You all getting Fawked, and the IMBA isn't even giving you any lube:mad3:


To all:

I just received this from IMBA.


Issued Jointly by the Following Organizations:

Bicyclists of Nevada County (BONC)
California Wild Heritage Campaign
California Wilderness Coalition
Campaign for America's Wilderness
Colorado Environmental Coalition
Colorado Mountain Club
International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA)
Nevada Wilderness Project
Oregon Natural Resources Council
Oregon Wild
Quiet Trails
Tahoe Rim Trail Association
The Wilderness Society

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 23, 2002

CONTACTS:
Gary Sprung, IMBA: 303-545-9011
Dan Smuts, The Wilderness Society: 415-254-7271

Mountain Bicycling and Wilderness Activists Adopt New Spirit of Cooperation

Joint Statement of Commitments Released

Seeking to initiate a new era of cooperation, mountain bicycling and
Wilderness advocates have agreed on a set of working principles that they
hope will improve their sometimes tumultuous relationship.

Because current federal regulations ban bicycles from designated Wilderness,
the negotiation of new Wilderness proposals has often been difficult for
these two groups in places where both opportunities exist. The new
agreement is intended to guide future relations between Wilderness and
mountain bicycling activists.

"Since most mountain bike enthusiasts support protection of primitive
federal lands through Wilderness and other designations, there is no reason
not to work closely with Wilderness groups. This agreement signals the
start of that cooperation," said Gary Sprung, senior national policy advisor
for the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA).

The newly released Statement of Commitments emphasizes early, open, civil
and continued dialogue on the Wilderness issue. Both groups hope that
adherence to these principles will preserve both the integrity of the
National Wilderness Preservation System and important trails for mountain
bike enthusiasts.

Representatives of the organizations listed above met in Reno, Nevada on
March 19-20, 2002. An extensive series of discussions followed, culminating
in the approval of the following Statement of Commitments by their
respective groups. Patagonia and Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI)
co-sponsored the Reno meeting. It was facilitated by the Osprey Group of
Boulder, Colorado, a well-known mediation organization.

Dan Smuts, Assistant Regional Director for The Wilderness Society in
California added, "Wilderness advocates and mountain bikers often seek the
same goals on public lands. Since mountain bikes aren't permitted in
Wilderness, we need to work together to find ways to accommodate both sides.
It's a worthy goal to protect pristine Wilderness and make sure that the
most valued mountain bike trails remain open."

The signatories invite other groups to endorse these commitments and to join
in the action steps identified.

Statement of Commitments

At the invitation of REI and Patagonia, Inc., a group of 14 mountain
bicycling and Wilderness advocates* met in Reno on March 19-20, 2002, to
address how
their two communities can work more productively together. They committed
to
the following:

Commitments Reflecting Our Shared Values

Because we value recreation and solitude in wild natural settings that
preserve clean air, clean water and wildlife habitat for this and future
generations:

We commit to early collaboration leading to joint Wilderness/protection
proposals where possible. Where not possible, we commit to good faith
negotiations and willingness to compromise where feasible.

We commit to supporting and enhancing local communication, cooperation and
boundary decision-making by showcasing success stories and providing
strategic partnership advice.

Action Steps

* We will take the results of the meeting back to our leadership, colleagues
and individual groups to be widely shared and discussed.
* Wilderness organizations and IMBA will each assign a point person to
facilitate communication and cooperation among local, regional and national
groups.
* Wilderness and mountain biking enthusiasts will use their communication
tools to share information about each other's views - e.g., we will
encourage publication of pro-Wilderness perspectives in mountain biking
media and pro-mountain biking perspectives in conservation media. Highlight
success stories whenever possible.
* Create a password protected website for sharing information (e.g.,
Wilderness Act history, political overviews, mountain biking priorities,
contacts, perspectives).
* We commit to clarify when unauthorized individuals misrepresent our
organizations.
* Identify, support and publicize model Wilderness/protection projects in
which both Wilderness proponents and mountain bicycling groups engage in a
collaborative effort with mutually acceptable results. We commit to the
early sharing of and timely response to information, especially maps showing
initial proposals, boundary definitions and trail locations, as a means to
support collaborative planning and decision-making.
* To encourage ongoing coordination, four to six representatives will be
selected from this group to participate in a series of conference calls
(May, July, September and November) with summaries of the calls shared with
the entire group.
* We commit to encouraging mountain biker participation in Wilderness events
and Wilderness leader participation in mountain biking events.

