REVIEWS DEALS BIKESHOPS TRAILS

The Wilderness Debate

15424 Views 266 Replies 65 Participants Last post by 11 Bravo, May 14, 2010

Ride Wilderness

Discussion Starter · Mar 2, 2010

Hello Fellow MTB'ers:

I wanted to gauge a group opinion of a brewing idea.

As many of you know, the #1 threat to mountain biking in the United States is the Wilderness Act of 1964. In short, the Act prohibits "mechanized travel" within designated Wilderness areas, which many believe to mean only motorized in the original spirit of the law. Bikes were allowed in Wilderness areas until the early 1980's until the Forest Service began interpreting the Act to include mountain bikes. There is significant evidence to support the use of mountain bikes within Wilderness areas, not the least of which is other mechanized travel being allowed (ski bindings, rafting, etc) and the fact that mountain bikes had not been invented in 1964.

Fundamentally, this has put mountain bikers at odds with the Wilderness System. I would bet at least 95% of mountain bikers conceptually support the preservation of wild lands, but have trouble supporting a system that shuts them out permanently to those lands on their mountain bikes. The Wilderness lobby advertise their intent as preserving our cherished lands from the long arm of the extractive industries (gas/oil, mining, logging) and development (roads, construction, etc) with no inherent issue with mountain bikers. That sounds great, but the fact is when an area is designated Wilderness we are OUT. Forever.

IMBA plays an important role in mountain bike advocacy, but has publicly stated that the Wilderness Act is impossible to amend....certainly through legislative channels....and especially given the "green" lobby. IMBA has taken on an important role in proactively fighting to keep access, redraw Wilderness boundaries and promoting new trail construction. Unfortunately, their budget (and subsequent mandate) doesn't leave much to take on the enormous Wilderness lobby and an army of "green" lawyers.

This leads me to ask, why must mountain bikers settle for second class status on federal lands? The Forest Service has found mountain biking to be no more of an impact than hiking, yet we are not allowed in the same wild places. How do you feel about a new organization, separate from IMBA, whose sole purpose is to legally challenge the Wilderness Act of 1964? No trail construction clinics, advocacy road shows or significant infrastructure....just a simple, legal entity dedicated to winning our right to ride mountain bikes in Wilderness. Would you support an organization like this? Would you support it financially?

Sound off. Would love to hear from the stakeholders here.

Ride Wilderness

See less See more

1 - 20 of 267 Posts

Howeler

· #2 · Mar 2, 2010

It would take millions and millions of dollars for any affective lobby efforts - and the mountain bike community isn't really that large of a user group.

All for it though.

Ride Wilderness

Discussion Starter · #3 · Mar 2, 2010

Howeler said:
It would take millions and millions of dollars for any affective lobby efforts - and the mountain bike community isn't really that large of a user group.

All for it though.

I agree, I think a lobbying/legislative path is a lost cause. What I am suggesting is a legal path through the courts.

Harold

· #4 · Mar 2, 2010

I think your premise is a bit off.

As many of you know, the #1 threat to mountain biking in the United States is the Wilderness Act of 1964.

That may be true on a local basis in some specific areas, but none of the places that I have lived.

And being in an academic environment, I will say this to you. Do NOT invent statistics to support your claim. If you're going to make a statement, you NEED references to back it up. Posting a poll on this site doesn't count. I don't know how you'd poll a respective cross-section of mountain bikers on this issue, either. Mayhaps it can't be done with the rigor you would need. The Wilderness advocates will take you apart if you make $hit up.

Alternate organizations have been tried before, and failed (MTBAccess?). IIRC, MTBAccess supported the use of legal action. I don't know of anything they ever got done, however.

I won't support an organization unless I know it's going to be effective.

I support IMBA (not constantly, but I do throw them money from time to time) because it has been effective at promoting standards and proven methods to improve trail quality and quantity.

How is your org going to prove to me that it is worth my money? Are you going to show me a list of lawyers working towards your cause? How about some legal documents supporting your efforts? If I had the cash and I could be certain you were serious, I'd front some cash to get the efforts started. But I don't have the sort of startup cash you'd need to get the ball rolling. If you'd find someone to donate legal help to get you started, that'd be great.

