Controversy in the Ranks: MTBAccess Forms out of Malcontent with IMBA

[Kingbozo]

Very interesting article. Give it a read and comment if you feel so inclined.

http://www.dirtragmag.com/articles/article.php?ID=473&category=departments

[gopherhockey]

I read this... not sure what to comment on it though. IMBA seems to think that a little competition is good... however, I do think if bikers become split it can't be good overall for the sport.

Maybe the two orgs will keep each other honest and working harder - who knows.

[Kingbozo]

Well I think the obvious problem is that IMBA really hasn't accomplished a whole lot on the trail access issue, which is arguably one of the most important issues the sport faces right now.

I thought it was interesting that Flint essentially said that siding with the environmentalists by default might not be the best plan.

BTW, the last issue of Bicycling had a great article on the trail access WAR going on in Marin county. Ugly ugly ugly.

[TrailPatrol]

Originally posted by Tom S.
They'd even like to not allow for search and rescue with vehicles from some articles I've read on the web.

There is a provision in the original wilderness legislation for "emergency vehicular access." Some more radical organizations may think that they want no vehicles in the wilderness, until the shoe is on the other, broken foot. Take the BWCA for example; Because of the state of emergency that existed after the July 4, 1999 storm, helicopters, floatplanes, ATVs and even chainsaws :shocked: were used in the wilderness. This is the norm in an emergency, and I doubt it will change much, because of the huge liability issues that arise when a search and/or rescue is not undertaken for a missing or injured party.

I have to agree with Gary Sprung though, that I would not want to be too quick to form alliances with the ATV/dirt bike folks. That would give the antis even more ammo against mountain bikers.

Ride safe,
Hans

[manual63]

This is typical to a growing organization or cause. If you look at history, you will see most start up organizations evolved to something else, usually for the better, and then went on to help the cause.

What happens is that an organization starts off strong and then weakens and gets comfortable with what they have done. Some people don't like it and reorganize to push the cause further. Very typical. Whether the IMBA is doing it's job or not, I don't know, but appearantly some people don't think they are.

Hopefully it does not ruin the original cause to help create environmentally safe trails and keep them.

[Don Youngdahl]

First the standard disclaimer- these are my own opinions and not those of MORC or it's Board.

When I first heard of MTBAccess several weeks ago, I thought "Oh, good - that's all we need, a mountain bike equivalent of Earth First! or Critical Mass." But after I read the well reasoned position of MTBAccess, I think they may well be on the right track. This article brought to mind a letter (posted below) that I wrote last December to Gary Sprung of IMBA, with copies to the entire IMBA Board of Directors.

If you compare my letter to what MTBAccess is saying, you'll see
some common concerns. My letter received only one response, from a new member of the IMBA Board, who still apparently thinks IMBA leadership should respond to concerns from the ranks, even if our positions differ. Lest you think my letter was too confrontational, the reply said "...it was nice to get something that was well reasoned and at least offered some alternatives...".

IMBA's general failure to respond to my letter does seem to be an indication that IMBA is reluctant to address the problem of how vigorously to deal with the wilderness issue, and other threats to land access.

IMBA does very good work on supporting local advocacy, trail development, and helping "sell" mountain biking to local land managers, but I do believe they are serioiusly lacking in access advocacy for federal lands.

Don Youngdahl

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter to Gary Sprung IMBA Senior National Policy Advisor

Gary,

I'm an IMBA member and on the Board of Directors of MORC, Minnesota Off-road Cyclists, an IMBA affiliate. My comments reflect my own personal views, and **not** the views of the MORC Board. I'm also the outgoing Government Relations Officer for ARMCA (Amateur Riders Motorcycle Association), AMA District 23.

I read with interest your press release regarding the new Working Agreement with wilderness advocacy groups. I take issue with the statement that "Since most mountain bike enthusiasts support protection of primitive federal lands through Wilderness and other designations.......". Many mountain bikers of my acquaintance are current or former dirt bike riders, who are well aware that proliferation of Wilderness designations are a significant threat to motorized recreational access in the western states, and are also aware that mountain bikes are not allowed in Wilderness areas.

