IMBA Opposes Bill to Allow Mountain Bikes in Wilderness
Photo By Leslie Kehmeier, Courtesy of IMBA
Here are the facts. IMBA recently sent out a press release with a headline that reads, IMBA Advocates for Collaborative Approach to Wilderness Designations on Public Lands.
So why is my headline so very different (and inflammatory)? Good questions.
But first, a bit of background...
There's currently a bill (H.R. 1349) in the United States House of Representatives that seeks to allow mountain bikes in Wilderness areas. Since 1984, mechanized vehicles have been banned from the nation's nearly 110 million acres of federally-protected Wilderness. Prior to 1984, the Wilderness ban had been on motorized vehicles. At the urging of several non-profit organizations, bicycles were explicitly banned from Wilderness in 1984, via new U.S. Forest Service regulations. While some mountain bikers have long advocated that the Forest Service remove the ban and restore their earlier ban on motorized access, this federal agency has steadfastedly refused to budge. Here's a primer on the whole situation.
Consequently, the Sustainable Trails Coalition, began lobbying Congress directly to amend the Wilderness Act itself and allow bikes access into the Wilderness. For a variety of reasons, the only members of Congress who would sponsor STC's proposed legislation have been Republicans and since the Republican contingent of Congress is generally keen to relaxing environmental protection on public lands, there has been fear in some quarters that any bill seeking to amend the Wilderness Act to let in bikes could be hijacked to allow, say, strip mining or fracking or any number of other extractive industries.
For the record, this is a claim that the Sustainable Trails Coalition outright rejects. You can read their position here.
IMBA's perspective has always been, and apparently continues to be, that mountain bikers are better off negotiating for boundary adjustments to proposed Wilderness areas that would help retain access to existing, popular mountain bike trails.
There is a lot to unpack here. A lot. So here's what I am going to do. I'm going to park the language of IMBA's press release directly below for you to read. I've reached out to IMBA for an interview, to dive deeper into their stance on this issue. We're still working on the timing of that interview. As soon as it happens, I'll bring you a more in-depth analysis of both IMBA's position and its significance. I'll also reach out to the Sustainable Trails Coalition, to get their take on the shape of things.
Let's not rush to judgement.
In the meantime, here's IMBA's press release.
IMBA Advocates for Collaborative Approach to Wilderness Designations on Public Lands
Mountain Biking Voices Must be Heard and Heeded
(Boulder, Colo. December 6, 2017)
H.R. 1349, introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), would amend the Wilderness Act of 1964 to permit certain wheeled devices, including mountain bikes, in Wilderness areas. IMBA is not supporting this legislation and has submitted its testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee.
The testimony emphasises IMBA’s respect for the Wilderness Act, IMBA’s collaborative strategy to protect important trails during the development of new conservation designations, IMBA’s work to promote alternative mountain bike-friendly land protections and IMBA’s strong concerns regarding the U.S. Forest Service’s inconsistent management of mountain bike access in recommended wilderness areas.
“IMBA’s 30 years of on-the-ground collaboration and leadership have earned mountain bikers access to tens of thousands of miles of trail on public land,” said Dave Wiens, IMBA Executive Director. “We’ve made incredible progress for mountain biking through partnerships, and we’re going to continue gaining ground by raising the profile of mountain biking all across America.”
IMBA has been involved in discussions about Wilderness and other forms of legislatively driven protections for public lands for decades. When mountain bikers are given a seat at the table in these discussions, important trails can be protected while finding common ground with those who are looking to create new conservation designations. IMBA is actively working with leaders in the conservation community to ensure this collaborative scenario becomes the standard across the country.
Examples like the Continental Divide Wilderness and Recreation Act in Colorado and the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Act in Montana have been widely celebrated and serve as models for how collaborative efforts involving mountain bikers throughout the process can lead to advancing both conservation and recreation.
“Mountain bikers and the recreation community depend on public lands and thoughtful conservation. Public lands are being threatened at an unprecedented level right now, and it's imperative that public land users come together to protect these cherished places and offer our voices in this critical dialogue,” said Wiens. “We know Wilderness hits some mountain bikers’ backyards, and we understand why those riders support this legislation. To continue elevating mountain biking nationally, IMBA must remain focused on its long-term strategy for the bigger picture of our sport.”
Some public land planning discussions are less inclusive of all user groups and, in those cases, IMBA will actively oppose new Wilderness and other designations that would negatively impact revered mountain biking opportunities. IMBA has recently raised specific concerns about the the U.S. Forest Service’s management of recommended wilderness with the Secretary of Agriculture, and continues to work with partners to elevate mountain biking in planning processes nationwide. Mountain bikers are exemplary public land stewards and highly engaged advocates who should have a voice in the future of local trails.
Mountain Biking Voices Must be Heard and Heeded
(Boulder, Colo. December 6, 2017)
H.R. 1349, introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), would amend the Wilderness Act of 1964 to permit certain wheeled devices, including mountain bikes, in Wilderness areas. IMBA is not supporting this legislation and has submitted its testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee.
The testimony emphasises IMBA’s respect for the Wilderness Act, IMBA’s collaborative strategy to protect important trails during the development of new conservation designations, IMBA’s work to promote alternative mountain bike-friendly land protections and IMBA’s strong concerns regarding the U.S. Forest Service’s inconsistent management of mountain bike access in recommended wilderness areas.
“IMBA’s 30 years of on-the-ground collaboration and leadership have earned mountain bikers access to tens of thousands of miles of trail on public land,” said Dave Wiens, IMBA Executive Director. “We’ve made incredible progress for mountain biking through partnerships, and we’re going to continue gaining ground by raising the profile of mountain biking all across America.”
IMBA has been involved in discussions about Wilderness and other forms of legislatively driven protections for public lands for decades. When mountain bikers are given a seat at the table in these discussions, important trails can be protected while finding common ground with those who are looking to create new conservation designations. IMBA is actively working with leaders in the conservation community to ensure this collaborative scenario becomes the standard across the country.
Examples like the Continental Divide Wilderness and Recreation Act in Colorado and the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Act in Montana have been widely celebrated and serve as models for how collaborative efforts involving mountain bikers throughout the process can lead to advancing both conservation and recreation.
“Mountain bikers and the recreation community depend on public lands and thoughtful conservation. Public lands are being threatened at an unprecedented level right now, and it's imperative that public land users come together to protect these cherished places and offer our voices in this critical dialogue,” said Wiens. “We know Wilderness hits some mountain bikers’ backyards, and we understand why those riders support this legislation. To continue elevating mountain biking nationally, IMBA must remain focused on its long-term strategy for the bigger picture of our sport.”
Some public land planning discussions are less inclusive of all user groups and, in those cases, IMBA will actively oppose new Wilderness and other designations that would negatively impact revered mountain biking opportunities. IMBA has recently raised specific concerns about the the U.S. Forest Service’s management of recommended wilderness with the Secretary of Agriculture, and continues to work with partners to elevate mountain biking in planning processes nationwide. Mountain bikers are exemplary public land stewards and highly engaged advocates who should have a voice in the future of local trails.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
By advocating for responsible trail development, Organizations like this can keep mountain bikers at the table so that we are included and further discussions about trail access
There’s something to be said for not pissing off hikers (the majority of people that spend time in the woods aren’t mountain bikers). They don’t need more reasons to hate bikers.
