IMBA pledges ‘more assertive stance’ on Wilderness designation

The US government has been writing laws dealing in publicly owned land since at least the Northwest Ordinance, and there’s another 150 or so years of colonial law before that, and before that the English common law. You’re going to have a hard time convincing an unsympathetic audience that the whole thing is simply illegitimate.

 

Though you may not participate in or like motorsports, many do and in the 60s 70s and 80s millions moved west to experience the adventure of off road recreation. On Any Sunday or Dust to Glory are great movies about this movement. Off roadsrs are taxpaying American citizens as well and deserve places for recreation. When one group judges others to be inferior or unacceptable (MTB riders against Off Road or Hikers against MTB) it generally is divisive and unhelpful. Just as I don’t appreciate hikers telling me bikes should be severely restricted, I cringe when MTB riders shun or work against OHV.

We need places for hikers, bikers, boaters, hunters, off road, mining, drilling and more. We need to find ways to get along rather than take position that my sport is good or my use is good and the others are bad. It’s juat not that simple.

 

I side with Tony on this. It is indeed a good Bill and it should be implemented.
As indicated conservationist are NOT giving away the store if this passes. I too encourage everyone to support this Bill and to write both IMBA (Imbeciles Manipulating Bike Activity) and encourage them to reverse their current position. Please?

 

Thank you for your efforts and sharing of your knowledge @AKAKTM. I've been following the proposed Castaic area "land grab" from day one but was never aware it encompassed an area clear up to GE. Lucky to have level headed guys like yourself and Ken contribute and represent us on the MTB front and keep us informed.

 

Go to China

 

Whoa, wait a minute.
That culture has no regard what so ever for natural resources or ecology.

Asking for this:


And your presenting this:


Guys, We are setting up extremes for examples. That's not right.
Let's get back on point. On point is a Bill introduced to allow a bicycle to ride a narrow dirt path in Wilderness areas. Is that so much to ask for?

 

Yea. No motors. Thanks Mikie.

 

Partnering with a variety outdoor enthusiasts is the best way forward, IMO.

I'm conflicted about MTBs in Wilderness. I love biking and would like to do it in the most cool places I can. I also love walking on a trail, and can say for sure that presence of mountain bikes changes that experience. Riders could say the presence of hikers changes the biking experience, too. My sense is that there is a lifetime of bike-legal trails available without having to include Wilderness. And, so much more bike-specific development is possible in existing spaces. I don't think anyone can deny that SoCal is lagging. Other states and counties are building trails while SoCalers lose them to fire, development, sanitizing, unenforced moto poaching, etc. Opinion subject to all criticism here, of course. Cheers...

 

Mike, we are actually going backwards in So Cal and just ask people in Idaho and Montana where they lost historic, epic mountain bike trails to new Wilderness designations. The problem isn't so much the few original Wilderness areas (which allowed bikes for much of their existence) but more the proliferation of the use (and a bush) of Wilderness to eliminate bikes. As VodooTom is aware, more than 100,000 acres in and above Castaic almost became a Wilderness if we hadn't fought back. Have you ridden Golden Eagle? Would it be OK to have that trail decommissioned for Wilderness? What if they designated Noble Canyon and all the surrounding areas as Wilderness or how about the proposal in Congress to designate more than half the trails around Moab as Wilderness. Are we all fine if Congress, acting from DC takes away more and more lands from MTB? I am not.

When the Wilderness designation started we had 54 of them covering a a few hundred thousand acres and all allowed bikes in some areas. Today we have more than 750 covering about 110 million acres and growing. There are presently more than 100 proposed or recommended Wilderness areas such as those we defeated in Castaic that are all around Las Vegas, Los Angeles, the Inyo Mountains and Mojave, Moab, St. George and more. We should favor some Wilderness. We should even concede that there may be places that aren't appropriate for bikes--leaving them hiking and horse only (though I'm not sure why a horse should be allowed if a bike isn't) and nothing proposed changes this. It merely shifts the decision for where bikes belong (or do not belong) to local users and local land managers. They can then decide which trails, if any, are good for MTB. This is how the Wilderness act of 1964 was conceived. Unfortunately the act has been abused, illegally modified and pushed far beyond the intent, just as the Monument act has.