The press release contains lots of idealistic and high sounding rhetoric about mutual trust and cooperation, but nowhere do I see any indication of wilderness advocacy group support for modifying Wilderness rules to allow mountain bikes, when deemed appropriate, in Wilderness areas. Nor do I see any promises that wilderness advocates will respect already established mountain bike use when promoting their Wilderness schemes. Vague statements expressing "a willingness to compromise where feasible" mean little or nothing to zealots seeking to force their anti-recreation and anti-people vision on the American public. If you look at the history of Wilderness politics, I think it is quite naive to believe that IMBA can have any mitigating impact on the historic anti-access position of these groups.

A better alternative than getting in bed with the Wilderness groups would be to consider the Back Country designation proposal advocated by the Blue Ribbon Coalition and other groups friendly to recreational access. A "middle ground" designation that protects back county areas from commercial and extractive industry development, yet allows controlled and managed recreational access (both motorized and non-motorized) is sorely needed.

If mountain bikers were aware of the Back Country designation concept, I believe they would strongly prefer that possible option to the uphill fight to maintain our access to public lands that exists now in many areas.

Sincerely,

Don Youngdahl

___________________________
Visualize Whirled Peas

[martini]

I read the article as well, and was quite impressed with the image put forth by the MTBAccess group. Well reasoned, inciteful, and while obviously in disagreement with IMBA, not 'violently' so. They feel that IMBA could be doing a better job. I tend to agree. BUT I'm not abondoning IMBA, I'm still a member and will remain so. I may join MTBAccess as well though. Remains to be seen. Conversely, I was put off by the response by IMBA. They were defensive of thier policies, offened at the thought that someone thought they were in the wrong, or not doing enough. The killer was the last quote for me. Can't remember it now, but it was something to the effect of "We don't need help in our batlle, and we won't accept it." If I was a new MTBer looking for some thing to support, my money would be going to MTBAccess.

One thing that desperately needs changing though is Wilderness designation. Gary Spring a few years ago had an article in Dirt Rag(god, that magazine RULES) that had proposed changes for Wilderness desgination. It was set up as:

Wilderness level 1: No human admittance for recreational purpose
Wilderness level 2: Human and horse/pack animal admittance only
Wilderness level 3: Foot, Horse, and MTB access, NO motorized use


Sounds pretty similar to the 'Backcountry' designation offered up by Don. Personally, I woudn't mind sharing with Motorized users on trails. The trails I've ridden that were shared use were some of the best trails I've ridden. They've also been some of the worst(from a construction/maintenance POV).

Wilderness designation is a good thing. Protection of our resources is a great thing. The manner in which it is currently done needs to be changed desperately. Back in the day when Wilderness was dreamt up, it worked, but, as in many aspects of life, the American idea of recreation has changed, and the manner in which we recreate has changed dramatically. Designation of recreation opportunities needs to change in order to keep up with current recreation habits.

[gopherhockey]

I'm still not sure where I sit on this issue. IMBA has really stepped in here in our area and helped out with our access issues... at least we wouldn't be where we are today at places like Lebanon without their trail schools coming in and teaching land managers. I know there are much larger issues that are more visible, but when you see how IMBA has helped kick start the efforts of MORC you have to beleive they are still doing something right.

This doesn't mean that anyone is perfect though... every group out there can do better. Even MORC could do better, and we'll keep trying. I hope nobody ever accuses MORC of not listening or doing their best, even if they don't agree as to the methods.

I think I'll sit back and wait to see if MTBAccess can actually come through with results. Generallly I think competition is a good thing, but if two organizatinos form around our sport and they differ significantly we'll end up with mixed messages. I am not sure how land managers would react to mixed messages... I know Dakota believes in IMBA and in turn believes in MORC and so on.

I haven't paid as much attention to the larger access issues that seem to be their real concern though... it seems like we still have some of the smaller battles to worry about as well.