Not sure why so much hate? I see this as basically the same argument why we don’t want e-bikes allowed on MTB trails?
But then some days I go out into the woods, not as a mtn biker, but as a hiker, skiier or backpacker. It is then that I realize the importance of protecting these areas. They should be hard to get to. They should require difficulty and time to get to. We need to preserve our adventure in this country.
For every new acre of Wilderness, how many acres are gobled up by development and infrastructure? To me, that seems to be the bigger issue when it comes to losing access.
Also, we need further discussion on the interaction with e-bikes and Wilderness and who is for what. That trade-off certainly wouldn't be worth it to me.
Sometimes it feels like a high-jacking of the sport. Especially when you have been in it for so long.
Anyways, there are lots of other rad sports that can be done in Wilderness and being in the Wilderness and everything that comes along with that, is what can make those sports so rad.
You are fortunate to have so little wilderness categorized land as it largely does not limit your choice of human powered travel. Here in Washington, we'd like to have a few trails that cross over the mountains, or access the alpine. However, don't think that any of us want access to popular hiking trails, or trails that are in wet areas or places that riding would damage the land. There's room for some balance here. Even 10% access to the land would be 100% better than none at all.
Ride on Max!
In your opinion. For others the best way to experience the wild is from the seat of a bicycle. You do not have the right to dictate how other people experience the wild places that all citizens have a right to experience. It is not the government's place to say who's opinion on how to experience any aspect of life is right or wrong so long as that action by a citizen does not prevent any other citizens from acting as they wish. It does have a right to dictate how much human impact is acceptable within the boundaries of the land it manages. But the only way to justly manage that impact is to manage it consistently. The only way to do that is to use scientific data, and the currently available scientific data comparing the impact of hikers and mountain bikers declares the impacts of each to be very similar, and quite a bit lower than the impact of other forms of recreation that are currently allowed access to wilderness areas.
You feel that seeing a bike on the trail ruins your wilderness experience, well that biker may feel that your presence is ruining his experience. But his bad mood caused by you does not justify you being banned from using the trail any more than your bad mood caused by him justifies banning his use.
I am torn on the issue myself. I think it really depends on the area, and that's what the new bill says as well. Many (probably most) wilderness areas are not suited to MTB use. But there are key parts that can connect huge swaths of trail, and that will have minimal impact from cycling.
My sentiments exactly. For everyone else, thank you for the productive discussion!
Um. Mountain biking is hard. It is extremely taxing on the body and not everyone can do it. On this years trip to Bend, my son and I were several miles out on the COD trail (Grand Slam) and we saw four (4) other bikes. Four. Why not more? Because it is hard work!
The reality of opening wilderness to cyclists does NOT include any of the following:
Installation of chair lifts.
8" travel downhill rigs flying at 40+ MPH
Droves of 'mountain bikers' with their sub $500 bikes riding deep into the woods.
Thousands of people trampling the trails with overuse.
Installation of paved roads and parking lots.
It does include:
Outdoor types who appreciate nature and are willing to pedal up and down hills for hours to get to remote locations. Seriously, do you think anyone besides XC/trail riders are going to go on long sojourns into these pristine lands?
You might not see chairlifts being installed but everything else you listed will surely happen.
More people, more cars, more facilities.... next you know it ends looking like Yosemite Valley, a circus.
Be happy that you have the strength and determination to make it into those remote areas, and be grateful that most people can't.
Man up, put on your hiking boots and go.
By that logic, anyone can say thst they should be allowed to anything they want in the Wilderness.
We mtn bikers are not the only user group out there. There needs to be balance. How would we all feel if a moto-advocacy group starting pushing a bill that allowed them on all "non-motorized" trails?
As a mtn biker, would you feel you lost something if all of a sudden any motorized vehicle could go on mtn bike trails? I know that that would f-up a lot of trails around me. I think that that is how hikers are feeling now with this bill.
My understanding and memory of how moto bikes fit into the hierarchy of impacts, it does more to erode a trail than a bike or hiker, but less than a horse. It has a similar impact on how it changes the behavior of animals as horses. It has a similar impact on trampling as bikes and horses. And it has a higher impact on water contamination than horses. It also has a much higher impact on noise and air pollution than a horse. Considering all it's impacts, it is currently believed to have a larger impact than a horse. Therefore, it does not meet the most logical (to keep the wilderness act strong) and easily implemented standard for wilderness entry.
"As a mtn biker, would you feel you lost something if all of a sudden any motorized vehicle could go on mtn bike trails?" My personal feelings on this are irrelevant. To re-illustrate my previous point:
I feel that seeing a moto-bike on the trail ruins my wilderness experience, well that moto guy may feel that my presence is ruining his experience. But his bad mood caused by me does not justify me being banned from using the trail any more than my bad mood caused by him justifies banning his use.
"To gain access to Wilderness, mtn bikers are going to need to convince non bike riding people that this is a good thing." Good point. How about that if mountain bikers are allowed into wilderness, then they will have no stake in fighting against any proposed wilderness areas. They will cease to be an enemy to the effort, and will either become neutral or a champion to the cause.
It's been posted over and over and you just won't let it sink in. There are other activities that do more damage than a bike that are allowed, so are you for banning horse back riding as well and only allowing hikers?
There are numerious other reasons, such as speed-of-travel, for non-bike people to not want bikes in the Wilderness.
For example, I dont necesserily want to have e-bikes on all of my local trails, despite there being studies that show that they don't do more damage than a normal pedal bike.
You sort of made my point in your last post. There are many things that are banned in Wilderness areas despite those things not doing any trail damage. You can't run a heli-skiing operation in Wilderness either and helicopter doesn't do any trail damage.
By just continuing to say "bikes dont do more trail tread damage than hiking", you aren't really addressing any of the other reasons.
And ultimately, the wants of moisierman are only enough to govern the life of moisierman. They are not (and never should be) enough to govern the lives of taldfind or TheOrigianTwoTone. To justly keep bikes out of wilderness, you need more than "Hikers don't want them here." Wilderness is public land, it is not the private property of hikers to manage as they wish. It is co-owned by all Americans, including the bikers, and therefore all have the right to use it.
Ebike is a non argument since they have a motor assist or not there is a motor so it's motorized which has always been banned.
You had a government agency change a law on a whim with no input from those they serve. That is a problem, sorry you don't see that way, but I wonder how you'd be acting if they come out and banned hiking.
I'm not saying that one user-group is more important than another. What I'm trying to say is that there are political realities and a status-quo that is currently in place.
Mtn bikers make a small percentage of the outdoor recreation market and an even smaller percentage of the overall population. We don't have the numbers or the power to just push-through and gain access to whatever we want. We need to work with other user groups for access. That is the reality.