DangerDirtyD, why would I move to China. Your desire to severely restrict freedoms for Americans is more consistent with dictatorships and communist regimes. For me, I'll keep enjoying my hiking, mountain biking and back country exploring on my KTM! You should try it!

 

I would kill myself on a motorcycle. I’m just concerned about habitat for the rest of life on this planet, and American freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (oops, I mean happiness) is detrimental to most everything else alive. Rats and coyotes and crows and cockroaches may thrive, however.

China wouldn’t care that you ride a motorcycle through a wetland, but they might care that you ride a motorcycle.

‘Mercia!

 

Thank you for this write up, I appreciate it.

 

Thanks for the info, Tony. I like the idea of case-by-case considerations for Wilderness use.

 

America (along with innovation and capitalism) has produced and enabled the protection of our land and environment to levels unimaginable 100 or 200 years ago. Before America and the industrial revolution (and even much later), people thought the earth could not support more than about 1 or 2 billion people. They were concerned with the ability to grow that much food and deal with all the pollution from coal and wood. Live 100 or 200 years ago was inefficient, dirty and much less sustainable. That's still true, to some degree, in Africa, China and other less developed areas we often call the 3rd world. Innovation and the market enabled us to make food, clothes, energy and the necessities of life so much more efficiently and predictably. It literally revolutionized the world and allowed the globe to comfortably support 7 billion and growing. Amazingly, it lets us do this with less farming land than it took to feed the world 200 years ago. As a result, America has been a leader in the world in protecting lands. That is not so much threatened by the American way, but rather enabled by it. Take a look in China or Africa. The poorer the country, the less they can afford to protect. So, markets, technology, innovation and rising standards of living are generally good for protection. Many of our parks and wild places were donated by wealthy individuals. All good.

I'm want to protect and preserve many wild and natural areas and in this protection, even limiting access to powered vehicles of any sort and in some of them even limiting horses and bicycles. Unfortunately, government programs are notoriously prone to unchecked expansion and bureaucratic over-reach and the Wilderness and Antiquities acts aren't exempt from this. Both have significantly exceeded their purpose and scope and now, at times go too far. There is more land protected in America than anytime in history and we need to balance with the needs and desires of most of the population. Rats, coyotes, crows and other animals are amazingly resilient and tolerate us well. As I mentioned before, off-highway recreation is a blast and a way of life for many families in the West. Some of it goes too far and of course we must manage it as our population grows. In the past 20 years, federal land managers have gone way overboard and attempted to box in and almost choke off off-highway recreation. Having lived through this first hand, I can see some good efforts at restricting and regulating and some bad ones.

These days, land managers have become so absurd that they will develop solar and wind farms on top of land that was deemed too sensitive for a single track OHV trail. Or they will take target a small corner of the Mojave or Sonoran desert that's been used for OHV for 40 or 50 years and close 90% of it down using markers and Wilderness designations to name a couple. Ultimately, people that love OHV recreation don't just sell their stuff and change their lives, but rather they often practice civil disobedience. Government has made most of these people outlaws by default. Riding at Dove Springs, a dedicated OHV area north of Mojave, last weekend, I was shocked that land managers had closed down more than 90% of the single track trails and fenced off thousands of acres, forcing all recreation into a small area coupled with some high-speed open desert fire roads. More people coming out coupled with less land and a reduction in available trails has done a couple of things. First, users are not making trails everywhere with no plan or logic and second, it's forced those trying to comply on 15 or 20% of the originally available inventory of trails, greatly increasing the danger of collisions for these users.

All trail users deserve their place. As MTBers, we should not pretend to be superior to the OHV guys and gals, but we should all work together to figure a solution for all users. Back to MTB, if we aren't careful, what has happened to the OHV community is coming to us. After meeting many times with Sierra Club, Cal Wilds, USFS, BLM and other management and conservation groups, I can tell you that you'd be surprised how many of them don't like bikes at all and want to see us cut out of everything. They LOVE the Wilderness designation now that it's been corrupted from the original intent because it's a tool by which they can close down biking areas that can't be reversed without an act of congress. Take the time to study the changes to the act, growth of Wilderness and then dig in and see all of the places they want to designate as new Wilderness. If you like MTB or hiking or anything outdoors, it will scare you. My friends at USFS that are favorable to MTB tell me that the strictest and most well funded conservation groups ultimately want nobody to enter USFS or BLM land. If we don't know our facts and work the system, we will be shut out just like OHVs are being shut out. We've already fought it several times around So Cal with SCV Trail Users and CORBA.