Working Agreement

* This is a working agreement. Any party may withdraw from this agreement
by
notifying the other signatories: Steve Anderson, Susan Ash, Clare Bastable,
Tim Blumenthal, Jim Hasenauer, Max Jones, Doug Scott, Dan Smuts, Paul
Spitler, Gary Sprung, Duane Strawser, Traci Van Thull, Erika Van Wie, Jeff
Widen.

end


:usa:

Thats why I never joined "them" and I sent my $$ to the BRC

I always saw the IMBA as a "SC lite" .It never seemed to me that they were really into mt biking, at least in the way the AMA is with motorcycles ............. and I know thats not saying toooo much :D

the "higher ups" in the IMBA org are very green, and very confused.... they are elitists and want no one but them selves to be able to use the trails, and only in the form of recreation they choose -mountain biking.... Give this a few years for them to start loosing access to their trails, once the greens use their "cooperation" against them....

It's a sad, sad, day for the Mountain biking Community:(

:usa:

:( :( :mad:

That blows... such political BS.

-Clif

Whats the world coming to? Seriously. I have never been all that cool with IMBA, the only decent thing about them is that they are an organization "supporting" mountain biking. This just doesn't seem too supportive. Greenies will only collaborate in order to close off more stuff for mountain bikers. It's doubtful that much will open up to mountain biking now since the other side has pretty much won. The only solution as I see it is to join your local volunteer trail patrol through whatever park runs the land you bike on. That way you'd be able to ride your trails, if you get stopped by someone simply say that you were on patrol. I know this wont work for every location and It basically just aids in allowing riders to keep riding their local trails and not trails farther away but hey it's a start and just might work. A dark cloud has risen over mountain biking


-Ian

"Identify, support and publicize model Wilderness/protection projects in
which both Wilderness proponents and mountain bicycling groups engage in a
collaborative effort with mutually acceptable results."

Boy, do the eco-nazis have them fooled. What a bunch of naive dummies.:mad:

The idiots!!! I can't believe people are this naive. :rolleyes: It will be interesting to see how long it takes for thier "new era of cooperation" spirit to dampen when they loose a large number of trails to "wilderness" :mad:

Originally posted by BigHG
It will be interesting to see how long it takes for thier "new era of cooperation" spirit to dampen when they loose a large number of trails to "wilderness" :mad:

IMO, if we all spread the word amongst the Mountain Biking World, it won't take that long for IMBA to start loosing members, or at least not having people renew... I was never a member, so my best chance to help everyone out is to tell them not to join and why....writing letters to the Jackasses at IMBA helps me feel better too, but probably won't accomplish much....a letter from the majority of their members might get some attention....


:usa:

This brings up a question. I had considered joining IMBA, just as I have joined BRC, United and our state 4wd association (ASA4WDC) to show support for my hobbies. Most groups listen to their members and don't care what the outside detractors say.

So the question is, would we be better off joining these idiots and in order to gain the pulpit that being a member would give? Granted they would be getting extra cash that may hurt the cause in the short term. But loud squeaky members may get the club grease in the long term.

Don't be too down on IMBA...
It's because of them that we have 6 more miles of singletrack open at Beaverdam rec. area outside Raleigh.

Sure, it's a relatively short 12 miles of mt. bike trails there, but it's a SWEET 12 miles.

State owned land... legal trails... i'm down with that. Hopefully it can set a precedent for the rest of the state.

AND! It all happened cuz of a $9k grant from IMBA.

Originally posted by BigHG
This brings up a question. I had considered joining IMBA, just as I have joined BRC, United and our state 4wd association (ASA4WDC) to show support for my hobbies. Most groups listen to their members and don't care what the outside detractors say.

So the question is, would we be better off joining these idiots and in order to gain the pulpit that being a member would give? Granted they would be getting extra cash that may hurt the cause in the short term. But loud squeaky members may get the club grease in the long term.

I would not fund them in any way shape or form... I twould hope that if enough (read the majority) of their members tell them to F off, they would say "hey we screwed up" and try to fix it.....according to their action and their "higher ups" this will not happen....

