Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by ?????, Nov 17, 2008.
Post up if you are a member and your reason for joining.
Please register to disable this ad.
how about my reasons for NOT joining, mainly that many members are rabidly anti-mountain bike and much of the legislation that they sponsor, especially in California,is aimed at keeping mountain bikers out, or taking away historical access that bikers have had.
No shyitzu they are bad for the whole world eefff the sierra club and any more granola clubs
I love granola
the sierra club is anti wheel.
the Sierra Club can suck my .........
Anti wheel , anti ski , anti fun
Why can't we get permits to hunt sierra club members?
Over population, detrimental to their surroundings, and are eating Whole Foods out of Granola as we speak.
They must be stopped.
How does the Sierra Club feel about those that kayak and canoe and vice versa?
Do I look/sound like a member?
I would assume they're opposed to it as you might accidentally hit a fish with your boat, or dislodge some marine algae, or offend some little bird that lives on the shore.
Those hippies should burn in a hell!!!!! Actually they should be held responsible for several of these CA fires where homes are damaged. For some reason they have a problem with home owners keeping brush cleared away from properties in the mountain areas. Tahoe was hit hard last year because people like the Sierra club would bitched when people wanted to remove the extra brush, etc around the surrounding areas. Keeping the brush cleared and removing unnecessary trees may have saved many homes.
I developed a negative view of the Sierra Club because of off-roading in my Jeep, but wasn't sure how mountain bikers felt about them.
The reason I asked is because my girlfriends dad just bought a Subaru and promptly joined the Sierra Club. He likes to canoe... or talk about it at least. I think he just doesn't know much about the Sierra Club.
If your GF's dad likes being able to drive, or have access to anything outdoor, he needs to get his money back.
Sounds like it's time to bail from your chick. Pretty soon she'll be going to Grateful Dead cover band concerts wearing tie died shirts. Get out now while you can!!!!
I'll have to ask him about it next time I see him.
no way Brian. Deadhead chicks were always willing to go for a quick roll in the hay and burritos afterwards
However that usually means she'll no longer will shave her pits, legs and the fun zone. Sorry, homie don't play Welcome to the jungle:biggrin:
12345. I canceled my membership in 1998 after attending a city council meeting regarding keeping trails open (for everyone) and was shouted down and berated for being a mtn biker. Let alone I was one of the few people constructively trying to keep the trails open for everyone.
They are over-zealous eco freaks that are of the "my way is the only way" tribe. I've done countless hours of trail maintenance to keep trails open. I have never seen the eco-zealots out there working. Only consuming.
Screw seirra club. Because of them My brother is screwed for getting home owners insurance. He lives in teh mountains, and just recently bought his home, and the Insurance company dropped there coverage because there is a tree too close to his home. Now noone will touch his coverage for less than 200 a month. For Friggin home owners.... rediculous. But, to take the tree down....... Nope, not going to happen, special permit required from teh City, wait for approval for from the local environmental groups, If, If, they say its ok, then he might be able to do something about it, if not, he has 90 days to figure something else out.
You have to have a permit to take something off of your own land?
If the tree causes an accident to someone else he can be attorney raped through the idea of locus in quo, but he can't take prophylactic action to avoid a litany of issues.
I hate the Sierra Club... I hate everything about them, I hate everyone in them, and all I want to do is put them in dirt jumps.
The Sierra Club has agendas and they are better organized than most mountain bikers. Have better funding because they rely on the surface feelings that most everyone shares, but don't bother divulging alot of the core consequences of their extreme agendas. But mostly they have alot of commited people who volunteer and work hard. You can hate all you want, but if you don't better educate yourself on mountain bike advocacy or any impact you make to the environment. Then you are going to have to accept whatever they say and like it.
What can YOU do, to make a difference. Who can you support that will bring more of what you want to see. How can you make an impact for your community that will benefit everyone.
No i'm not a Sierra Club member.... But i'm a member of IMBA, EvergreenMTBAlliance, and Blue Ribbon Coalition. Learn who in your area deserves your support by reading up on the issues. Attend meetings, or write government. and land managers, do trailwork, or send a check. But really look into the issues and make up your own mind.
So much talk about industry/tech/pro riders progressing the sport. That's all crap. Advocacy is the true foundation for moving and shaking.
For the win!
State Fire Code trumps local rules. Have him get a fire inspection. If he can get them to write into their report that the tree is in violation of fire clearance code, down it comes locals be dammed.
I think in 100 years our children will all be thanking Sierra Club for saving whichever few pockets of wilderness still happen to exist.
