness proposals in place to designate much of the land around Moab as Wilderness and they are proposing bands of Wilderness across the desert between Barstow and Vegas to effectively shut down cross country off road competitions.

    Recently, a few of us from SCV Trail Users (look us up on Facebook and join) spent hours and hours fighting an aggressive movement by local politicians, Sierra Club and the local hiking club to designate more than 100,000 acres immediately north of Castaic lake as Wilderness. I've ridden bicycles and motorcycles around most of the proposed areas. I can tell you they were not Wilderness quality. They have scores of fire roads, historic mines, historic home sites, trails, etc. Not Wilderness. This designation would have shut us down forever and the proposal initially incorporated Golden Eagle. We quickly got GE excluded with a boundary adjustment, but they still fought to get all the rest designated. We fought it with letters, emails, calls and getting to know the House Natural Resources Committee and ultimately defeated the bill before it came for a vote. Though conservation of land is GOOD for us (generally), many of today's conservation groups are strongly opposed to MTB activity and want us limited to designated parks and areas OR on a few safe and sustainable trails that most would find boring. They DO NOT want you and me able to travel tens of miles through the forest. They are well organized and well funded. We continue to try to work with them to show them it's in all of our interest to work together at a national level and they continue to advocate against us. If you like your trails and want to keep your trails, be active by speaking up, advocating and watching this closely. If not, I guarantee we will wake up one day to find much of what we've loved is lost to Wilderness. It happened in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and has already happened in California. Be alert.
     
  30. DangerDirtyD

    DangerDirtyD iMTB Rockstah

    Location:
    La Verne, CA
    Name:
    Dennis (AKA Dio)
    Current Bike:
    2013 Trek Slash 9 (26er)
    The Mojave between Barstow and Vegas has been raped by motors; leave it alone. Too much sprawl; wilderness good; motors bad.
     
Loading...