You a friend of Mike Vandeman?
Sierra Club.... who's a member?
- Thread starter ?????
- Start date
There should be areas where cyclists aren't allowed. Face it, it isn't a zero impact activity. What kills me is the ban of bikes but the allowance of horses.
I've been in several Wilderness areas that had pack animals in them, legally.
I've been in several Wilderness areas that had pack animals in them, legally.
Horses are not banned in any federal wilderness area.
It sucks the Sierra club fails to acknowledge how little impact a bike has. Until we can get the money behind us that the Sierra club has we will get no where with them. I wonder how many blind supporters the Sierra Club has just because it is cool to support a club like the Sierra Club?
You are so right ,they will let you ride horses in some of them and even cattle ,but if your dissabled and want to roll in there fvck no ,the problem with the Econazi groups is they want control and not share ,its like teasting a dog with a bone when Bush wrote the wilderness Act I was for it until I got th whole scope of it ,here is how stupid the wildernss act is ,2 years ago there where some huge fires in Oregon one being the shake table fire it consumed thousands of acres ,by way of a flash burn ,now there are thousands of standing lodge pole pine kindling good enough to use as lumber but deader than a door nail ,the smart thing to keep the area safer and not have another big fire would be to clear out the dead trees and replant ,well the Econazis fought hard against this ( having a fire up there is inevidable with standing kindling like that and the only way to fing those fires is by hand crews so why risk peoples lives for some thing that can be taken care of)
they lost the BLM figured it be smarter than to risk more peoples lives to fight such a huge fire hazzard .There has to be a give and take inthese programs ,the Sierra club does not want to share they want it all locked up Zero access
Last edited:
Sounds like a certain tree needs to discreetly die. Then you would be able to cut it down.
What? The wilderness act was written in 1964, before mountain bikes were ever heard of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act
It's a joke that most mountain bikers involved in advocacy or any history with the internet would get. Mike Vandeman is a rabidly anti mountain biker whack job, who is so far out there he has been kicked off the board of the Sierra Club. One of his big claims to fame is his rants that humans should be banned from wilderness. They aren't, you know.
I am saying how I do not agree with the ban of humans in wilderness areas.
There are a few places around me that humans are not allowed for certain times of the year. They do not want us disrupting the animals migration. My favorite though is a local pathway goes through a wilderness area and dogs are not allowed even on leashes.
i agree to a point.
i'd like to integrate a few points.
i think we should be thankful for much of their work up to a point. Much of the conservation work that has been done is NOT due to the Sierra Club, but of forward minded conservationists who had nothing to do with the Club.
i contend that many of those folks would not agree with Sierra Clubs current stance on many issues, including their current definition of Wilderness.
i think your contention of us being a nation of insatiable consumers is correct, but there are laws currently tempering our industrial impact whereas in other countries it's more of a free for all.
Read this thread a bit to get a little insight of my point of view.
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211809
Over a hundred years ago they came they logged and raped the land. That's NOT how they do it nowadays. But still people take a knee-jerk stance against forestry management, some to the point where they chain themselves to trees.
Mountain bikers are not advocating for the rape of the forests with suggesting Backcountry Designations. Quite the opposite.
Under Wilderness you cannot fire up a chainsaw to clear trails. With low funding you are leaning on volunteer workers with hand tools instead of subcontracter who you will not be able to afford to do such work. This will inevitably lead to many trails being decommissioned, will not be conducive to any recreational activities except backcountry hikers seeking solitude. This isn't just about bikes, this about horses, and people with disabilities.
Also factor in that over 50% of federal forest land in Washington State falls under the Wilderness Designation.
So now you have forests that have grown in thicker than a normal natural forest, you have to consider forest fires. Under the designation they are allowed to burn freely up until the time they get close to the Wilderness border.
So i raise a point, now you have forest with thick canopy unlike a "real" native forest, more fuel, is this still natural to let it burn now that the land has been altered before?
Not to mention the pine beetle which loves to kill trees, and all the invasive and noxious weeds that will take over. i've had environmentalists say at a meeting that there is no solution to these problems. Well with Wilderness there is no solution. The problem is they are so dead set on "protecting" they cannot see a bigger picture solution.
Management if used correctly will help. You can thin the forests to make them healthier, that way if you get forest fires it's more apt to burn the underbrush instead of the trees. Yes the underbrush does contain invasive weeds... Now consider new technologies like harvesting for bio-fuels for green energy. There is no money or volunteer power capable of attacking troubled areas, why not go in, solve a problem, and make a buck while doing it.