:usa:

Originally posted by Kilby
Don't be too down on IMBA...
It's because of them that we have 6 more miles of singletrack open at Beaverdam rec. area outside Raleigh.

Sure, it's a relatively short 12 miles of mt. bike trails there, but it's a SWEET 12 miles.

State owned land... legal trails... i'm down with that. Hopefully it can set a precedent for the rest of the state.

AND! It all happened cuz of a $9k grant from IMBA.


BFD!! If you're willing to give up your rights to access YOUR NATIONAL FORESTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY for 12 miles of fricking trails.... theres nothing I can say to help you out....:( I'm sure the SC and the CBD are have scientists out there right now looking for places to open up trails for their new friends :rolleyes:

You're right about one thing, this will set a precedent for the rest of the state, and the entire country for that matter...unfortunately it will be very bad for MBers all ove the world..


This type of action is what they are BANKING ON to help them keep support while the bend you over and "comprimise" your trails out of existence....

the members of IMBA are the only ones who can stop this. Without them IMBA has no funds, therefore there is not group.... THE MEMBERS MUST tell them, but it will take the overwhelming mojority of them to do it.... and actually ACT on it, not just talk about it.....



BigHG, this post might seem contridictory to my last, but in reality, it's a numbers/money game: the more members they have "on the books", the more people they are representing, therefore the more "support" they are showing from the entire user group...If we were to join to "raise hell" within the org, unless we got the overwhelming majority to join us, it would only add "2" more to their numbers.....hope that makes sense...


:usa:

Well...
How 'bout in Shenandoah N.F. in VA where IMBA has been instrumental in keeping over 100 miles of singletrack open through their Epic Ride tour?

And outside the Mt. Rogers Wilderness in VA, it's some of the Nature Conservancy locals helping mtb's keep access to trails there.

SC, REI, Patagonia, etc. are WAY TOO BIG to actually fight against. They've got decades of lobbying on their side where mountain bikers only have a few years, at best. And there is no way in HELL mountain bikers, or anybody else, could reverse the Wilderness Act.

"Joining" them to come up with some type of happy medium that DOES NOT close land to bikes is something IMBA sees as a compromise, I bet ya. Albeit... a worthwhile compromise.

It sounds to me like some major players in the Eco-conservation game are finally acknowleging that there are OTHER USERS of the land (i.e. IMBA & their mtb's) who have interests worth considering.

Up until now... SC, REI, etc. wouldn't have given a second thought to any bike related group. Well, it looks like now they're at least LISTENING. It's a start IMO.

Originally posted by Kilby
Well...
How 'bout in Shenandoah N.F. in VA where IMBA has been instrumental in keeping over 100 miles of singletrack open through their Epic Ride tour?

Unfortunately, somewhere along the line I'm betting they will get fawked into "comprimising" to keep this trail open, by closing others around it. Even though its IMBA thats kept it open for everyone in the first place. That's the way SC and the Anti-Access groups work...

And outside the Mt. Rogers Wilderness in VA, it's some of the Nature Conservancy locals helping mtb's keep access to trails there.

There are good people in every group, this goes for chapters of larger groups as well. If every local group of the major groups was like the one you mention, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

SC, REI, Patagonia, etc. are WAY TOO BIG to actually fight against. They've got decades of lobbying on their side where mountain bikers only have a few years, at best. And there is no way in HELL mountain bikers, or anybody else, could reverse the Wilderness Act.

I couldn't disagree more on this. THEY are NOT bigger than US!. We, the entire multiple use community, need to band together and shut these guys down. If all the pro-access multiple use manufactures and user united, there would be no REI, and probably put a hurt on the SC and CBD as well, though most of their membership is from "mainstream, politically correct, brainwashed society". Once we started to put a dent in the SC plan, they would spin the media like they always do and label us as ANTI-Environment, just as they are doing with the Bush Admin. right now. The only way for us to stand a chance is to ban together ALL forms of M/U groups and educate the public...They are not bigger, just more organized and have "trained" the public that they are doing this "for the good of the environment". WE need to change this without being labeled Anti-Environment - a catch 22 with the media in the pockets...

"Joining" them to come up with some type of happy medium that DOES NOT close land to bikes is something IMBA sees as a compromise, I bet ya. Albeit... a worthwhile compromise.