Wilderness is the pinnacle of the conservation movement, do mtn bikers really want to be portrayed as having a role in the dismantling or loosing of our conservsation rules when the political winds inevitably shift.
This is a loosing battle that risks our spot at the table when it comes to future trail access.
We have a trail-system around here that has both moto-trail and non-moto trails. It seems to work really well and one of the reasons for that is because everyone respects the other user groups trails. If all of a sudden there was a push from the local moto club to have access to all trails, I think the trust would be lost and the cooperation would break-down.
The arguement you keep making is valid but the only one you are convincing is yourself.
As for the e-bike being classified as non-motoroized, this is exactly what is happening all over the country. Like I said in a earlier post, the industry as a whole is trying to change the public perception of pedal-assist so that they can be classified as non-moto. I know because it happened here at Post Canyon.
We can all get on Pinkbike and bitch and moan about Wilderness anf how it is unfair but that isn't going to do a damn think to change peoples mind. The Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, etc. are far more powerful than IMBA or STC. The realities in this day and age, with so many different user groups, is that we need to work together.
If we as mtn-bikers can't respect current trail access rules, how can we expect other user groups to respect ousr? There are places around me like Sandy Ridge, Blackrock, Tiger, Alsea Falls, Galbraith, etc. that are mtn bike only. I sure wouldnt like it if the equestrian industry or moto industry attempted to gain access to those trails.
Do you know any bike-only trails around you that you would want to have stay that way?
There are no cars, no bikes, no ATVs and no whitewater rafts. It exists as it did 10,000 years ago. Yes, there is more to life than riding your bike anywhere and everywhere possible. Maybe you don’t want to hike there, and maybe the place would be better off if you and your friends never laid eyes on it. Good.
Shame on you IMBA.
www.surveymonkey.com/r/82KJT6V
Here's the thing, the majority of the trails we have in Washington were either created originally as a hiking trail or by the moto & equestrian users. Many of the trails that are in decline are trails who are not seeing use as a result of who can legally access them, lack of maintenance by land managers (USFS, WA-DNR, etc) and often simply inaccessible. The weather and fires here really impact trails.
The second reason is that most riders simply don't know where to go beyond the well known trail systems. And this reason right here is why I've gone out of my way to spend months documenting trails on Trailforks, even if it's simply a GPS track or some other record that will have to be explored in person and updated. The more people find out what we have, the more people who will ride them, love them and take care of them.
Adding limited access to the wilderness will enable trails to be developed or accessed in terrain that is almost otherwise untouchable. It will make the experience all the more special, in the same way it is when you hike through this type of terrain. Look at how popular the trails that touch the Wilderness are! Cutthroat Lake and pass. Angels Staircase Route. Teanaway area. Over on the West side, there's hardly anything outside the I90 corridor and 410 trails that legally can be ridden. (notably Helens and surrounding area is the exception). Adding some access will only improve Washington, not degrade anything at all.
The reason they gave was to preserve the paddlers wilderness experience. Yet! portable potties every 2 km to 5 km along the the river did not. Since expanding the park to 6 times its original size, they have put an out house in the middle of the Cirque of the Unclimbables. PS there is NO road access to Nahhani National Park.
gticket If you want unused wilderness we have places just a few miles above your border that are real wilderness. Not the parks that make you line up to pay just to park.
PS do you know your dollar goes further up here.
f*ck the wilderness designation on mechanized travel. Youll see, its going to affect your riding area one day, when some sierra club group steps in and takes a huge chunk of your riding area
removing mechanized travel ban on wilderness doesnt mean bikes will be on all trails. I can say it enough, and you advocates for wilderness ignore this. It simply allows locals to make the choice, not washington. Who here thats bitching has been to a National forest where they ask for the publics input? This is where its decided. the survey, the input.
This will piss people off, I dont care, but getting this type of legislation through, is best done in this administration. If it doesnt happen now, it never will. It just needs to be written by someone other than Hatch. Make sure theres no hidden "obamacare type" clauses about fracking, drilling and the like. Thats pretty easy. Conservatives DO want to give power back to the states and local level. Im all for that.
IMBA is essentially saying "we don't want to be responsible for heading this movement" and going against the very basis (that they and many others claim to work for) of expanding usage of publicly-funded property to all trail users. Putting the bait in front of the community to lure them into a movement being the inertia while they play coward and run to the press office taking the "high road" that they never advocated for a blanket fix.
Absolutely absurd that they continue on through the article to say "We don't want to work to improve trail access with Republicans, of all people, who totally don't care about the environment" and that they have their "own higher-than-thou vision for the future of the sport" Seems like IMBA is molting into a bureaucratic for-profit that at this point slowly kills the sport, similar to the UCI.
As if their position on emtbs changing from, “should be regulated as with other motorized off-road travel.” to the following wasn't enough of a reason...
www.imba.com/resources/emtb-management
www.imba.com/blog/supporter/imba-updates-emtb-position-statement
I wonder what why will announce in January... merger with walmart? offshore tax evasion?
Down with imba; support your local volunteers.
I would use the words "gutless" and "treachery" but that barely touches the level of frustration
-Disgusted
But hey, if it gets opened up, f*ck it lets go heli dirt bikin through the alpine
www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1349
Plus as they are all built over a short period of time while the area is closed down, none of the trails are ever test ridden first, they literally come in with bobcats, butcher the forest and any old trails that might be in the way, and then leave, closing the new trail off for a couple of weeks until some rain helps the dirt set - You end up with jumps that don't flow and have the wrong sized kickers for the gap or landing, berms that flatten out too early in the exit or are built in the wrong position. IMBA = poorly built trails that don't flow and have no tech all because they are built without passion.
IMBA cannot support the same lawmakers that did that
The natural resources that are potentially located in these areas are currently expensive to extract due to the lack of infrastructure in the area. Which is what Utah has wanted to change for so long. A wider road here, a new national park there, a few more hotels in Blanding and Escalante. Then the resource extraction starts becoming a bit more economical.
Honestly, I'm pretty middle of the road when it comes to politics, etc. I definitely didn't fully support the designation of Bears Ears and I don't agree with all the rhetoric used by the far left in regards to this issue. But it goes both ways. Ultimately, I support the conservation of wild landscapes in this country. And I oppose over use and over development of these landscapes - whether recreationally or industrially. Most people don't realize it but these wild places and the flora and fauna that depend on them are disappearing at a crazy pace. I love pedaling my brains out up a mountain and then ripping down the other side. But it's a pretty selfish sport. Mountain bikers in this country currently have access to more trail miles, multi use and mtb specific, than at any other time in the history of the sport. The lose of trail access in MT and the Boulder White cloud designation definitely sucks for those guys. But, I we are a minority of the overall population. I don't feel that our self interests should outweigh the long term conservation of Wilderness or other wild lands.
Erm, no we can't...
I have no clue how a country claiming to be as "free" as America has to endure such a painful litigious society run by lobbyists from all sides.....but I guess on the upside buying a gun seems to be quite a pleasant "free" experience.
