Midwesterners Thoughts on MTBs and Wilderness?

[DH001]

If you haven't heard, there is currently a schism within the greater MTB community on how to address national level policy regarding mountain bikes in Wilderness areas. This was triggered by the recent Idaho Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness designation which resulted in the closure (to bikes) of many miles of backcountry alpine singletrack. There have been other instances where large amounts of trail have been lost to MTBers by wilderness designation and even proposed wilderness areas. It is expected more trails will be lost over time unless significant change happens at the federal level. IMBA has recently released statements reaffirming their commitment to the current status quo and will not support groups, like the Sustainable Trails Coalition, wanting to legally challenge a 1984 Forest Service decision that ultimately excluded bikes from wilderness areas. The original 1964 Wilderness act did not explicitly ban bike access and many argue mountain bikes would have been included along with other non-motorized forms of recreation had they existed when the law was drafted. Some of the murky history can be found here.

There have been recent polls which show a vast majority of the MTB respondents, 96%, support opening some Wilderness trails to mountain biking (as the STC proposes).

As someone from the Midwest, where the threat of trail loss by wilderness designation isn't a problem, what are you're thoughts on this issue? I know there are many of us who travel West and East to ride epic trails which may one day be affected.



National Level Positions on Bikes in Wilderness Areas:
IMBA: Exclude bikes from wilderness areas but work with involved parties for alternate land designations and buffer zones to save existing trail access.
Sustainable Trails Coalition: Allow bike access in wilderness areas on a case by case basis.

[Rage]

That's not an accurate description of the IMBA position. From the source: "IMBA's public policy strategies advocate that mountain biking, a low-impact, human-powered and quiet form of recreation, is an appropriate trail use on public lands and is consistent with the values of Wilderness land protection, which includes recreation in natural landscapes." See the full statement here: https://www.imba.com/resources/land-...rness-and-imba

Both organizations essentially have the same goal, which is to gain or maintain bike access in Wilderness areas where it makes sense. The difference is in their approach. I support the end goal of both groups and financially support both groups - they are not mutually exclusive.

Rg.

[DH001]

As far as I know, IMBA's most recent public statement is aligned closer with what I originally posted:

"Our public policy and advocacy efforts will focus on future Wilderness proposals and recommendations where mountain bike trail access could be lost, where viable alternative land protection designations are appropriate and where local IMBA chapters are present to perform volunteer trail stewardship. IMBA believes bicycle-friendly designations are better for the long-term conservation of our public lands, since they encourage mountain bike enthusiasts to advocate for conservation of public lands alongside other recreational users who share wildland values. IMBA will continue to respect both the Wilderness Act and the federal land agencies' regulations that bicycles are not allowed in existing Wilderness areas. This 2016 position strategically aligns with our well-established and relevant mission to create, enhance and preserve great mountain biking experiences." - IMBA’s 2016 Position on Land Protection and Mountain Bike Trail Access - 2/18/2016

I agree that both groups deserve support, but STC has the better long term strategy on this specific issue and is more closely aligned to how most mountain bikers feel about bikes in wilderness areas.

[darbobward]

I found this in Bike Mag http://www.bikemag.com/news/imbas-ne...W1mHECrvd0X.97

[Tigris99]

Personally I think by foot or by bike, we should have access. I've been watching this a little and I can't help but laugh at some of the stuff. So much higher impact activities are allowed but bikes aren't.

It comes down to the money and those in power, nothing more. How many reps, senators, etc are cyclists much less mountain bikers. Compare that against the rest of the lists of banned and not.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

[Russhole]

I have been reading up on this and I took it that IMBA was for trail access in wilderness areas just that they didn't want to put the effort toward it when there is a big enough fight trying to maintain what we already have and building new.

I personally feel that if there are roads for vehicles and paths for hikers in wilderness areas, how can a 2' wide bike path be bad?

[TSpice]

While I can't speak for those who are fighting for/against, my gut is telling me the issue is because someone with a powerful opinion got slighted in some way, shape, or form. That or they have a friend/relative that got slighted and complained to the individual with a powerful opinion.

I consider it similar to skateboarding. Skateboarding in itself promotes exercise, creativity, companionship with friends, competition with friends, and getting outside. The issue is with how some people do it, how some groups do it, and how some treat others while doing it.

Case and point: At Sunderbruch last fall, there was a person who I would consider "dangerous for our reputation." On Kickapoo Down, the descent leading to the parking lot, a crew in front of us hit it going full speed. I can't say I haven't hit it full speed myself, its fun, but certainly within control and I keep an eye out for hikers. Needless to say, there WERE two hikers climbing up Kickapoo Down. As far as I was aware, they weren't supposed to be climbing up it, but regardless, what happened next is the problem. When the guys in front of us blitzed past them with what looked like mere inches of clearance, the hikers let out a gasp and scream, and the rider just said over his shoulder, "Get out of the way! You don't belong here!"

^^ My guess, is the hikers in that situation likely left with a very foul taste in their mouth about Sunderbruch, and mountain bikers in general. That person may even went so far as to find somewhere to complain to.

Only takes a couple of clowns to ruin it for everyone. I highly doubt anyone has any issue with the respectful mountain bikers. The ones that take care of trails, take their trash out with them, and leave zero non-natural footprint behind. I don't think anyone cares about the "damage" a 2-4in tire can leave, its the damage the PEOPLE leave to the natural environment and to the non-biking people.

My $0.02.