The top player in the IMBA are green. This is a fact. There is no Comprimise here. They will use the "comprimise" term to their members to close down land. Wether it will be "comprimising" OHV trails to keep mountain bike trails is yet to be seen, but they have already said to Boxer that they will support her Bill if they get to keep some of their trails.

It sounds to me like some major players in the Eco-conservation game are finally acknowleging that there are OTHER USERS of the land (i.e. IMBA & their mtb's) who have interests worth considering.

Not even close. They know who we are and what we do and they don't like it. period. they will never support M/U of public lands. they will support hiking, because thats what they do...

Up until now... SC, REI, etc. wouldn't have given a second thought to any bike related group. Well, it looks like now they're at least LISTENING. It's a start IMO.

I'll give you that, they are listening. If you we in a war wouldn't youtry to listen to your oppisition to find out what they are doing so you could stop them?

Man you say it better than I think it :rolleyes:

They are not bigger, just more organized and have "trained" the public that they are doing this "for the good of the environment". WE need to change this without being labeled Anti-Environment - a catch 22 with the media in the pockets...

True. What I meant by "way too big" was just that. They may not be 'bigger' in number... but they're bigger in force at this time.

You wanna start a 'unified' group of M/U proponents? Seriously. That is what it will take, I agree. Without that, this compromise will be about the best we can expect. So, what do you suggest we do to start it?

Understand this, though... Where I live, IMBA (and others) is helpful in keeping trails OPEN, and NOT at the expense of closing others.



The top player in the IMBA are green. This is a fact.
Who? How do you know? (i.e.- you say this, can you back it up?) I'm not busting your balls... I seriously want to know what is going on that would make this true.

Here's a few examples of the past couple years of track history:

Gary Sprung, (IMBA Senior National Policy Advisor, not sure if that is his current title, but he is their Gov't affairs person) supports the Roadless Initive and believes the forest service should Prohibit the building of roads:

(From Gary Sprung)

The following are IMBA's answers to some of the questions posed in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.



1. Informed Decision making. What is the appropriate role of local forest planning as required by NFMA in evaluating protection and management of inventoried roadless areas?



IMBA believes that a national rule prohibiting road building is appropriate.

http://www.warriorssociety.org/Roadless_Initiative.htm


single tracks (as those used by MTBers) are NOT roads, and therfore would still be allowed under Sprung's suggestions of locking out everyone else by not allowing road building.... a typical Green Elitist attitude from the guy running the NATIONAL POLICY of the IMBA....

one more from Mr. Sprung:
This Wilderness system is excellent and still needs enlargement.








Jim Hasenauer (Concerned Off Road Bicycling Association, IMBA BOD California ImbaJim@aol.com)
admitted at the Socal Club meeting that the Sierra Club had not honored the Park City Agreement, yet the IMBA alligns itself with the SC and the wilderness advocates.

after the "Mountain Bikers for Wilderness" Fraud group, IMBA blindly aligns it self with Wilderness advocates....

After Boxer submitted her bill ignoring IMBA's concerns as outlined in MTB Action the IMBA alligns itself with Boxer and the wilderness bill....


after Mike Ferrantino of Bike Magazine described their (IMBA's) Tahoe compromise as "I never really expected 'victory' to feel this much like getting bent over and reamed, but hey, you learn something new every day." - the IMBA alligns itself with wilderness advocates


after they have been publicly rebuked by wilderness advocates for advocating mountain bikes be allowed in wilderness - the IMBA alligns itself with wilderness advocates


Here's all of IMBA's BOD e-mails, let them know how you guys feel:



Steve Anderson
IMBA President
Pima County Parks and Recreation Department
Tucson, AZ
Desertrls@aol.com

Hill Abell
IMBA Vice-President
Bicycle Sport Shop
Austin, Texas
HillClimb@aol.com

Mary Monroe
IMBA Vice-President
Elm Grove, WI
BikeEvang@aol.com

Carl Birkelbach
IMBA Treasurer
RIDE - Recreation for Individuals Dedicated to the Environment Chicago, IL
rideimba@aol.com

Tom Clyde
Kamas, UT
tclyde@allwest.net

Chris Distefano
Shimano American Corporation
Irvine, CA
cdistefano@shimano.com

Jay Franklin
Southern Off Road Bicycling Association
Powder Springs, Georgia
JayFSORBA@mindspring.com

Jim Hasenauer
Concerned Off Road Bicycling Association
Woodland Hill, California
ImbaJim@aol.com

Chris Kegel
Wheel and Sprocket
Glendale, WI
wheel@execpc.com

Ashley Korenblat
Western Spirit Cycling
Moab, UT
ashley@westernspirit.com


go to their site (www.imba.com) and check out their corporate sponsors....