Weird.
But in England and Wales you are not allowed (legally) to ride on footpaths, only bridleways and other specifically designated paths (and common land of course). In Scotland you can ride anywhere.
Local smocal man. I want to get into the thick of it. The untouched. The wild. Places where I can not run into large groups of people and see things that no one else gets a chance to unless they put in the enormous effort.
I want Wilderness on my riding menu.
In the US, the way in which the Wilderness Act is interpreted presumes that they are not allowed to ride on Federal Wilderness land. The proposed amendment (backed by the STC) rebuts this presumption and allows local land managers to make a go/no-go decision for bikers. So what the STC wants is actually LESS access then what we Canadians have. And IMBA opposes the proposed amendment.
Yes we Canadians are lucky. But I've ridden lots in the US and it's crazy that mountainbikers are treated as scofflaw crims for doing the very same thing that we in Canada presume that it's out right to do. Which is why I feel badly for American mountainbikers to get shafted by the very same organization (IMBA) which purports to represent them.
mmmmhmmmm.... tell that to the guys in the Boulder-White Clouds region, elsewhere in Idaho, Montana, etc.
But they'll keep an open mind about ebikes. That's fun.
To me this is more about IMBA turning their backs on the one group they claim to support most.
And @isawtman: Check your facts. Montana has roughly 3.5 MILLION acres of wilderness land, which comprises 3.75 percent of of total land area on Montana. Let's go with what you say and there is only 2.75 percent of our land designated as wilderness. That would still constitute 2.5 MILLION acres of land. When you factor in a large portion of this wilderness is mountainous, and a very large portion of Montana is NOT, 3.5 million or even 2.5 million acres starts to get bigger and bigger.
Not to mention the fact that the little area we do have to ride is being whittled away steadily by various legislation and landowners. For IMBA to "dangle a carrot" so to speak of supporting H.R 1349, which at least provides hope we will have a voice in what happens to the land and then turn and not only withdraw support but ACTIVELY lobby against said bill is a true Benedict Arnold move.
I for one support land use for as many users as said land can wisely support. Whether or not you think mountain bikes are allowable on certain lands, this move by IMBA was not right.
Source:
wildmontana.org/discover-the-wild/montanas-public-lands/wilderness-areas
wildmontana.org/discover-the-wild/what-is-wilderness/factsheet
and a calculator
I believe my point still stands however about this not being a matter of actual land acreage or use but rather the fact that IMBA turned their backs on the group they were supposed to represent.
Also, I'd be more than happy to kick the mule trains and horses out. Horses are the worst.
With that in mind I do not see an issue myself considering that they are allowing horses.
(But not e-bikes)
If I understand you correctly you are saying that a vast majority of the wilderness areas also happen to be prime mountain country, and the vast majority of non-wilderness is not mountainous. If so, yes % of land mass is totally irrelevant and the ratio of "rideable to unrideable" is more important.
Do wilderness areas only comprise 2.7% of the lower 48's land area? Yes. Do those same wilderness areas contain 45%, 60%, or maybe 75% of available RIDEABLE terrain? I don't know, but that is what counts.
"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.”
This is a completely reasonable addendum, and one that (I think) 99% of the mtb community would push for. Is it possible the Treks and Specializeds of the industry have their beef with the "non-motorized bicycles" portion of the language, and are pushing IMBA to reject it?
I've written to IMBA and their board of directors and urge others to do so. IMBA should have supported HR1349 and at the very least been mute on it if they didn't feel they could support it. To actively oppose it is disgraceful and deeply disappointing and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the threats their constituents and the industry faces. PLEASE take the time to let IMBA know how you feel. Akarnold1
Don't feed the Todd, er I mean, troll. He is Todd McMahon, you can google him. He doesn't mountain bike (though he's got a mountain bike in the garage he's happy to tell you about). He trolls newspapers, forums, and any site that has articles relating to mountain bikes in Wilderness. He constantly has been shown the facts and refuses to acknowledge them. He is a colossal waste of your time.
DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THIS TROLL.
.
.
.
.
thanks for your always professional reporting and opinions on the topic, @vernonfelton
Bikes in wilderness should be at the discretion of the local land manager. There are more cases than not where bikes would damage the land less than the horses that are allowed there, and the trails are not well used (and therefore no conflicts with hikers or horses would exist).
IMBA, you're a relic, and STC is the future!!
NOT MINE !
IMBA REALLY SUCKS AND WILL GO BANKRUPT BECAUSE OF THIS.
I'm certainly not for opening up access to all Wilderness areas, but I'm certainly of the mind that it shouldn't be a blanket ban and the individual land use managers should have the ultimate say.
So it seems they are allowed basically because they always have been even though now they aren't a necessity because people traveling through wilderness now do so for "leisure" rather than necessity as they did back in the day.
So if we are talking about strictly environmental impact, then horses should be banned and bikes allowed.
I think why bikes still aren't allowed is because the precedent it would set. Like you said @mosierman, its kind of a segway into getting more changes pushed through. Mountain bikes --> E-bikes --> dirt bikes --> more motorized vehicles --> now we should have paved road --> cars--> buildings etc,
So its a slippery slope that I am fine not going down at the end of the day. And I guess it kind of makes it special because it makes the activities that you can do out there all the more rewarding (rock climbing, mountaineering, cross country skiing etc) because it is such protected land.
Sorry for the banter but I'm just thinking out loud. Thanks good discussion by the way.
Our biggest downfall is that bikes have been classified as "mechanized" vehicles. Adding eBikes with "pedal assist" only makes bikes even more mechanized and villainized by opposing land use groups.
To summarize, I don't want bikes having access to all hiking trails. On the other side of the coin, I don't want bikes cart blanche banned from all wilderness areas. And finally, I don't think eMTBs bring any benefit to our trail access issues; they only bring potential negatives.
You would think that with all the biking and hiking that you would be at least medium, not huge. Just sayin.
Once I was more than 5 miles in I almost never saw another person. The only people I ever met in the winter were some folks on snow machines who were relying on USFS maps they had picked up that day which had an out of date wilderness area boundary. It was kind of nice, having the trails well packed. I can't see any reason why a fat bike shouldn't be allowed in there when there is snow on the ground, and allowing snow machine riders to follow designated corridors would only create trails that skiers and fat bike riders could use as well.
It really seems to me that much of the regulation of wilderness areas is intended to keep people out. I believe that people should be encouraged to spend time in wilderness areas.
The USFS has additional access restrictions which limit traffic into fragile areas. Some of those would not be needed if they would build a few out houses. Others need to be in place. I think that a little direction from Congress specifying that recreational use is to be encouraged and allowing limited development, such as trail maintenance and out houses. Then do as @stevemokan suggested and leave it up to the district rangers to create local regulations.
Also, the horses really make a mess, and they are allowed while using a wheeled travois would be prohibited. But a Travois on skids, which does a lot more damage than one with wheels, would be allowed. That makes no sense.
"there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."