 

Thank you for this perspective. I absolutely agree that we should be aware of and, when necessary, fight against future designations that will further choke off uses as you describe. Forcing riders off of 90% of an area that used to be enjoyed by the OHV enthusiasts sounds horrifying - especially when there is no apparent benefit from doing so - or greater good.

I agree with you and I have been saying this throughout the E-MtB discussions - hikers and other trail users don't hate e-bikes - they hate all bikes on trails. E-MtBs just amplifies that animosity. Since MtB-ing's inception (in Marin County?), hikers, joggers and equestrians have said what we are now saying about e-bikes - all mt. bikes belong on fire roads, not trails. I shudder at the thought.

Like it or not, IMBA is our biggest political voice, and they have to be as aggressive as they can be in keeping trails open to pedal mtbs. As we all know, lobbyists are the only ones who make policy in this country. A few angry mt. bikers writing letters is better than nothing, but does not come close to competing against those who are paid by their interests to beat on lawmakers to get their way.

 

I changed my mind. The acres of capitalism aren’t enough. I want the last remining forest and desert for my fun too. Habitat for humanity is all we need, and we can manage the wilderness better by exposing it to each other. It amazes me the breadth of the human mind.

 

DAngerDirtyD, I'm really not sure your point and you've only responded with emotional responses that don't address the facts and reality. I suppose if you really believe in what you are preaching, then you'd stop riding your bike off road and stick to paved urban centers, leaving the dirt, desert and forest to the rest of the critters. That would be noble and I would applaud you...and it would make more room for me to ride my MTB and KTM. Have a wonderful Merry Christmas!!

 

There's an interesting article (see link) from 2002 claiming only 6.1% (139 million acres) 'developed and rural residential land' area in the continental U.S. (1.9 billion acres). Makes sense when you look out the window of an airplane flying across the country.

Over a billion acres (1,137,000,000) are devoted to crop, range and pasture land for meat production. The article also claims that the total land area in the U.S. used for producing our vegetables is less than 3 million acres.

I eat meat and I recreate in Nature. I should eat more vegetables. If eating more vegetables would open up more recreational land, I promise to cut down on eating animals.

I love riding on mountain single track and I've also spent a good part of my life hiking and skiing in Wilderness and National Parks. I don't want people to lose the opportunity to go into (bike free) Wilderness areas on foot, snowshoes or skis because those areas are incredibly enriching in part due to the simplicity of travel.

But I also don't want to see the Wilderness Act blatantly used to close areas to mountain biking just because certain groups hate bicycles or humans. Surely there's room for trail systems for hiker only and as well as human-powered mountain bike use. Both these activities present minimal impact on the environment beyond the confines of a trail, and it can even be argued that mountain biking impacts an area less than hiking in some cases.

I don't have kids, but if I did I'd want them to have the same, or more, recreational opportunities as I did growing up.

https://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm

 

Thanks Jim. Nothing in this bill would cause you to lose the opportunity to hike or snowshoe or ski in Wilderness free of bikes. It would give you, me and the local land managers (BLM or USFS, etc) to determine, on a case by case basis whether to allow bikes and when. It would also restore the Wilderness Act of 64 to its original and legal intent, which included bikes. It's difficult to imagine how fast we can lose long time MTB trails like Noble or Golden Eagle or San Juan if we aren't active to protect our sport. In Montana near my house, a huge new Wilderness was designated that took out vital MTB trails and connectors. This permanent ban led to other trails becoming dormant because they dead-end into Wilderness. Idaho and CA have seen the same happen. Now Wilderness advocates have proposed new Wilderness all around Moab, St George, Vegas and scores of other areas. I've ridden all over, but haven't ridden Moab. I cringe at the thought of losing Moab to Wilderness. Nobody here and this bill don't oppose Wilderness and do nothing but restore it to the original intent of the act.

 

Same to you.