See less See more

cruso414

· #5 · Mar 2, 2010

I would definitely support it financially and any other way I could.

89hawk

· #6 · Mar 2, 2010

Look at Blue Ribbon
http://www.sharetrails.org/

They fight to keep land open to all users. I am a member.

One Pivot

· #7 · Mar 2, 2010

we should find a dirty, sneaky backhanded way to loophole the law and get an amendment on a rider bill to allow mountain biking in wilderness areas. thats how you get politics done in america!

... partial joke, partial sad truth :lol:

fesch

· #8 · Mar 2, 2010

I think supporting IMBA is the best overall choice. Perhaps they can't get wilderness opened up, but they help keeping national forests from closing off. They have a lot of credibility built up over time, and work (however slow and resource constrained) to enlarge the number of places mountain bikers can ride.

Ride Wilderness

Discussion Starter · #9 · Mar 2, 2010

NateHawk said:
I think your premise is a bit off.

That may be true on a local basis in some specific areas, but none of the places that I have lived.

And being in an academic environment, I will say this to you. Do NOT invent statistics to support your claim. If you're going to make a statement, you NEED references to back it up. Posting a poll on this site doesn't count. I don't know how you'd poll a respective cross-section of mountain bikers on this issue, either. Mayhaps it can't be done with the rigor you would need. The Wilderness advocates will take you apart if you make $hit up.

Alternate organizations have been tried before, and failed (MTBAccess?). IIRC, MTBAccess supported the use of legal action. I don't know of anything they ever got done, however.

I won't support an organization unless I know it's going to be effective.

I support IMBA (not constantly, but I do throw them money from time to time) because it has been effective at promoting standards and proven methods to improve trail quality and quantity.

How is your org going to prove to me that it is worth my money? Are you going to show me a list of lawyers working towards your cause? How about some legal documents supporting your efforts? If I had the cash and I could be certain you were serious, I'd front some cash to get the efforts started. But I don't have the sort of startup cash you'd need to get the ball rolling. If you'd find someone to donate legal help to get you started, that'd be great.

Regarding your comments on a well-staffed legal team and an organized approach, we couldn't be more in agreement. Our goal is not to mount the legal battle here, our goal in this forum is to hear what people think of the concept. I think you're spot on as to what this organization needs to be.

Ride Wilderness

Discussion Starter · #10 · Mar 2, 2010

fesch said:
I think supporting IMBA is the best overall choice. Perhaps they can't get wilderness opened up, but they help keeping national forests from closing off. They have a lot of credibility built up over time, and work (however slow and resource constrained) to enlarge the number of places mountain bikers can ride.

I think continued support for IMBA is essential. What I'm proposing here is a parallel effort that tries to accomplish what they cannot and keeps them insulated as a cooperative organization.

Something for everyone to consider: this is how the Wilderness community plays ball. They utilize the courts when they feel their goals have not been satisfied by the federal land managers.

elder_mtber

· #11 · Mar 2, 2010

89hawk said:
Look at Blue Ribbon
http://www.sharetrails.org/

They fight to keep land open to all users. I am a member.

Me too.

Terry

KRob

· #12 · Mar 2, 2010

fesch said:
I think supporting IMBA is the best overall choice. Perhaps they can't get wilderness opened up, but they help keeping national forests from closing off. They have a lot of credibility built up over time, and work (however slow and resource constrained) to enlarge the number of places mountain bikers can ride.

I agree. Donate directly to their legal fund and talk a couple million of your buddies to kick in $100 each and that will start to make a dent. Even with that much money we're still out-financed by the Sierra Club. Call me pessimistic.

Money is what makes things happen (sad but true). Put enough money behind the initiative and even bikes in wilderness could become a reality.

reed523

· #13 · Mar 3, 2010

Short answer: No i wouldn't support an additional group especially one attempting to go through the legal system.

Good discussion topic though so here's my 2 cents:
-The IMBA certainly isn't the do all for all organization we all envision in our dreams but i think they do alot more harm than good. I'd also like to think (hope) they are becoming more effective as the organization matures.

-This crazy idea of throwing money at Washington to solve problems has to stop at some point. I'd much rather win friends by changing peoples lives one at a time by getting them on bikes and then let them have a go at their representatives.