Some things are bigger than riding bicycles IMO.
It is true, sadly most of the open riding areas that people talk about 30 years ago, don't exist cause the population keeps going up.
1950 had 152,271,417
1970 had 205,052,174
1990 had 249,438,712
2007 had 301,139,947 (est)
And everyone still wants the American dream of a House and two cars, the pyramid falls eventually.
And no I don't support the Sierra club.
What about all the non wilderness areas that are already protected as roadless, that they want to turn into Congressionally mandated Wilderness? This isn't saving wilderness, it's taking access away from mountain bikers. Kettle Crest of Washington and White Clouds of Idaho come to mind if you need examples. There are lots of examples in Montana too.
I am an IMBA supporter also.
They support the Wild and Scenic River acts, which is legislation to keep wild rivers undammed, This is basically a good thing, but the designation make any trail right next to the river automatically "wilderness". If I had a left nut to give, I'd give it to ride the Selway River Trail or the Middle Fork Salmon trails.
Im of the opinion that any extra protection we can put on our dwindling wilderness areas is worth it, regardless of whether they let us ride bikes there or not.
I know cycling access is important, but it's not as important saving our public lands, and while I wish the Sierra Club had a more open mind about cyclists, Im not about to condemn what they do in the grand scheme for something simple like bike riding.
Not worth it if it alienates people who would advocate otherwise. The more people who have a stake in the parks the better if there isn't any significant change in the impact to the land. Bikers do not impact the land any more than hikers do.
It is true that the total number of trail users does have an impact so the right thing to do would be to split the access between the competing trail users (like a permit system used in wilderness areas). The hiking groups trying to prevent access are selfish and are missing the big picture. If they really want save the wilderness they would form coalitions rather than burn bridges. If they really cared they would push to find more people/groups to join their cause, protect the land, and share their access.
Like I said, it's unfortunate that the Sierra Club doesn't want to share access with cyclists, but when it comes down to it, bike riding is a hobby of mine, and wilderness conservation is much more than that in my world. Im not about to denounce one of the most influential conservationist groups, responsible for protecting tons of public lands just because they wont let me ride my little bicycle.
I'm going to venture a guess that this may be a regional attitude? There is very little Wilderness ( congressionally mandated) east of the Mississippi, as compare to the Rockies and west, where much larger percentages are locked up. I can't pull the numbers up but I seem to recall that most of the folks pushing for more wilderness either live in the city or east of the Rockies. Something like 20% of the national forest in the Cascades in Washington is already wilderness areas. I may have my number wrong but I think that's what got planted in my head at the last Colville forest meeting I was at. Idaho has the largest chunk of contiguous roadless area in the lower 48 ( Frank Church River of No Return)
Modern conservation has shown you can't be successful without public outreach. You need to get people involved with a stake/ownership in your cause if you want effective lasting impact.
These days lots of researchers trying to save animals in remote places have been very successful this approach. It would work just as well at home.
Going at it alone doesn't work.
You're right that Im in the east, but I don't think my opinion has been swayed by any particular issues regionally... just overall, seeing how quick the government can be to flip-flop legislation that protects natural resources, I think any added protection is in general a good thing... even if it precludes certain user groups like cyclists.
If you think about something high profile like ANWR, it didn't take anything but a little pinch at the pump to get the vultures circling, and that's supposed to be bombproof legislation as a wildlife refuge... but I suspect it's only a matter of time before it's drilled.
So what happens when there's a natural gas shortage or something and they happen to find some on some public land without much protection? We lose it forever. Simple as that.
Cheney is out of the White House in two months.
ANWR is a wildlife refuge, not a Wilderness Area. Wilderness is locked up pretty damn tight, just ask the molybdenum industry in Colorado.
I understand well the differences in these types of designations, Im just saying that Wildlife Refuges are supposed to be permanent, much like wilderness areas, but that enough political pressure can get anything reversed.
So the way I see it, any extra protection is a good thing even at the expense of a hobby of mine.
And yep, Im glad to see Cheney go, but Americans are like windsocks when it comes to politics, so it could be only 4 years before we end up with another Cheney.
I have a big brown movement for the green movement.
There is PLENTY of wilderness out there to go around for quite some time...
The thing I can't stand about the wilderness areas is the complete ban of humans for parts of the year. The Sierra Club is helping make this more of a common occurrence. They are fighting to preserve these areas and then nobody is allowed into them.
I will pass that info on to him, thanks that should help him out quite a bit.