What STC proposes is to go back to the original (pre-1980s) *interpretation* (not changing the text itself) of the term "mechanized" - which did not include bicycles, game carts, strollers, wheelchairs, etc until Sierra Club and other NIMBYs pushed mtbs out in the 80s. And again, STC's proposal doesn't immediately allow everything everywhere, it just lets local land managers decide what's allowed where.
Even if the definition were to "slip" beyond mtbs (not sure what that would be, but just for the sake of argument let's assume it happens), local land managers would still be able to forbid those modes of transportation if they feel it's harmful/unsustainable, and those same land managers don't even have the ability to allow anything with a motor without getting the Wilderness Act rewritten.
The conversation about whether a mtb should be in a certain place is definitely worth having, there are definitely places where bikes don't need to go (or horses, for that matter). The problem is that the conversation can't even happen with the way "mechanized" is interpreted currently.
Personally I find some humor in the fact that something as simple as a unicycle could be considered "mechanized", but I can bring mechanically complicated AT ski bindings/boots, skins, climbing equipment, jumars/ascenders, etc, all of which allow me to do what I'd never be able to do "on foot" in the traditional sense.
1. Cancel your IMBA membership and demand a refund for the remainder of your term. If you simply choose not to renew, the "trickle effect" will take place over the next 11 months, depending on your renewal date, and won't have the gigantic impact that a massive, vocal exodus will be certain to have. Just email heather.bonewitz@imba.com with a cc: to David.wiens@imba.com and board@imba.com
2. Join the San Diego Mountain Biking Association in demanding the resignation of Executive Director Dave Wiens and every IMBA Board member. Post your demand on Facebook, Twitter, your club's website and Facebook page, and every mountain bike forum in the Western Hemisphere. Check out SDMBA,s Facebook page and website for more info on what they are calling for.
3. Don't give money to IMBA's DigIn campaign because they keep 20% of your contribution; passing 80% to the chapter or club projects. Give your contribution directly to the chapter or club where the real work is being done.
4. Write or email every member of IMBA's Board of Directors and tell them how you really feel about this issue and what you are going to do, i.e. Cancel your membership, lobby your chapter to leave the chapter program, not make any more contributions or donations, and boycott their sponsors. Find them at www.imba.com/about/board
5. Write or email IMBA's corporate sponsors, tell them how you feel and what you are going to do, and demand that they immediately withdraw their financial and public support of IMBA, it's Executive Director and Board of Directors.
6. Consider boycotting each and every sponsor that refuses to withdraw their support. The sponsors are listed at the bottom of the home page at www.imba.com. Start with Trek, Specialized and REI.
7. Start an online petition at change.org to accomplish #2, 5 and 6.
8. Get together with your mountain bike friends and burn all of your IMBA socks, shirts and hats. Post pics everywhere. Light em' up!
9. Finally, give very serious thought to what a new, much more effective and representative mountain bike organization should do and how it should be organized. Remember, no IMBA member can vote for a Board member or have any say about their policy positions. Shouldn't we do MUCH better? Post your ideas and suggestions on Pinkbike for all to see and consider!
Other ideas fellow (real) mountain bikers?
www.imba.com/about/board
www.imba.com/partners/corporate
Let's not rush to judgement."
300+ comments strong. Sorry Vernon, we can't follow instructions. he he
Mind your own back yard before passing judgement on someone else's
What spineless losers.
ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS ON BIKES IN WILDERNESS
Posted: December 9, 2017 at 9:09:47 AM
In: Access
By: Dave Wiens
0 Comments
Dear mountain bikers,
This past week, IMBA took a stand that was unpopular with many mountain bikers when we submitted written testimony stating that we do not support HR 1349, a bill that would amend the Wilderness Act by reversing the ban on bicycles.
We’d like to discuss this further with our members and the mountain biking community.
IMBA takes seriously our role as the recognized national leader and a powerful voice for mountain biking. It is a monumental responsibility, especially during this politically divisive time. We considered the responsibilities of our leadership role, and our mission, in our submitted testimony on HR 1349. IMBA’s mission is to create, enhance and protect great places to ride mountain bikes. The word “protect” guided and motivated us and made it imperative that IMBA not be silent on this bill. We reaffirm our position today and below.
Core to IMBA’s mission is being a catalyst for trail development all across the country—both close to population centers and in the epic, backcountry locations that define mountain biking for so many of us. This speaks to (among other things) public health and wellness, community economic prosperity and engaging youth. IMBA is positioning mountain biking at the highest levels in the United States as a solution addressing some of today’s most timely and important topics.
A foundational element of our mission is our dedication to land protection and to working for new and creative ways to protect lands for mountain biking. We honor and recognize the fact that we are one of many user groups sharing our beloved trails. Collaboration and partnership are paramount to progress. Our organization has built and nurtured cherished working relationships with land management agencies over our 30-year existence. These partnerships have consistently delivered results, and IMBA will continue to respectfully work within the framework of these partnerships to further mountain biking.
IMBA’s mission does not include amending the Wilderness Act and never has. In 2016, IMBA’s board of directors reaffirmed our position on this issue, which is to respect both the Act and the federal land agency regulations that bicycles are not allowed in existing, Congressionally designated Wilderness areas. This does not mean that we are content with the present situation on these vital and revered public lands. HR 1349 has raised this topic to a national level.
How did we get here? Beginning nearly 30 years ago, a group of mountain bikers—organized as IMBA—found their way into U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service planning processes and meetings: processes that the pioneers of the conservation movement in the 1960s and 70s realized they could influence.
With a several-decade head start, the conservation organizations were less than thrilled to have two-wheeled, human-powered lovers of trails and public lands showing up and working hard to insert the voice of mountain biking into important conversations. Through our partnerships with federal land agencies (the decision makers), IMBA has made and continues to make an impact on trails and access to public lands.
Over three decades of work, IMBA has earned the trust of land management agencies and incredible progress has been made; IMBA has been an integral part of opening up untold miles of trails to mountain biking; and IMBA has helped protect large tracts of our precious public lands. These efforts and partnerships have been, and continue to be, core to IMBA’s world.
Believe me, I would like to see mountain bikers regain access to some Wilderness trails as much as anyone. However, we feel strongly that HR 1349, while addressing an important aspect of land protection reform (bicycles in Wilderness) is not in the best interest of mountain biking long-term.
IMBA has great respect for any movement that gets more mountain bikers engaged in advocacy and in learning all aspects of complicated issues. Wilderness and land protection have always been difficult. Add in today’s political climate, and it becomes exponentially more difficult. This is not black and white and it’s far from over – no matter the outcome of HR 1349.
We know that mountain bikers won’t always agree with our approach, and may choose not to support us. That’s okay. IMBA will continue to work for the long-term gains of mountain biking, just as we have for three decades.
We are paying attention to your responses. Below, you’ll find answers from the IMBA team to the most common themes that are surfacing in the conversation online and in the media. This post will be updated as other important and relevant questions emerge. We invite you to read on and to check back for updates. Also, we plan to release a survey during the upcoming week as an additional way for your voice to be heard.
