[geargrrl]

Important Forest Service Wilderness Meeting in Wenatchee, Feb. 23

IMBA encourages mountain bikers to attend an important public meeting co-hosted by the Wenatchee and Okanogan National Forests on Feb. 23 in Wenatchee. The Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee and the Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee will meet to discuss which Forest Service roadless areas will become Recommended Wilderness, a precursor to possible formal Wilderness designation.

Mountain bike advocates should ask the Committees and Forest Service to protect roadless areas in a way that will allow our activity to continue. Currently, 37 roadless areas are being considered for designation as Recommended Wilderness. Most National Forests allow mountain biking in Recommended Wilderness, but if those areas become federally designated Wilderness, our activity will be banned.

Please let the Forest Service know you support our continued use of backcountry areas. Mountain biking is a quiet, human-powered, low-impact activity compatible with protected lands. If you plan on attending, please contact IMBA Policy Analyst Drew Vankat for additional information.

Meeting Date, Time and Location

Friday, February 23. 9am - 4pm

Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest Headquarters Office
215 Melody Lane
Wenatchee, WA 98801

Talking Points

Mountain bikers support land preservation that allows bicycling to continue.
Areas with important mountain biking trails may be better suited for protection as Backcountry Area, Wild Lands, or other administrative designations.
Please partner with local mountain bikers to identify important trails that should be preserved.
Formal Wilderness is not the only option for lasting land preservation. Congress may also enact National Scenic Areas, Protection Areas and other designations that protect valuable natural resources and allow our existing use to continue.

 

[ridetilludie]

Formal wilderness designation is the aim of the WTA and their allies. They are not mtn bikers friends. They work to ban other user groups.

All mechanized vehicles this means mtn bikes. Like it or not ORV groups and others like them (Blueribbon Coalition) work for users rights. These are the groups mtn bikers should be aligning with.

Don't work for those who shut you out of the woods. They may give you lip service to your face but they are trying to get your user group banned from federal land.

 

[Skookum]

agreed, Wilderness designation sucks, is not bike friendly. It's just a way for hikers to kick everyone out so they can have solitude.

BRC is a good club to belong to if you believe we should be able to recreate and not be so busy kicking other user groups out of OUR forests.

 

[Dave_Schuldt]

Problem is a wilderness designation seems like the only shure way to prevent logging and development. Is this true? Is there some designation that keeps land off limits to comercial use that's not wilderness? There's a "wise use" movement out there, they may have hidden agendas so be careful.

 

[Skookum]

Problem is a wilderness designation seems like the only shure way to prevent logging and development. Is this true? Is there some designation that keeps land off limits to comercial use that's not wilderness? There's a "wise use" movement out there, they may have hidden agendas so be careful.

What if we don't care if they have logging and really there is no such thing as development way out in the sticks that the government want's to pay for. Other than a lodge or cabin.

Washington State has already been clearcut, so now we have super thick unhealthy forest we should now ban logging, including thinning to prevent diseased timber and huge forest fires?

The logic of hands off to undo the wrongs that were done to the forests in the last century is a ruse to simply kick other user groups out of the forest, no more, no less.

You can't even bring a chainsaw into Wilderness to just clear trail. It's out of whack to have more Wilderness than what already exists now.

It's my stance that forests we have should be inclusive so that many more people can not only recreate and enjoy them. But with that, have more cause to respect the environment that they are able to recreate in. Hikers, campers, climbers, mt. bikers, equestrians, hunters, fishermen, atv and moto users.

And as a mt. biker i have a total interest in not losing some of the best singletrack riding in the world. Wilderness should be renamed to Closed, because beyond the philisophical and political stances, for mt. bikers that's what it means.

 

[roundnround]

Geargrll, a few Seattle side folk will be heading out to Wenatchee to attend and comment. Do you know if bikers from the Spokane area are attending the Wenatchee meeting?

And do you know if folks have done research on specific trails that would be threatened if these Roadless Areas become Wilderness? I get the impression it's a lot, but I'm not all that familiar with those areas.

 

[MinorThreat]

What if we don't care if they have logging and really there is no such thing as development way out in the sticks that the government want's to pay for. Other than a lodge or cabin.

Washington State has already been clearcut, so now we have super thick unhealthy forest we should now ban logging, including thinning to prevent diseased timber and huge forest fires?

The logic of hands off to undo the wrongs that were done to the forests in the last century is a ruse to simply kick other user groups out of the forest, no more, no less.

You can't even bring a chainsaw into Wilderness to just clear trail. It's out of whack to have more Wilderness than what already exists now.

It's my stance that forests we have should be inclusive so that many more people can not only recreate and enjoy them. But with that, have more cause to respect the environment that they are able to recreate in. Hikers, campers, climbers, mt. bikers, equestrians, hunters, fishermen, atv and moto users.

And as a mt. biker i have a total interest in not losing some of the best singletrack riding in the world. Wilderness should be renamed to Closed, because beyond the philisophical and political stances, for mt. bikers that's what it means.

Thank you Skookum. You've voiced what's been in my head for a long time about this. I'm getting tired of people putting my money where their mouth is, trying to use the system to push various user groups out of public lands.

The National Forests were established on a multiple-use credo. "The Greatest good for the greatest number." Gifford Pinchot would turn over in his grave to know how that's being misused now.

That's the reason that one of the only environmental organizations I support is the Nature Conservancy. They at least are willing to pony up their own money to set aside lands.

 

[geargrrl]

Geargrll, a few Seattle side folk will be heading out to Wenatchee to attend and comment. Do you know if bikers from the Spokane area are attending the Wenatchee meeting?

And do you know if folks have done research on specific trails that would be threatened if these Roadless Areas become Wilderness? I get the impression it's a lot, but I'm not all that familiar with those areas.

Hi - I do not know if anyone is coming over from this side. I posted that as a public service because I get all that stuff from IMBA

. We've got riders sitting in on issues involving the same kinds of things with the Colville forest here in WA and Panhandle and CDA forests in Idaho.

gg

 

[geargrrl]

Problem is a wilderness designation seems like the only shure way to prevent logging and development. Is this true? Is there some designation that keeps land off limits to comercial use that's not wilderness? There's a "wise use" movement out there, they may have hidden agendas so be careful.

There's National Recreation Area, trail corridors and a few other ideas that have a lot of potential... it's getting the managers to see that they are viable. The IMBA site has some really good stuff on talking points for wilderness.

 

[Borneo]

You go grrl.

See ya in July. If not sooner...