Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Another huge imba fail?

3K views 21 replies 15 participants last post by  rockman 
#1 ·

A "multi-use trail" being built by a group of people who love the outdoors.

Why doesn't imba jump on this? Where's their involvement? That's right, trying to figure out how to keep mountain biking off of wilderness areas and out of big projects that would make us look good?

Lets hear your thoughts.

Ttyl, Fahn
 
#20 ·
Just a guess but IMBA probably isn't involved because none of the advocacy groups making it happen are affiliated with IMBA.

Regardless of how folks feel about IMBA they have done lots of good things for communities and trails elsewhere. Or, is this just post just intended to be a bash IMBA thread?
They have done some good things. But when viewed against the resources and opportunities they've had, they have done very poorly. And they're still on that path.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stillkeen
#10 ·
I always thought IMBA was great, until the whole sustainable trails stuff highlighted what IMBA were doing with giving up thousands of miles of trails to get to keep a few miles elsewhere. And then to publicly criticize STC etc. I'd rather IMBA fought harder for more trails, even if they lost some. But to just give-up. They didn't work to mobilize members/mountain bikers to bombard every planning or management board meeting with letters of support for new trails etc. Get 100k letters of support from all over the country sent to every new trail they're trying to secure. Throw 100k supporters behind STC etc.

Since then, I've financially supported STC and SBTS (plus a few other local organizations when they do the lotteries to win a bike type thing).
 
#13 ·
I always thought IMBA was great, until the whole sustainable trails stuff highlighted what IMBA were doing with giving up thousands of miles of trails to get to keep a few miles elsewhere. And then to publicly criticize STC etc. I'd rather IMBA fought harder for more trails, even if they lost some. But to just give-up. They didn't work to mobilize members/mountain bikers to bombard every planning or management board meeting with letters of support for new trails etc. Get 100k letters of support from all over the country sent to every new trail they're trying to secure. Throw 100k supporters behind STC etc.

Since then, I've financially supported STC and SBTS (plus a few other local organizations when they do the lotteries to win a bike type thing).
IMO, the whole push towards so called “sustainable trails” set the sport of Mountain Biking back 20 years. As @stillkeen said in his post, it resulted in thousands of miles of trails to be closed off and caused a lot of frustration at the local level. At least in our area it coincided with a large rise in the creation of illicit trails as people got fed up with all of the road blocks.
 
#15 ·
I don’t understand why anyone would still send STC money.*

Their goal (Wilderness Access) will never happen now.

*For the record: I’ve donated to them multiple times; eBikes have made those donations pointless. Wilderness will never be legal to cyclists with the proliferation of eBikes.

Also, sorry, not interested in funding what will be designated a motorized trail, and will almost certainly have idiots in side-by-sides on it within the first month of opening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#18 ·
Also, sorry, not interested in funding what will be designated a motorized trail, and will almost certainly have idiots in side-by-sides on it within the first month of opening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-Every single-track trail I've ridden in the Downieville area is not navigable by a side-by-side........
 
#16 ·
Agreed (no point giving to STC now, and they even say not to send more money I think), STC was doing what IMBA should have done 10 or 20 years earlier. Fixing the change that blocked bikes from wilderness. But yeah, e-bikes are replacing bikes, so not going to happen now. Still irks me that there's thousands of miles in Wilderness Study Area's that have essentially old gravel/logging/haul roads in the, and we can't go bikepacking there ... but you can take 100 horses through there in the middle of winter and rut out the trail and poop all over the place. The rules are not about protecting wilderness.

These days, I'm all about Sierra Trails and other smaller organizations doing local trails. IMBA do not represent my views/desires for biking, and won't see any money from me at all.
 
#17 ·
E bikes are motor bikes (bikes with motors), and the bike industry is doing all of us regular bikers a disservice by claiming e bikes are not motor bikes. The industry push for more money is selling out their base and giving bikers a bad name. The solution is for everyone to treat e bikes as motorized vehicles (which they obviously are) and keep them on the millions of miles of motorized trails/dirt roads. Then it would be easier to build more truly non motorized trails since e bikes would be clearly excluded. Because of the Forest Service's endless network of dirt roads, motorized vehicles like e bikes have millions of beautiful miles to choose from, but e bike advocates are greedy about trail access and demand to be allowed on non motorized trails (with their motors). There are far more miles of motorized trails and dirt roads than non motorized. E bikers and e bike makers should be content to use those and allow non motorized bikers and hikers to use non motorized trails.
 
#21 · (Edited)
Legitimately curious. Is this just a general critique of E-bikes as related to access issues, or is it also related the OP's question?

I don't think that Santa Cruz Bicycles is selling out their base and giving bikers a bad name on this issue, even though they are promoting their E-bikes and simultaneously supporting the SBTS and their effort to support their local communities with their project in this video - (trigger warning, this video has E-bikes in it)->

Thoughts?

 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top