Thank you.
Dave Wiens, IMBA Executive Director
Confirming they will cut off local trail advocates at the knees in furtherance of "long term goals" and citing commonality of interest with conservation at the expense of advocating for local decisions for go/no-go for access
So if you understand IMBA's "long term vision"; feel that they're the best group to achieve that vision; and will defer to IMBA's decisions at the expense of your local group's interest then IMBA is for you.
If you prefer local level action and local level land manager discretion then STCs approach is for you
He is pushing for the sale of all public lands. How do you reconcile the fact that the champion of your bill says he promises to open access and also promises to sell those very same lands?
@3:00
"As we work toward achieving a full transfer of land to the state governments..." -
Senator Mike Lee
Two things:
1. A blanket ban on mountain biking in Wilderness Areas is stupid.
2. So is this bill.
It's dumb because it EFFECTIVELY replaces a blanket ban with blanket permission to ride a mountain bike on any trail in any wilderness area.
While STC and others say that local land managers can still close trails to mountain bikes under their standard land management authority, it's not that simple. If this bill were to pass each local land manager would have to update their trail and recreation plans in order to close any trails in Wilderness Areas to bikes. To do this everywhere all at once would be insanely expensive and time consuming and would have to comply with procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act and National Environmental Policy Act.
The Republican Party has spent the last several decades starving these agencies of resources, and they simply don't have the staff or money to do this on the scale that would be necessary.
Basically, the problem here is one of default conditions. Right now the default is that you can't ride a bike on any trail within a Wilderness Area, and there is no way for local land managers to make an exception. This is stupid because there are many places where riding bikes in wilderness areas wouldn't harm the wilderness values of the area.
This bill would make the default that you can a bike on any trail in a wilderness area, without any actual ability for local land managers to figure out where this makes sense and create exceptions. This is also stupid because there are many places where riding bikes in wilderness areas would be very harmful to the wilderness values of the area.
Bottom line is that the blanket ban should be eliminated, but it should be replaced with a law that empowers local land managers to open Wilderness Area trails to bikes on a case by case basis, and it must be accompanied by an appropriation that gives the Forest Service, BLM, and Parks Service the money and staffing they'd need to do it in a timely manner.
In other words, the bill says that mountain bikers must be considered as legitimate trail users in Wilderness areas. It is, in that respect, a very level-headed piece of legislation. It allows decisions about mountain biking to be based on facts and science, as opposed to an outdated prejudice that holds that bikes are inherently destructive.
And for anyone who maintains that bikes are inherently destructive, I highly recommend you look at all the studies that consistently show that bikes have the same erosive impact as hikers and less impact than horseback riders--the latter of which has free reign in Wilderness areas. We can ultimately disagree about our willingness to share trails, but let's base our discussions on facts.
But it isn't clear to me that it means what you say it does.
It looks like it removes the ability of the Wilderness Act to ban bikes, and requires the land managers to rely on other legislative authority to make their land management decisions. If that's the case, every rule prohibiting bikes on wilderness trails should be void as soon as the statutory authority on which it is based (here the Wilderness Act) is removed. That's how our regulatory system works, or at least how I understood it to work when I studied it in law school.
Of course the other thing I learned is that this shit is really complicated and I'd have to dig into all of the regulatory codes of multiple statutes to figure this out with any certainty.
I'd love someone from the Forest Service or BLM to chime in on how this would actually be implemented.
If I'm wrong about that, and it actually allows current rulesto stay in effect until land managers make an actual decision on each area, then I'm in support.
His quote:
"It only ends the antiquated blanket bans and stops there. It leaves in place regulations that let local Forest and Park Supervisor decide who can be on a particular Wilderness Trail."
He's a lawyer, and that's very careful lawyer language. You'll notice that he doesn't say it will leave in place the local regulations that ban bikes, he says it ends the antiquated ban and leaves in place the regulations that let local supervisors decide to ban bike should they so choose.
And you'd be doing everyone a huge service if you could get some commentary or clarity on this from a FS land manager.
I'm going to ask a trails and recreation lands manager for the Forest Service I know about his take. He who might be willing to talk to you as well, at least off the record if you're interested.
I think what will be interesting is to hear land managers' take on the ease or difficulty of saying "No" to bikes. That's the only thing open to debate, as far as I can see.
What's worth exploring, I think, is the timeline that the land managers would have within which to make those decisions. Would they have enough time? Would it be a pain in the ass? What would constitute a reasonable length of time in which to make their ultimate decisions? Those are all worthy questions worth asking and answering.
@vernonfelton The only situation I have studied is where the FS closed trails in Sedona which was not a Wilderness area. The official in question was Jennifer Burns for the FS and I wrote about the process in ON article entitled "Sedrama". I'll reach out to Sedona contacts to see if they have any background on this
Thanks, and yeah, that’s really what I’m curious about.
If land managers are able to make these decisions without updating their entire plans or triggering environmental review with all of the cost and time involved it would make a huge difference for the practical impact if the legislation.
I just get worried when a sweeping change like this is made with such simple language. There is an entire regulatory framework that has grown up around the current prohibition, and new regulations will have to take their place before we can really understand how it will play out.
It may already be baked into the administrative procedures act, but I’d be a lot more comfortable if I knew that existing rules would stay in place in place until the land management agencies promulgated new guidance that spelled out how the decisions concerning the where, how, and when, bikes are will be allowed in Wilderness Areas.
I want to ride my bike in a lot of these places and I think that should be legal, but I also want to see it done right, and for the places and experiences that would be damaged by bike use to be protected.
They have forgotten about mountain biking.
They are simply afraid to do anything that might threaten their future jobs at the Sierra Club/Nature Conservancy/NRDC/etc.
To be more honest, I find myself questioning if IMBA really cares about mountain biking... The conspiracy theorist in me says they are simply environmental lobbyist that have from the onset, chosen to label and tie their own interests on the backs of cyclists, only to push a hidden agenda. I repeat, "the conspiracy theorist in me"
I don't always take time to share my comments, but when I do, I enjoy drinking beer. Stay thirsty friends-
I personally wish they would outright oppose the ban. For two reasons.
(1) It's the right thing to do. Bikes belong on trails. They don't belong on every trail, to be sure, but regulations that ban bikes outright with no reasoning (other than that some hikers hate bikes) should be opposed. If you don't attack that faulty reasoning, you unintentionally support the belief that bikes are inherently destructive. That is a failure on a grand scale.
(2) IMBA's approach (negotiating for boundary readjustments and alternative protective designations) was the best strategy 20 years ago, when there were relatively few riders to rally to the cause. The demographics, however, have changed in the past two decades. There are many of us. We are proven trail stewards. We contribute to our communities and to preserving the environment. We oftentimes do the bulk of trail work. In other words, the power and moral high ground has shifted. We do not need to continue to act as if there were few mountain bikers operating in a landscape completely dominated by those who are unwilling to share the public trails. It's time for a change in tactics. And if IMBA does not decide to change its tactics, it'd be....I don't know... nice, I suppose, if they didn't oppose the efforts of other mountain bike organizations.