-I'd love to have access to "big W" wilderness. Last semester i took a grad class on "The Wilderness Act" and it was quite a learning experience. I'm still not pleased that i can't ride my bike in these areas (especially when horses are allowed) but at least i understand the history and some of the reasoning. For me, the ideas of leaving the land untrammeled, with "man's work substantially unnoticeable", and allowing for "outstanding opportunities of solitude" are valid enough that i'm ok riding elsewhere.

-My perspective is possibly jaded because of my geographic location. Oklahoma has 3 Wilderness areas. Equal or superior riding is available nearby in all 3 cases, so for us, it isn't an issue of lack of access to quality riding. Understanding of course, that "quality riding" is a relative term

Oh to live where some of you people do!!

See less See more

Sasquatch

· #14 · Mar 3, 2010

elder_mtber said:
Me too.

Terry

I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.

Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?

Skookum

· #15 · Mar 3, 2010

Sasquatch said:
I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.

Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?

i agree that mt. bikers shouldn't pigeon hole themselves in alignment with motos. Just as we shouldn't get too cozy with hiker groups either. Both have their own primary agenda's that usually conflict with what mt. bikers want.

To put it simply Hiker groups are the Hatfields and Moto groups are the McCoys. There are tons of folk, probably Sasquatch himself that don't want anything to do with motos. Hiker green folk can't stand them and put down conditions against a group like lowly mt. bikers. If'n we catch you "cavortin" with dem McCoys we'll shoot yer dawg...

This might seem funny, but what's not funny is how true it is.

But this is moving away from topic a bit, i agree a bit with Sasquatch that mt. bikers should not throw in all their cards with any particular group but where i diverge from his stance is we need to take more stock on our own. Mt. biker groups need to stick up for mt. biker interests. We do need representation that does build relations, but not relations that are built on conditions that give the mt. bike lobby no teeth or claws.

See less See more

Harold

· #16 · Mar 3, 2010

Sasquatch said:
I stay far away from the Blue Ribbon Coalition. It's foolish to put Mountain biking in a coalition with motorized vehicles. I consider myself a hiker on wheels, not a quiet motorcyclist. We need to build relationships with hikers, not motorcyclists if we are to convince Congress to allow bikes in Wilderness.

Do you also support opening Wilderness to motorbikes and ATV use?

+2

-My perspective is possibly jaded because of my geographic location. Oklahoma has 3 Wilderness areas. Equal or superior riding is available nearby in all 3 cases, so for us, it isn't an issue of lack of access to quality riding. Understanding of course, that "quality riding" is a relative term Oh to live where some of you people do!!

Don't let your location distant from most wide open spaces jade you. Many hiking groups and Wilderness advocates HATE bikes and use Wilderness designations as a tool to get us off the trails. I don't pretend to believe that all trails should be open to bikes, but this method is sneaky and underhanded. Getting the interpretation (a simple majority decision) on the ban on "mechanized" travel fixed would remove that tool from their toolbox. I am pretty sure it'd take some of the steam out of the people who use that as a tool...but then Wilderness advocates who actually care about preservation of wild lands would gain many more mountain bikers as supporters.

Skookum

· #17 · Mar 3, 2010

reed523 said:
Good discussion topic though so here's my 2 cents:

Even though i don't really agree with alot of what you say i really like your responses.

But first, if this group was on the up and up, i personally know lots of people that would support it. And if it passed the smell test i would personally promote it. i honestly don't have a clue of how feasible this notion is, but there... i played along.

reed523 said:
-This crazy idea of throwing money at Washington to solve problems has to stop at some point. I'd much rather win friends by changing peoples lives one at a time by getting them on bikes and then let them have a go at their representatives.

i really really really like this response.:thumbsup: i'm not going to say kill the lobbying, but i see all groups get so top heavy they forget to provide the fundamental basics. Part of that is to have some fun! Promoting the positive aspect of mt. biking with up to date unfiltered information, providing sustainable support within stewardship efforts, all things that are weak links on the chain of advocacy from where i see things. We don't have to be super awesome at everything, but we shouldn't suck as much as we do either.
Not every problem is so simple but i am a believer that if we streamline our efforts in nurturing more aware riders, refine our networks, and be good at being ready to focus the energy that is harnessed from that.
Well i know from personal experience, that it's possible, and fruitful.

reed523 said:
For me, the ideas of leaving the land untrammeled, with "man's work substantially unnoticeable", and allowing for "outstanding opportunities of solitude" are valid enough that i'm ok riding elsewhere.

