No shyitzu they are bad for the whole world eefff the sierra club and any more granola clubshow 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.
How does the Sierra Club feel about those that kayak and canoe and vice versa?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.
Do I look/sound like a member?How does the Sierra Club feel about those that kayak and canoe and vice versa?
You might.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.
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!!!!You might.
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.
I'll have to ask him about it next time I see him.If your GF's dad likes being able to drive, or have access to anything outdoor, he needs to get his money back.
no way Brian. Deadhead chicks were always willing to go for a quick roll in the hay and burritos afterwardsSounds 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!!!!
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:no way Brian. Deadhead chicks were always willing to go for a quick roll in the hay and burritos afterwards
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.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.
:biggrin:Sorry, homie don't play Welcome to the jungle:biggrin:
For the win!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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
How does the Sierra Club feel about those that kayak and canoe and vice versa?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 join their cause, protect the land, and share their access.
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.
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.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.
Cheney is out of the White House in two months.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.
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.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 will pass that info on to him, thanks that should help him out quite a bit.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.