[Vibrato]

Thread hijack continuation- I have a very difficult time when people who blatantly ignore trail etiquette are the victims and the person who was using the trails as intended was the bad person. While I recognize this could have been handled better, the people who have spent thousands of hours over the last 10 years and pretty respectable amounts of their own money to build the trails are happy to let hikers use them. All they/we ask in return is that they not use them when they are closed and that they follow the same use guidelines set up for everyone to avoid injuries. While a few bad apples could make all hikers look bad- we have reached a point where a few good apples are using properly and the masses are the bad apples.

It is incidents like this that make the HIKERS look bad- they were in the wrong and I hope they left with such a bad taste in their mouths that they either follow the signs or start staying on the blacktop trails. It sounds like they almost caused serious injuries to themselves and innocent trail users- something my patience has been thinning on for a very, very long time.

As for IMBA- IMHFO, they've become nothing more than a special interest lobbying group. The last time I tried to rejoin IMBA which was admittedly a few years ago, 60% of my fee was going to go to a club 100 miles away with 1 park and 5 miles of trail that doesn't allow membership to vote on their decisions or even attend their meetings- and none of my money would go to the 30 miles of trail and 4 parks (at that time) right here in the ole QCA because FORC wasn't really interested in becoming the latest incarnation of their subsidiary. (Something I personally supported, but clubs shouldn't be forced to do it or loose our local donations)

FORC recognizes that local trails are managed locally. You want to give money to an organization that has forsaken local trails unless you give them 12 grand to say "trails are possible" (duh) - with no actual trail design or layout- then support IMBA. You wanna support opening the wilderness areas- I encourage you to support STC, You want to build and manage trails locally- I encourage you to support FORC.

Look at the FORC home page on the left side- There is a reason more and more cities and groups are joining FORC for local help in getting trails started in their area- and it ain't just cause we drink good beer. Its because we build and support local trails- and TRAIL BUILDERS the way IMBA used to.

I know this isn't politically correct- If I have offended blame your parents for raising a sissy. LETS RIDE!!

[Vibrato]

Meh- the previous post sounded WAY more hater than was intended. IMBA still has really great info for setting up trails, trail ratings and helping get a basic grasp of such. The trails in this area would have had a MUCH harder time getting started had we not utilized the tools IMBA created back when they were still doing that stuff.

As a co-founder and former instructor for the FORC Mountain Bike Patrol, my only point was that they have moved from the ideals that made me such a strong supporter for so many years and I still hold those ideals as the basic truisms to build our sport.

Their changes... ain't changing me. I'm the cold hearted boy I used to be. Help me out. Yeaheeeeyeah. You know you gotta help me out.

Lately all my thoughts come back to Moab, baby. Moab.

[Guldy]

Don't agree an "us or them" schism exists. Very twisted to state IMBA is a proponent of Wilderness designations where we can't ride. Its just not applying $$$ at present to challenge that single special interest topic. BTW official Wilderness is a No Wheels policy -- no jeeps, wheelbarrows, quads, bikes, no deer/elk carts (first hand experience).

Been in well over a dozen official Wilderness areas and would love to ride 'em. I support STC on their Wilderness riding effort. And that is STCs entire existence. They dont do, nor are attempting to do, ANYTHING else for mtn biking. Nada. Zilch.

MTB is new (~25yrs) compared to horses & hiking of hundreds ++ years. IMBA, in coordination with local yokels, has Excellent success in an uphill battle to obtain access in all the BLM, USFS, USF&W lands in which there are now long-term agreements and long-term sustainable trail systems to ride.

IMBA provides continuous improvement in negotiation, communication and education. Strategic planning for the long haul with sustainable systems, trails, partnerships. IMBA Trail Care Crew, Trail Solutions, TKidMBD, Bike Patrol, coalesces industry support (Subaru, multiple bike co's, REI, etc), Destinations and Epics, Instructor programs, etc etc etc. IMBA does a LOT and has a full plate. Easy to take All that for granted -- out of sight out of mind.

IMBA is out there doing great things, though many services not readily applied in our area -- by our own doing. Agree local efforts accomplish local goals, yet do not understand how that equates to IMBA ineffectiveness.
The FORC Board of Directors has decided to not be affiliated with nor involve IMBA. And IMBA is respecting that decision. IMBA has limited resources and logically prioritizes them to clubs and trail systems that have Asked and Partnered for support, not to clubs that choose to do their own thing.

I support STCs one, single purpose -- mtn biking access in Wilderness areas. It is unfortunate that got twisted into an opportunity to dismiss everything IMBA has done, and will continue to do for Mtn Biking, long after STCs $140k is gone.

[jimithng23]

The FORC Board of Directors never decided to be unaffiliated with nor made a direct decision to not be involved with IMBA; rather I would contend it was the other way around. So in defense of The Board, I thought I would set that record straight.

I believe the timeline was fall/winter of 2012 (possibly 2011, but who's counting) as the club was considering moving forward with becoming an IMBA Chapter. Due to many reasons, the decision was made to not pursue Chapter status. I will say one of the driving reasons was the perception that IMBA could have cared less about FORC's consideration of the Chapter program due to the lack of communication and effort put towards the discussion from IMBA's standpoint.

That process, along with IMBA Trail Solutions outbidding private contractors for trail construction, has put a poor taste in many FORC member's collective mouths. Subsequently, IMBA's support and membership within FORC and the QCA has dwindled.

Right or wrong, that's what has transpired club-wise / board-wise in the last few years.

Now we see a group like SCT come along and really focus on this single issue - access to Wilderness Area - and have made it clear this is their sole purpose. IMBA is far-reaching, maybe even stretched a bit thin and with what's happened with FORC and IMBA in year's past, it's easy understand why SCT is being viewed as the organization who "gets" mountain bikers and their concerns.

Many believe IMBA has lost its way. Whether or not that's true, perception is reality and in many peep's reality SCT is speaking more for the little guy at this point in time.