Not for me. i could debate each point at length but i'll spare both of us, and simply say mt. bikes are a great low impact way to recreate, and appreciate a quiet non-motorized nature experience.

See less See more

GregB406

· #18 · Mar 3, 2010

I understand the need for a parallel organization and I would support it. this would be no different than enviromental types belonging to a variety of organizations in order to satisfy their diverse interests.

It would be healthy to fully explore the wilderness act and it's restrictions. And also the present Forest Service definition of mechanised use. We can debate the many details here on this thread, or not. But the question needs to be brought forth nationally once again. IMBA will not do it. At least in the present. So someone else may try.

The Wilderness movement is well funded and very arrogant. Many wilderness professionals will read this thread, and I will catch hell from them in the future for writing this, as I am being monitored. As more wilderness is designated without making adequate consessions to the modest bicyclist requests, the entire wilderness movement becomes poorer for it and the growing trend to question the Act becomes stronger.

The Wilderness Act is perfect, or just about perfect. The way it is being applied and used as the only viable land conservation option is far from perfect though, and that is where we all are losing.

See less See more

Ride Wilderness

Discussion Starter · #19 · Mar 3, 2010

reed523 said:
Short answer: No i wouldn't support an additional group especially one attempting to go through the legal system.

Good discussion topic though so here's my 2 cents:
-The IMBA certainly isn't the do all for all organization we all envision in our dreams but i think they do alot more harm than good. I'd also like to think (hope) they are becoming more effective as the organization matures.

-This crazy idea of throwing money at Washington to solve problems has to stop at some point. I'd much rather win friends by changing peoples lives one at a time by getting them on bikes and then let them have a go at their representatives.

-I'd love to have access to "big W" wilderness. Last semester i took a grad class on "The Wilderness Act" and it was quite a learning experience. I'm still not pleased that i can't ride my bike in these areas (especially when horses are allowed) but at least i understand the history and some of the reasoning. For me, the ideas of leaving the land untrammeled, with "man's work substantially unnoticeable", and allowing for "outstanding opportunities of solitude" are valid enough that i'm ok riding elsewhere.

-My perspective is possibly jaded because of my geographic location. Oklahoma has 3 Wilderness areas. Equal or superior riding is available nearby in all 3 cases, so for us, it isn't an issue of lack of access to quality riding. Understanding of course, that "quality riding" is a relative term Oh to live where some of you people do!!

A few responses:

- IMBA has given up on changing the Wilderness Act. They do an admirable job of working to redraw lines and find compromise, but make no mistake, we are at the negotiating table as a second class user group. I like what they do, but we're losing the larger battle. Bit by bit, year by year we are losing amazing wild places to ride that as of today, we will NEVER ride in again.

- I don't quite understand the recurring theme of "throwing money", and in other posts, any reference to a lobbying effort. This idea is that of mounting a legal challenge, not a legislative movement. Yes, it would most certainly cost money, but not as wasted lobbying /special interest money.

Thor29

· #20 · Mar 3, 2010

I'm okay with not riding mountain bikes in Wilderness Areas.
Designating an area as a Wilderness protects the area from the mining and timber industries which is much more important than being able to ride my bike there.

I used to live in Colorado and there were plenty of trails without having access to the few designated Wilderness Areas. (Although it would be nice to be able to ride the entire Colorado Trail without having to skirt Wilderness Areas).

Now that I live in San Francisco, the number of singletrack trails I can ride is very limited and this is not due to Wilderness designation. It's all local politics. If you can't find any decent trails in Marin County (the supposed birthplace of modern mountain biking) then I'm guessing the mountain bike advocacy groups are so weak an arthritic hamster could stomp them to death. (Metaphorically speaking anyway. I wouldn't want to upset any hamster wranglers out there).

1 - 20 of 267 Posts

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