 

I'm perfectly OK with areas of wilderness being off limits to bikes. I am not OK with that being the default. As long as it is, activists will keep using the wilderness designation to shut down activities they don't like, whether it be bikes or OHVs or anything else. All of us who enjoy the natural beauty of this land (and, yes, that includes OHV recreationalists and racers) should work together to preserve access with the understanding that all lands are not suitable for all users.

It's a real shame how the Sierra Club has gone from a group dedicated to people enjoying our natural lands to a group dedicated to keeping people OUT of our natural lands. They're doing it not only through wilderness designation, but "nature preserves" and demanding offsets to developed land that can't see human recreation. We've lost a simple little trail (that was a ranch road for 50 years) in our neighborhood due to this, and the fences going up are hardly beautiful, effective or necessary. And definitely not natural.

Sadly I see IMBA going in the same direction. First with their stance on ebikes, which will surely kill any chance of getting access to wilderness and cause us to lose access to non-wilderness areas, then through their opposition to this bill. I don't know why IMBA even bothers surveying its members, as it does the exact opposite of what those surveys say. I might also have some choice opinions about our OC IMBA affiliate, but I'll hold my tongue on those for now.

I may continue to be a member of IMBA in an attempt to get my voice heard. But I will not give them any additional money as I have in the past - my money will go to the Wilderness Trails Coalition or someone that actually seems to care.

 

Why? If you don't say anything how will they know?

There's a SHARE meeting tonight (open to all) from 6:30 - 8
at
Board & Brew, 15040 Kensington Park Dr Suite 200, Tustin Ca. 92782

some of the things on the agenda -

1) IMBA Chapter program changes
2) Board Member elections
3) OC Parks fire restoration efforts
4) IMBA's statement on not supporting HR 1349
5) Dig IN status (IMBA related)
6) Crystal Cove State Park Natural Resources Management Plan meeting December 14th

Feel free to come along

 

Great thoughts and response! Thanks for a sanity check.

 

Unfortunately I probably won't be able to attend. But I'd love to know where you found that information of what's on the agenda, because there's nothing more than a meeting notice on their web site. It would also be great to know what's been discussed after the fact, but I've never seen meeting minutes posted. SHARE wants people to support its Trail Boss program through the Dig In fundraiser … What if I want to be a part of that program? How do I join?

Maybe the problem with SHARE is just communication, but I see no evidence that our local IMBA chapter does anything more than roll over and play dead when we lose trails like the Edison connector to Whiting or Ladera Ridge (both to offset housing development, per the Sierra Club's extortion). I see no evidence that any work is progressing at the bike park approved for Craig Park, despite SHARE accepting an REI grant toward that bike park more than two years ago. I see no evidence of concern when OC Parks turns interesting trails into 10-foot-wide dirt roads. Is the only way to find out any of this stuff to attend a board meeting?

If I can drag my kid along, perhaps I'll be able to make part of the meeting.

 

I'm up to my neck, but I'll try and cover as much as I can right now.

I got the agenda from the President today via email as I'm now updating (and have been for a [short-ish] while) the SHARE website. The agenda isn't usually put together until the weekend before, and usually confirmed the day of the meeting. Anybody can suggest topics to be discussed. Perhaps its not 100% clear about the Dig In fundraiser - I'll bring that up tonight and see what can be done to expand that and make it more clear/obvious. But for now, in short, its preparation for trail work, you can also contact Jon @Kearley who organizes a lot of the Oaks trail work. As for work progressing on the Craig Bike park... this comes up at just about every meeting... it IS in the pipeline. Numerous (non SHARE) things keep popping up, I believe there was a change of Rangers (stuff like that) that keeps pushing things back. But it is being worked on. As for trails, I totally agree with you. The Edison connector to Whiting, was owned by, Edison. I posted about this here - http://sharemtb.com/edison-viejo-trail-that-accesses-whiting-ranch-wilderness-park-part-of-it-now-closed/. I know the SHARE President attended meetings about Ladera Ridge. Its my understanding https://www.facebook.com/SouthOCTrailCoalition/ is handling this, I personally think SHARE should've/should be more involved, perhaps more could be said on this... As for the 10' wide road, I'm guessing you're referring to Barham Ridge. Unfortunately, (I think this was) OCFD dictated they needed this access. As far as I'm aware, nobody in SHARE (or anybody else) wanted/wants this type of transformation... and it was going to happen in this case even if somebody had staged a sit in protest and chained themselves to the bulldozers.