This is real environmentalism in action, using conservation and also using recreation to further educate people and get them more engaged in this world.
So no it's not just about bikes, and no mountain bikers are not the problem.
Whether you want to argue if mountain bikes should be allowed into Wilderness Designated areas is a whole different argument. One that involves the word "mechanized" similar to the gps and cel phones that are used by hikers in Wilderness. And also do they interfere and/or degrade the "pristine" Wilderness character.
While I could respect the goal of preserving wilderness areas, if that was in point of fact the central agenda of the Sierra Club, but the simple reality is that is not their goal.
Their goal is dominion, to exercise control and to hold a level of exclusion that if it was based upon race, religion, creed or sexuality the Sierra Club would have been sued out of existence a long time ago.
Their simple mentality is that of exclusion of any group they do not agree with. While we might be first on their list due to the work of the "esteemed" Mr. Vaderman (their words, not mine) we are not the only ones they want to ban.
I think the Vandals said it best "America stands for freedom, But if you think you're free, Try walkin into a deli, And urinating on the cheese."
Frankly I am opposed to IMBA as well. Their myopic vision of wanting to placate other user groups is an issue for me. Between the IMBA and the Sierra Club it amazes me that there is any riding left worth riding in this country.
I will continue to advocate poaching trails, the construction of bigger and more challenging free ride elements, and the use of public lands by all people for all activities.
Besides, in 2012 its not going to matter much anymore.
Their goal is dominion, to exercise control and to hold a level of exclusion that if it was based upon race, religion, creed or sexuality the Sierra Club would have been sued out of existence a long time ago.
Their simple mentality is that of exclusion of any group they do not agree with. While we might be first on their list due to the work of the "esteemed" Mr. Vaderman (their words, not mine) we are not the only ones they want to ban.
I think the Vandals said it best "America stands for freedom, But if you think you're free, Try walkin into a deli, And urinating on the cheese."
Frankly I am opposed to IMBA as well. Their myopic vision of wanting to placate other user groups is an issue for me. Between the IMBA and the Sierra Club it amazes me that there is any riding left worth riding in this country.
I will continue to advocate poaching trails, the construction of bigger and more challenging free ride elements, and the use of public lands by all people for all activities.
Besides, in 2012 its not going to matter much anymore.
If we're talking strictly access here...
i think this is understood, my problem is with blanket policies.
Even if Congress mandated the allowance of bikes in "Wilderness". (just to use Wilderness only) There are so many trails that have built conducive to hiking, poorly built trails in that they are all on fall lines, so they are essentially stair steps up a ridge or mountain. So if you have no access because all the roads are decommissioned, cannot used motorized equipment to fix problem trails, there will be nothing but problems. It would essentially be impossible on a trail like Lake Dorothy for instance. Impractical on a trail like Snow Lake, especially considering the high traffic. BUT the backside trails that come in Middle Fork Snoqualmie and Rock Creek would be fine. Dead end access to the lake where rider could dump their bikes and enjoy the lake, then descend back down to Middle Fork. No reason other than bikes being banned from Wilderness why this isn't appropriate in my opinion.
Ha, if only it was that easy. Kind of hard to secretly kill off a tree that is a solid 10 feet across and a good 200 feet tall.
haha while i totally disagree with your opinion, i still appreciate to a slight degree your anarchist take of hate the player AND hate the game.
Still your stance does hinder not help.
But all that being said, especially with your 2012 comment, you really crack me up sometimes....
Well I am here to entertain, amuse and educate all at once.
I never said I was here to help. If anything, I am just here to resist. I don't like people telling me what I can or cannot do because their rainbow told them that it was their god given right to draw up the list of the haves and the have nots.
You and I will grow old before things are ever right in this nation. Its not about freedom any more, its about who you can keep off your self determined space. I say if they want it, let those friends of Jerry fight me for it.
Time for research. :biggrin: I am sure there is a way.
I WILL tell you what you cannot do, You cannot ride flats without hurting yourself!!!!
I think if the Sierra Club treated bikers, horseback riders, and hikers equally, with an objective view of environmental impact, I would be more supportive.
Considering the Sierra Club has tried to group mountain bikers in with motorcycles and ATV's, I will be against them until their attitude changes.
You've got me on that.
I blame the hippies for this too.
If it wasn't for the organic rubber in my skate shoes maybe the grip would have been better.
I also blame jeebus. If Jeebus saves, were was he when I needed him?
WTF are you talking about? There are plenty of private places and clubs to ride your dirt bike in NJ. One of my friend rides his all the time and helps out at his track often.
maybe for motocross but not just trail riding
Yes on private land...