Those, however, are my opinions on the matter. I've never been shy about them. When I report on these stories, I do my best to keep my opinion off the page and to simply relay what's on both sides of the coin. If I am writing an editorial, it's an entirely different matter--at those times, I voice my opinions (the way I am doing so here).
Hey Vernon, I appreciate your posts man. I never really got into PB articles until you joined the team. Keep bringing us the good content.
Don't feed the Todd, er I mean, troll. He is Todd McMahon, you can google him. He doesn't mountain bike (though he's got a mountain bike in the garage he's happy to tell you about). He trolls newspapers, forums, and any site that has articles relating to mountain bikes in Wilderness. He constantly has been shown the facts and refuses to acknowledge them. He is a colossal waste of your time.
DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THIS TROLL.
Anybody who rides - never donate to them again.
f*ck them and they don’t represent us.
a*sholes.
On the other hand, Mt. Penn in Reading, PA is an IMBA Bronze level riding center and that is the best thing to happen to that city since, well the Pretzel.
I support IMBA because their stance represents what I believe to be important as a person beyond my love of mountain biking, while supporting mountain biking as well. I already give to several organizations who singlemindedly pursue trail expansion. I support IMBA because they represent me as a outdoorsman and mountain biker.
Well if this passes, we might not have to come to the table anymore, we could be out riding more trails instead. This is nothing more than IMBA trying to justify their existence. A group that has never really accomplished anything. Now some Official comes along and offers something even better than the weak line in the sand they have been fighting for and they oppose it because it surpasses their 'dedades of DISCUSSIONS" (with absolutely no results) . I never joined them based on their weak stance on trail access, and this just makes me feel better for not supporting them.
"As shown once again by IMBA’s recent stance on HR 1349, IMBA’s board is tone-deaf to the community and has too frequently taken controversial stances when claiming to represent mountain bike riders’ interests. Once again, SDMBA strongly calls for IMBA’s board to be replaced with elected mountain bike leaders with a strong, accomplished history of outstanding advocacy wins in favor of mountain biking. Unfortunately, the existing board has consistently failed to lead this organization as mountain bikers require."
This petition, started by the New England Mountain Bike Association and the San Diego Mountain Biking Association, demands that the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) cease its opposition to HR 1349, a bill that would allow mountain biking in Wilderness areas on a case-by-case basis. We demand that IMBA retract its public comment opposing HR 1349. IMBA's opposition to this bill is contrary to their stated mission to "enhance and protect great places to ride mountain bikes." We believe that IMBA should be supporting mountain bike access and not lobbying against it.
We believe that IMBA should be supporting mountain bike access and not lobbying against it. This will be delivered to David Wiens, Executive Director, and the IMBA Board of Directors.
For more info visit http://www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org/
They are up to something here the republicans, this is their slippery slope to deregulating the idea even the notion of wilderness altogether, IMBA gets it, Sierra Club gets it. We can't allow them to carve up our last remaining wilderness just for our own short sighted selfish interests as mountain bikers.
The other Utah has a huge stream of revenue in their state due to tourism. Trip cancellations were crushing the hotel, restaurants, etc. They finally kicked in money from Utah budget to get the federal workers back in the parks and opened up.
I don't know the answer for sure but it certainly crossed my mind that maybe it should be Zion State Park.
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.”.
www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1349/text
I understand that the change feels inconsequential, but even kicking a hornet's nest doesn't usually kill any hornets: it just really pisses them off. The Wilderness Act is super important to a lot of groups. You don't mess with it unless you're A) wearing a netted-off redman outfit, B) preventing some greater harm to wilderness areas, C) don't give a poo if you ever work with other environmental groups ever again (and some outdoor rec groups, too).
and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its
possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is
hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future
generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established
a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by the
Congress as "wilderness areas," and these shall be administered FOR THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE in such manner as will leave them unimpaired FOR FUTURE USE AND ENJOYMENT as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act."-Section 2(a) of The Wilderness Act, emphasis added.
This clearly states that the intent of the wilderness act is to preserve land for the current and future enjoyment (aka, recreation) of the american people so long as that form of recreation leaves the wilderness unimpaired and preserves the wilderness character.
Scientific studies done by the University of Guelph in Canada, Don Weir and Associates-Edmonton Alberta Canada, G.R. Cressford-Department of Conservation Wellington New Zealand, T.Weaver and D. Dale-Journal of Applied Ecology 1987, and John Wilson and Joseph Seney-Mountain Research and Development all agree that mountain biking is no more damaging to the environment than hiking. Or in the terms used in The Wilderness Act, Mountain Biking and Hiking are equally damaging to the wilderness character.
The blanket ban on mountain bikes was made by those who were ignorant of the scientific facts on the subject (mostly because wasn't much science on the subject at the time) being informed by those who had malice against mountain bikers. HR 1349 would update the Wilderness Act to be more scientifically accurate without degrading the intent of the act to any degree.
The other issue is the MTB community losing HUGE networks of trails to newly-designated areas... there's no retroactive policy protection. Just ask our friends to the north in Idaho and Montana. And it's bound to happen here in Colorado too.
The original intent was to ban things with motors but not hikers, equestrians, or bikers. I'm betting the lovely Sierra Club was the reason for the 1984 mountain bike ban....that was when they were really getting wound up against us. There's no reason to ban bikes if a horse can go there or a back packer with lugged boots.
STC position makes sense to me and I'm supporting them (and writing my peeps in congress). www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org/press-releases/2017/wilderness-bicycle-bills-unite-backcountry-mountain-bikers-and-sensible-conservationists
@RXN059 I hope you see the nuanced position that STC has. The current Wilderness Act interpretation held by federal land managers is a blanket presumption that all biking is prohibited while hiking/horse-back riding is permitted; an indefensible position if one is truly arguing for wilderness preservation
Horses are allowed, yes. Horses are more destructive than hikers, horses shit. Personally, I don't like sharing trails with horses or the people riding them.
However, they have feet and poop is fertilizer. The issue is the tread. Bikes leave a constant tread over everything. Even if unintentionally, we skid, drift, slide, move rocks, etc. It's super fun but it's not very sustainable environmentally from a trail standpoint. The issues with high volume, single-file tread are partially why hiking parties in the Wilderness areas near me are limited to 15 individuals.
The enormous onslaught of hikers every summer does widen a bunch of hiking-only trails. It's really quite sad here in Colorado (especially the easier 14ers), and a lot of mountain biking trails are much more maintained. This is difficult to address and even harder to fix. Also, there are many, many less horseriders than mountain bikers. The sheer volume of traffic can't even be compared. Just a handful of reckless mountain bikers shredding a trail (read: having the best kind of fun around) can incur the same irreparable damage as many more hikers. I know that the vast majority of bikers are very respectful, very supportive of their local community and trails. They're not the reason to worry about trail destruction, but every community has those that can spoil it for everyone. Also (and this is a big issue in the Front Range) there is WAY too much individual trail sanitation occurring. I would hate to see this trickle over to our rugged Wilderness areas.