I don't agree with you that SHARE "rolls over". The board, specifically the current President, Steve, works EXTREMELY hard. Not only with things directly related to MTBing, but also indirectly, to promote MTBing and riders in OC. And he does a BRILLIANT job. I don't know anybody who works as hard, diligently and conscientiously as he does with no reward for himself, but only to further MTBing. But, as you mention, this could be down to communication. Frankly I'm in awe at what these guys started, and continue to do. They have a wealth of knowledge and history that is invaluable. That's not to say things can never be improved. Fresh blood and different insights and views can only help. For the record (if anyone cares), I just renewed by IMBA membership. Dwindling numbers aren't going to help our cause/fight, and it also hurts your local IMBA affiliate chapter (which might not be SHARE) as well. To balance that out, I've made donations to the Sustainable Trails Coalition. I personally believe a "good cop/bad cop" approach, whereby IMBA keeps their "hands clean" is a good approach (for now)

If anybody wants to attend and can't make tonight, the next meeting is Jan 8th (location TBA)

 

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/2017-pinkbike-awards-advocates-of-the-year-winners.html

I hope PB threw this together just to snub IMBA (forever)

 

Yeeeah! Santa Cruz Bicycles!
IMBA can bite me! Dave Weins... You let me down, BIG TIME!

 

From MTBR --> Take Action! http://forums.mtbr.com/california-norcal/sustainable-trail-coalition-still-993772-5.html


Today, you're either a mountain biker, or you aren't. Do not let this opportunity to express your support pass by. Today.

https://www.facebook.com/Sustainable...71763669599094

-------URGENT ACTION ALERT!-------
DO NOT WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW.
MAKE TIME TODAY... 3 MINUTES MAX!
GET 3 OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THE SAME.

Tomorrow morning (12/13/17) HR 1349 will go through full mark up in the House Committee on Natural Resources. This is the crucial day for all we have worked hard for! The bill will be debated and amended among committee members. There have already been some good clarifications since last week's hearings.

You need to call and/or email your representative on the committee TODAY and express your support for HR 1349. We understand opponents are lighting them up. They need to hear from A LOT more people who support this modest legislation.

Here is the list of members:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/about/members.htm

Find phone numbers and member websites here:
https://www.house.gov/representatives
(click on name to open page... go to "contact me"... enter your zip+4 digits (https://tools.usps.com/go/ZipLookupAction_input)... fill out form and state your support. So easy to do!)

Best to speak from your heart, but here's a simple statement:
"Dear Congresswoman/man__________
As you consider HR 1349 during tomorrow's mark up, I want you to know this bill has my full support. It is simple, provides modest reform, and helps restore the intent of those who worked so hard to create our Wilderness Preservation System. It does NONE of the things the opponents of it are likely screaming at you about. None! Some Wilderness areas and their trails are suitable for all types of human powered recreation, some trails are not. I know my local forest officials are capable of determining such things, as they already do that in all public lands. Thank you in advance for supporting HR 1349."

Double down and email the committee:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/contact/

Post to their FB page using the "Constituent Badge"... we are told many members of Congress are getting quite FB savvy and this badge thing shows who is their constituent and who is not. They'll be paying attention to what you write on FB.
https://www.facebook.com/help/157047021494292

Here's a proposed (positive for us) amendment that the committee will vote on tomorrow morning. This is just informational; you don't need to comment on it.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/u...__12.13.17.pdf

 

What I sent:

As you consider HR 1349's markups, please bear in the mind that the vast majority of us who enjoy mountain biking would be perfectly responsible stewards of the wilderness areas. Bicycling is human powered, and well within the intent and original meaning of the Wilderness Act of 1964. We, as a group, maintain trails, contribute to educational activities that urge those who enjoy the wilderness to be responsible and "Leave No Trace."
There is no downside to this bill. Thank you for your consideration.

 

SDMBA and NEMBA started a petition demanding that IMBA not lobby against bikes in Wilderness. Sign it here, if you wish

https://www.change.org/p/board-imba...m_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition

 

Signed! and will be shared once I get off my company computer.