IMBA pledges ‘more assertive stance’ on Wilderness designation

I signed it as well.

 

Signed.

 

Front page L.A. Times this morning: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mountain-bike-trail-republicans-20171219-story.html

 

Hwelp?!
I guess Evan Halper is going to get an email from me. evan.halper@latimes.com


I'll try to be more diplomatic about my approach this time...

The problem with reporting "News" these days is it almost always belongs in the "Opinions" section. Now granted, Halper is a political writer and so his "opinion" based on his political slant is going to bleed out of his articles.
News is no longer news. It's fractions of just enough facts to have "some" validity... twisted to the political perspective of the writer in hopes to lure it's readers down the path to their conclusion and belief.

They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor their causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for most information, but may require further investigation, especially when it comes to political preference.

Why can't we report the news like the weather? Or like traffic?
"Today's temperature is going to hit in the upper 80's." Oh wait, nope! We can't do that either. "Today's highs will be in the upper 80's due to global warming, and naturally, this is Trump's fault as he became president January of this year."
So maybe we CAN'T report, just the facts.

This Yayhoo is stating that we are trying to weaken/lessen the established written protection of everything sacred called wilderness. Untrue! Even states that the evil GOP is luring us in their white rossage vans for some candy.
We are trying to recalibrate to the "ORIGINAL INTENT" that was originally established, (which he also portrays as bogus).

Even down to a sopping wet and mud saturated pic of a mountain bike on a saturated trail. Which we all know better than to ride. That's why we are always talking about trails that do well in wet weather.

I get it. We all want to be a person of influence, but geez Louise! The general populace are going to read that article and think, "Yeah, those inconsiderate cyclists think they can go out and destroy all that is good in our pristine natural resource, kill Bambi and his mother, destroy the entire national treasure by riding on an 18 inch strip of dirt amongst trees. Okay... maybe that was a bit dramatic...
Just report the facts!

I refuse to have people make claim I am an irresponsible cyclist. That I'm only thinking of me, me, me; when it comes to land use. I know that the Golden Eagle trail which I have ridden for over 25 years has left many animals in psychological disarray seeking council or government entitlements due to the traumatic effect us crazy cyclist has punished them with. If you walk 5 feet off the trail you would not know the trail even exists. How is this going to destroy our ecosystem???
If you do respond try to be realistic and not grandstanding that we are killing innocent children in Tunisia due to our inconsiderate cycling habits.

 

This is what bothers me the most, is there a gofundme link or any other place to join the fight against it?

 

Yes there is!
www.imtbtrails/mikiesbankaccount/depositsonly.com

 

From the article: "They warn it would invite mountain bikers to shred through the iconic landscapes.." (my emphasis). We don't shred, we roll. Tires rolling on damp soil can actually smooth and compact the tread. End result--better trail.

Far better than horse hooves on similar damp soil (and even foot prints in mud). Can you say postholes? At least mountain bikers have a culture of staying off trails that'd be damaged by being ridden wet. We also tend to be the ones repairing and maintaining trails these days (certainly most of the trails in the non-wilderness areas in my neck of the woods).

Sadly, short-cutting switchbacks by hikers has probably been going on since the first switchback was built. In many cases, mountain bikers are more likely to stay ON the designated trail. I've heard an unconfirmed report that birdwatchers actually cause more off-trail damage than other users. Possibly geocachers as well. Hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians all cause a certain amount of damage to trails, but so does rain, fire, gravity and other natural forces. Not a huge problem in most cases, as trails are minimal slivers of space through largely untrammeled lands, and maintenance is generally straightforward and uncomplicated.

Does the author believe that cyclists should be relegated to riding through NON-iconic landscapes? Maybe forced to ride in landfills and super-fund sites? Possibly limited to spinning our pedals in dark basements while recharging batteries to eliminate the need for bird-killing windmills or space-eating solar farms? Hey, treadmills would do that too, right? Horses on horse walkers?

For the record, I'm not in favor of mountain bikes on every trail in legitimate wilderness (the John Muir Trail, for example), but I think there's room for more inclusion in some existing wilderness and access on some trails where wilderness blocks a connection. I'm opposed to "wilderness" being used as a tool to exclude mountain bikers from "iconic" landscapes just because they're riding a machine. Mountain bikes (not those motorized things pretending to be..) are human-powered, which is more than I can say for a horse.

 

It didn't take long for MV to crawl out from under his rock to comment on the article. He even takes a shot at kayaks and rafts.

 

It's not a bad article. In fact, considering the polarization over this whole issue it is one of the more fair articles I've seen. Yeah there were a few poor word choices and the suggestion that we are getting hoodwinked by the GOP into supporting this bill is way off base.

Agreed these are aspects we need to bring more attention to. For anyone who emails the author, bring these up:

First....People keep quoting that only 3% of Federal land is Wilderness, and that bikes have access to 98% of trails outside of Wilderness as justification why bikes do not need more trails and should therefore not be allowed in Wilderness. That argument completely ignores the type of land that is designated Wilderness vs what is not. As kioti mentions Wilderness includes many of our most iconic and scenic places. I am in full agreement that bikes should not be allowed everywhere, but I also disagree that just because something is worth protecting at the highest level that bikes should be prohibited. That is basically saying mountain bikers are second class trail users not worthy of visiting pristine and scenic places, which is incredibly offensive as someone who values those places and wants to see them protected.

Step back as well and think about the definition of Wilderness and what is getting proposed these days. Most of the iconic and most pristine areas have long been designated Wilderness. If I recall, to be eligible for consideration an area just has to be >5,000 acres and "roadless". Quotation used because former roads can be re-designated as "trails" now making the area eligible for Wilderness designation. The point I'm getting at is a lot of the areas that are now Recommended Wilderness, WSA or new proposed Wilderness are not iconic and most of them are not pristine either, not even close to it. These mostly aren't lands that hikers or purists will be clamoring to visit either as they don't have destinations like lakes or peaks or great views. They are just areas with no roads or development. This will keep going and going because the pro-wilderness groups mission is to keep designating all the land they can. I have no reason to oppose this except that it prevents me from ever riding my bike on any trails that happen to be in these places. Allow bikes on a few trails where it makes sense and I would be a huge supporter. No one is asking to ride the JMT.

That this bill could actually unite us with Wilderness groups is ignored or overlooked.

Second...back the "shred" reference.... I've mentioned before that the type of riding and type of rider in Wilderness is not going to be the same as in your typical front country trail system. The haters can wail and complain and cry that the sky is going to fall all they want, but the reality is out in backcountry areas people are generally respectful and get along. It is front country areas where more conflict will always occur because of higher traffic and less knowledge of and respect for trail etiquette.

Third...this bill does not open all Wilderness trails to bikes, nor do we want it to. There would be some sort of process to go through to add bikes as a user group. Whether that be the next travel management plan, the next forest plan update, or something less formal. STC envisions land managers having workshops with all user groups to quickly hammer out new trail plans. That is very optimistic, but would be nice. For all the concerns over trail damage and ruining hikers' day, the land managers already have tools and experience to deal with those issues. Most of the hiker claims are just fearmongering.

 

Hadn't seen the link to view comments. Wow, the kooks all came out of the woodwork for that article.