So what happens if you dont private land? I guess the correct answer would be to not own a dirtbike right? There is no way your going to get me to drive to south jersey to ride trails for the day. I cant ride my bike around town with out getting harassed by cops. I guess i should just sit around in side and play computer games. Considering I cant do anything else.
Its not rocket science :huh:
this is kind of like someone bringing a surfboard to vermont and bitching about the lack of waves.
not really considering there's no actual ocean in Vermont. Bit there are woods in new jersey there just illegal to ride of there state, town, or private land. People are trying to open trail and parks but everything is getting shot down by eco nazis! Its come to the point where the state might not let njohva open a park in a old strip mine. Eco nuts are worried it might hurt some sort of bug or something. But if they wanted to use it as a mine again no one would care:huh:
Dude you've always worm your way in these types of threads, and you never bring much to the table, other than get into a pissing match with somebody.
Obviously each area is going to be different, so i won't speak of the challenges of dirt biking in Jersey.
But i think the guy has a valid underlying complaint in that "recreation" is a necessary and good thing to have for public lands. And while no single user is "entitled" to it, all recreation in public lands should be better explored to get the new generations interested in the outdoors.
Nothing comes for free, there are groups that work for people, but alot of good things come from people volunteering and getting involved. Motorized recreation is in many ways in the same boat as mountain bikes.
Finding out about groups that match your agenda, and supporting them does alot more to getting what you want versus giving up and/or breaking the rules.
Last edited:
Ill try once im actually legal age to vote, but ive heard first hand that there are monthly meetings for advocacy but nothing ever seems to get done because all the laws that have to be followed. Although i do believe that we should follow continue to per sue these public land recreation.
One of the underlying facts is that the state promised 3 ohv parks by 2008 and noth has been done what so ever. In fact we have actually lost one.
I live in New Jersey. There are PLENTY of places to ride trails and mx. MX are legal, trails are not UNLESS they are on private property. City folk will complain there are no places but once you get into inner community you will find many people who have trails on their own land. I live on 15 acres, that land goes onto 75 acres, onto a few hundred more. I have asked permission from land owners and got the ok. Riding dirtbikes on trails in nj is like dirt jumping. Many secret places, many trials that even trail users dont want everyone one ect.
Buy a truck, convert your motobike to street-legal, or ride a bicycle.
You can also stop whining in conjunction with any or all of these options.
I shot down someone spouting misinformation, even PSP knows better.
Its proven without dispute that motorized vehicles have more impact than any other trail user so they have no business in extremely limited public resources in one of the most densely populated states in the country.
Technically, you ride on private property and get away with it even if police show up. The land owners have to issue a complaint first in order for you to get a ticket. I dont ride mx, i dont like to ride in circles. There are plenty of places around me to ride, i can do 30 miles and not touch a single trail twice, but i would much rather do this legally and not always have to look over my shoulder all time.
Mike Vaderman to the white courtesy phone, Mike Vaderman to the white courtesy phone...
A little late to this thread but you could not possibly be more wrong.
The sierra club had NOTHING to do with people not clearing deadfall or low hanging foliage from their yards.
Lazy ass second homeowners who couldn't be bothered to contact the fire department and get a consultation had everything to do with it. I know this because I DID have someone from the fire department come by and make reccomendations two years ago. Don't believe the hype just because somebody wants someone to blame. Everyone pointing fingers at the TRPA is full of it.
There's a lot of specifically "western US" issues there (and granted that's where most public land is) with regard to forest management, and you would know better than I what specifically needs to apply, but Im just defending in general, the idea of this group lobbying to further protect these wild lands. As far as Im concerned, Mt. Biking really isn't even on the radar when it comes to things like that. If indeed fire hazard and trail closures are as serious an issue as you say, then there's a legitimate issue to be had, but not enough of one that Im willing to undo the implied permanence of a wilderness designation that these guys helped create. Im really not as concerned about the access problems of horses or the disabled as I am about preserving what few patches of nature we have left either.
From what I gather in this thread, most people dont like the Sierra club because cyclists are excluded from wilderness designated areas at the Sierra Club's advice... I just think that's a pretty trivial reason to denounce something so potentially important.
That's not what I've been told.
But it's what I KNOW.
It's a bunch of whiney ass (mostly) second home owners who want to point a finger when they were too lazy to actually look into the matter.
Damn whiney asses second home owners!!!!!! I hate those guys!!!!!But it's what I KNOW.
It's a bunch of whiney ass (mostly) second home owners who want to point a finger when they were too lazy to actually look into the matter.