REI - working hard to keep motors off public lands

Ben & Jerrys - Working hard on Gun Control

CamelBak - questionable policies in the past of advertising with the SC



I hope thats enough for you guys, cause thats all the time I have for a week or so...

just do a search for Gary sprung and IMBA or Jim Hasenauer and IMBA on Google and start reading...you'll find both are very open about backing hte Wilderness philosiphy as long as they get their chosen for of recreation included as acceptable...




:usa:

January 2003 Wilderness Update



IMBA signs controversial “Joint Statement of Cooperation”

IMBA agrees to push mountain bikers to support wilderness designations

Is IMBA a mountain bike access organization or an environmental organization?



On December 23, 2002 IMBA released a “Joint Statement of Commitments” with wilderness advocates heralding it as a “New Spirit of Cooperation.” This agreement can be read on our web site at:



http://www.warriorssociety.org/Wilderness/IMBA_Dec_2002_Agreement.htm



We have grave concerns over the direction IMBA has taken with this “Joint Statement of Commitments.” The wilderness advocates have everything to gain - and we have everything to lose. Our concerns begin with the following statement:



“Since most mountain bike enthusiasts support protection of primitive federal lands through Wilderness and other designations, there is no reason not to work closely with Wilderness groups. This agreement signals the start of that cooperation," said Gary Sprung, senior national policy advisor for the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA).”

”The newly released Statement of Commitments emphasizes early, open, civil and continued dialogue on the Wilderness issue. Both groups hope that adherence to these principles will preserve both the integrity of the National Wilderness Preservation System and important trails for mountain bike enthusiasts.”



I do not believe “most” mountain bike enthusiasts support the protection of primitive federal lands through the Wilderness Designation. If this were so, there would not be a “sometimes tumultuous relationship” as is stated in this “Joint Statement of Commitments” between mountain bikers and wilderness advocates.



As far as “other designations”, where in this “Joint Statement of Commitments” is it stated that wilderness advocates would support the “other designations” that IMBA mentions in this “Joint Statement of Commitments” that would still allow recreational activities such as mountain biking?



Why is it only non-wilderness or wilderness that is being negotiated? Why haven’t the wilderness advocates agreed to allow the disputed areas in the current wilderness bill to be removed and placed under these “other designations” IMBA always talks about, designations that would protect the land but still allow historical recreational access?



Did you notice how this was left out of the “Joint Statement of Commitments?”



Is it because the wilderness supporters won’t accept “other designations,” that for them it is wilderness or nothing at all? Is the reason for this reluctance to support “other designations” because in a future wilderness bill they hope to include these agreed upon “non-wilderness” areas and “other designations” would make this more difficult?



Now note that the total Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas for California is 4.416 million acres and they were originally going for 7.4 million acres of designated wilderness in this bill.



http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/data/sheets/acres/appendix_state_acres.html



So the California Wilderness Coalition apparently thinks lands that don't even meet the criteria for Forest Service Roadless Areas should be designated as Wilderness. While the amount of acres in the current wilderness bill is about a third of the original 7.4 million acres, as in the past, they will be back with future wilderness bills to attempt to get the remainder.



Even if they had gotten the original 7.4 million acres, you can only imagine how much more land will suddenly achieved "wilderness character" in the future to allow for more wilderness beyond the 7.4 million acres they originally demanded.



We were told in past IMBA announcements and correspondence that IMBA was working in cooperation with the wilderness advocates and Senator Boxer. What makes this agreement different from the past conditions IMBA and the wilderness advocates operated under? Here is the wording of the “Joint Statement of Commitments”:



“We commit to early collaboration leading to joint Wilderness/protection proposals where possible. Where not possible, we commit to good faith negotiations and willingness to compromise where feasible.”



“We commit to supporting and enhancing local communication, cooperation and boundary decision-making by showcasing success stories and providing strategic partnership advice.”



What about the following statement?