We are very fortunate to have so much access in Colorado. This is not the case in other states, and I understand that is beyond frustrating. I don't have a well-thought out response to that. It honestly needs to be a state-by-state decision, but I understand more than a few states would do away with mountain biking altogether given the chance. But, I still don't support a blanket opening of Wilderness areas to mountain bikes.
I should thoroughly read the mentioned STC position.
TL;DR - I'm really just a huge pussy and I don't ride my bike at all, ever.
I should thoroughly read the mentioned STC position."
The sad and frustrating part is that the STC position is the position for which you advocate ie that it "needs to be a state-by-state decision". This is the position which IMBA opposes
Let's put it to bed: a bike will cause about the same amount of damage as a hiker. A bike will cause FAR less damage than a horse.
Secondly, nothing gets my pimp hand cocked back like the person who justifies a stance on NATIONAL policy based on the privileges they enjoy in their immediate area. Oh, Colorado has plenty of mountain bike trails not in Wilderness? Tell me again how that applies to Oregon, Montana, California, etc. Simple solution: remove blanket ban, and allow case-by-case reviews. I'll be the first person to stand up and say I'm not asking for access to all of Wilderness. Hey, there's many places I've been on foot that just wouldn't be much fun on a bike. But let's agree that taking trails away from mountain bikers, who in some cases *are the ones that built them to begin with* just because a new area has been deemed 'Wilderness' is plain dumb.
So you have no idea what STC is actually proposing, then.
Cool.
@RXN059: "I should thoroughly read the mentioned STC position."
Regardless, just because I agree that I don't want riders in Montana and Idaho to lose any more of their riding areas to new Wilderness designations doesn't mean I support also opening up the Collegiate Peaks Wilderness to everyone with a DH rig trying to bomb 14ers. Because that's exactly what I would do if I could. There's a difference between lifting a ban to allow for more individualized attention to each case and giving a national green-light to riders. I stand by my statement that I do not support that green-light for every scrap of protected Wilderness, in its totality. Any interpretation of that as to whether I support either the IMBA or STC positions is conjecture.
What is misleading is to use shuttling as an example of why bikes are bad for wilderness, when shuttling is impossible to do in wilderness because there are no roads for you to use to shuttle your bike to the top!
Also, thanks for the ringing endorsement that I'm not the only "clueless idiot in this country". I'm relieved. Please continue chiming in insults over an internet forum. Love 'em.
Yes, it is XC riding. You ain't getting a shuttle ride to the top. Maybe you should learn what cross country riding means.
Wilderness riding is not for you, so don't speak.
"This bill amends the Wilderness Act to declare that provisions of such Act prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles, aircraft, or other forms of mechanical transport shall not prohibit the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized bicycles, strollers, wheelbarrows, survey wheels, or game carts within any wilderness areas, and other purposes." - H.R. 1349 (directly from www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1349/text)
"...within any wilderness areas..."
This sounds a lot like the green-light I referenced previously. This directly states that if this bill were to pass, every restriction listed within Wilderness areas is lifted and land managers must play catch-up to reinstate restrictions at the local level if that is what is desired.
"...and other purposes."
I know how to read this legal text. This is some dangerous language. Ambiguity opens the door for a lot more interference in these designated wilderness areas. There's a reason why this final phrase is in there. The fact that STC gave a press release in which they "applaud Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) for introducing the Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act. Co-sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)" does not sit well with me, whatsoever. I want to believe these guys have our backs and are truly do simply want to scale back federal restrictions in favor of local decision-making, but recent events have left a foul taste in my mouth.
So to update, I've thoroughly read the STC position. Still not about it. This is a blanket opening of Wilderness areas after which land managers are forced to catch-up should they choose to enact restrictions again. The STC website directly refutes this, but it's their bill. I'm not convinced an argument similar to due process can't be argued down the road if Colorado riders start raising a stink that riders in Montana and Idaho have open access. There's a difference between starting at 0% and working your way up in areas where it makes sense, and starting at 100% and working your way down by being the sustainability police.
Seriously, don't try to qualify my riding from your armchair. I'm not going to argue about the definition of XC riding, it's already been beat to death. I said we're referencing different terrain. I'm talking trails that drop 5k+ vert feet in less than 5 miles and alpine tundra/crag with no track whatsoever. Come up to the Maroon Bells or West Elk Wilderness and we can ride our hardtails off some boulders.
There are really a lot of haters on IMBA's decision here and to you I ask is nothing sacred anymore? Wilderness is a sanctuary, a place to awaken that which is primal in us, a place for connecting with our true nature and humanity. Seeing the overwhelming majority of responses to this post makes me weep for the future.
You read all the comments and STILL don't understand that is exactly what the STC wants?
Bikes are mechanized beasts and have their place. I think the best laws are the simple ones. Wilderness = no mechanization. Preserve the experience for the next generations to come.
And think of it the other way... what if I'm out riding my bike peacefully and a group of hikers are spread out on the trail with headphones on and their dogs running amuck? It works both ways.
There are many areas where bikers were riding, and now the trails are wilderness study areas, so bikes are banned. Check out the 400+ miles of trails lost in MT like this. By all accounts, people saw a couple of hikers a year on these trails ... but now there are no bikes and just a few hikers.
If we (American people) want other people to be engaged in nature/wilderness and protect lands, the best way is to get people to use the lands. If there's a trail that isn't used much, is of a soil type that bikes (or horses) won't rut it out, then we should be letting the cyclists ride there.
And they don't have the funds or staff to do so, at least not outside the normal planning cycles (15 years for Forest Service).
In the interim that popular hiking trail would absolutely be at risk of becoming a downhill mtb trail.
Point being is that we should open wilderness areas to biking, but we should do it in a careful way that doesn't make the worst fears of the anti-bike crowd (at least a temporary) reality. And this bill is bad policy for exactly that reason.
If you are going to accuse me of unethical or misleading facts, you better know your history. You might be in favor of banning bikes from Wilderness--you have a right to your opinion--but the facts regarding the history of the Wilderness Act are the facts. They don't get to change simply because a contingent of Americans today do not want to share trails with mountain bikes.
People, especially snobby hikers, do not realize the efforts mountain bikers put into trails. wilderness trails are often extremely over grown and have tons of fallen trees and other debris. Horses do more damage than bikes and hikers do more damage as well. currently, even chainsaws for trail maintenance are forbidden. I'm not for more development of wilderness areas, but upkeep and safe access issues need to be developed further and allow more folks to use these designated areas.
Case by case approach makes the most sense. I don't want to ride my bike everywhere--heck, some of the Wilderness trails I've hiked would be down right awful on a bike. But a blanket ban is lazy, divisive, and in many cases simply unfair. There needs to be a change.
How about you give the guy a break and don't be so harsh?
Douche.
Wilderness is for us to enjoy in perpetuity. That’s it’s purpose.
People who think otherwise are just sociopaths. Like you.