”Wilderness and mountain biking enthusiasts will use their communication tools to share information about each other's views - e.g., we will encourage publication of pro-Wilderness perspectives in mountain biking media and pro-mountain biking perspectives in conservation media. Highlight success stories whenever possible."



So are we to ignore the “Mountain Biker’s For Wilderness” fraud? Should Mike Ferrantino in Bike Magazine and Richard Cunningham in MTB Action not describe the treatment of IMBA and mountain bikers by the pro-wilderness folks as:



"I never really expected ‘victory’ to feel this much like getting bent over and reamed, but hey, you learn something new every day…"



And



"The resilience title goes to IMBA which was slapped in the face by California Senator Barbara Boxer’s people."



Jim Hasenauer, an IMBA leader and founding board member, also admitted at the regional Southern California IMBA Club meeting last spring that the Sierra Club has not lived up to the Park City Agreement on mountain biking.



This “Joint Statement of Commitments” also stated:



“We commit to clarify when unauthorized individuals misrepresent our
organizations.”



Can IMBA give an example of someone who has done this? Is he referring to our accusations regarding the “Mountain Biker’s For Wilderness”, which we have documented as a fraud? Is the true meaning of this to mean they will do damage control when either one of them is legitimately criticized for their pro-wilderness actions?



This also is very telling:



“Create a password protected website for sharing information (e.g. Wilderness Act history, political overviews, mountain biking priorities, contacts, perspectives).”



A private controlled website for IMBA and wilderness advocates to discuss the wilderness bill. Now they can work in secret to get this wilderness bill passed. Why don’t they have a private website with other recreation activists to push for “other designations” and to form a powerful political block that would force the wilderness advocates to accept “other designations”?



What about these statements from the “Joint Statement of Commitments”?



“Wilderness and mountain biking enthusiasts will use their communication
tools to share information about each other's views - e.g., we will
encourage publication of pro-Wilderness perspectives in mountain biking
media and pro-mountain biking perspectives in conservation media. Highlight
success stories whenever possible.”



“We commit to encouraging mountain biker participation in Wilderness events and Wilderness leader participation in mountain biking events.”



So IMBA agrees to help promote (and encourage the mountain bike media to promote) a designation that is detrimental to its members? Why not promote the “other designations” instead?



Regarding the second statement, what do the wilderness advocates have to lose by their “participation in mountain bike events”? We stand to lose riding areas by participating in pro-wilderness events and promoting wilderness areas. What the heck is IMBA thinking?



IMBA's association with Patagonia, even after one of their chief spokemen supported the actions of the "Mountain Biker's For Wilderness," also puzzles me. The spokesman, John Sterling, Director of Environmental Programs at Patagonia, in the words of Tom Stienstra “dissappeared” when he asked for a statement for his followup story on the “Mountain Biker’s For Wilderness” that exposed the truth about this organization.



How deep is Patagonia's support of Wilderness and Wildlands Projects, as well as their support of organzations that are pushing these issues Nationwide?:



http://www.patagonia.com/za/PDC/Pgonia/grants_biod.jsp



What about other political organizations they support using the dollars you provide by buying their products:



http://www.patagonia.com/za/PDC/Pgonia/grants_cact.jsp



Take a look at just one organization they support that is listed on the previous page:



http://www.ruckus.org/



Can Patagonia be trusted to protect mountain bike access?



This “Joint Statement of Commitments” IMBA signed with the wilderness advocates, is in spite of the way they have treated IMBA, is a grave political and strategic mistake. There is nothing in their history to validate this trust. This “treaty,” like all others in the past - was made to be broken.



The leadership of IMBA is apparently enamored with the agenda of the environmental movement, an agenda that poses a great threat to our ability to access the forests for recreation. This strategy comes at the expense of the mountain bike community, and will prove to be a foolish and costly mistake.



History has shown that the wilderness advocates cannot be trusted. Do we accept them at their word or will this agreement be violated like all the rest. What do you honestly think?



Those who forget the lessons of history will only repeat the worst of its mistakes. IMBA is proof of this.



By accepting this agreement, IMBA is like a wife who has been cheated on and abused by her husband - but keeps coming back for beatings because “he will change.”



But IMBA should heed the warning of Machiavelli when siding with the wilderness advocates - instead of with other recreationists:



“…it ought to be noted that a prince (or entity) should avoid joining forces with someone more powerful than Himself for the purpose of attacking another unless necessity compels him to do so, as I explained above; for by winning he then becomes a prisoner of his ally. As far as possible a prince should avoid being left in the mercy of someone else.”



Does Machiavelli’s warning ring true? How has IMBA been treated for their “support” of new wilderness areas? You know the answer to that.



What philosophy governs the wilderness advocates and supporters of the Wildlands Project?



The following is taken from “THE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ROADS” by Reed F. Noss (He is currently working in California for the state as a consultant developing "linkages" for wildlife corridors www.calwild.org/resources/pubs/linkages/index.htm. The attempt to designate the Santa Ana Mountains here in Southern California as a wilderness area is part of this program and the Wildlands Project.)



“The more inaccessible we can keep our remaining wild areas to these cretins, the safer and healthier these areas will be. Those humans who respect the land are willing to walk long distances. If this is an "elitist" attitude, so be it; the health of the land demands restrictions on human access and behavior."



Here is another quote:



Taken from THE FOREST COMMONS By Al Fritsch, Mary Davis, Paul Kalisz, Wendell Berry, Susan Duggan, Eric Freyfrogle



"The Commons is more than a concept; it is also a reality that has flesh. It may be great territories or parcels of land and tracts of forests, all of which can be measured and designated. We may use this land in a just manner or alienate it and privatize the land for special purposes. Furthermore, individuals who have some degree of access to the common lands may damage them. Thus abuse of the commons can occur and has occurred down through the ages; this leads to questions of proper management of privately owned land that is actually part of a global environmental commons.



As our Minnesota representative Candace Outhout so eloquently stated:



“What happens to so many of us who enjoy natural open space experiences is that we do emulate the concepts upon which the Sierra Club and others were founded. What we miss is that these organizations were founded by individuals who are less about preserving and conserving the land and more about setting civilization back several thousand years. They are not saving the earth for future generations. They are trying to eliminate future generations to save the earth. There are those that believe they can infuse moderation into the environmental movement. They have not yet realized the depth of the agenda that they are attempting to oppose from within. Unfortunately the basic concepts taught in any environmental program on any campus for the last thirty or so years has been that man is the enemy and must be subdued and controlled at all costs. It is impossible to meet these folks on common ground because no common ground exists. What the members of IMBA or many other user group organizations miss is it is not about recreation or grazing or logging or mineral rights. It is about personal freedoms, private property rights and the rights of taxpayers to govern the use of public lands.”



The current leadership of IMBA’s loyalties apparently lie with the green movement. Mountain biking is secondary. How else can you explain their behavior? How else can you explain their embrace of appeasement as a strategic policy, a policy that only empowers its opponents and will result in defeat?



IMBA sounds like Prime Minister Chamberlain of Britain when he returned from negotiations with Hitler which allowed him to occupy the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.



“Peace in our time” Chamberlain stated on his return. But this did not stop the winds of war, but instead resulted in the destruction of Europe.



At the recent IMBA Board meeting on January 17th, two board members resigned out of dissatisfaction with the direction IMBA has taken on advocacy and with the way the executive director manipulates the board. It is our hope that the IMBA board some day realizes that mountain bicyclists need an organization that fights to protect responsible mountain bike access, and not an organization that promotes the wilderness designation - there is a 3.1 billion dollar environmental industry that is having no problem doing that.



Will our future Wilderness Update state:



“Defeat the Boxer/IMBA/Wilderness Coalition California Wilderness Bill”



For the sake of mountain biking I hope not.



Information resources:



All wilderness proposals are part of the Wildlands Project http://www.twp.org/ which was initiated by Reed Noss and Dave Forman, the founder of Earth first.



The California Wilderness Campaign touts its support of the Wildlands Project on its web site http://www.calwild.org/campaigns/cwp.php .



The following site provides information on the Wildlands Project using the words of the founders of the movement, including Dave Forman, one of the founders of Earth First!

http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/efj/primer/WhyEF!.html

.

Wilderness bills, as well as the movement to remove dams and reservoirs, are just a fraction of the agenda to bring the Wildlands Project to fruition. Earth First! describes this campaign on their web site: http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/efj/primer/different.html





The Warrior's Society

A Non-Profit Organization under 501 C (4) of the IRS Code

http://www.warriorssociety.org



:usa: