In advance of the Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC) testimony at a congressional hearing today, the International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA) submitted a written testimony to the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands. Despite issuing a statement in May 2016 that IMBA and the STC would present a unified front and not oppose each other in their various efforts, IMBA seems to have changed their approach by vocally opposing STC efforts.
In written testimony, IMBA says, “As we gain ground in these efforts, we feel it is unwise to amend the Wilderness Act—one of the nation’s most important conservation laws—when the outcome mountain bikers desire can be reached through on-the-ground collaborative efforts.” They also unequivocally state, “IMBA is not supporting H.R. 1349.”
In their testimony, IMBA focused on all of the other work they are engaged in, painting their strategy as the way forward. However, they did include a detailed section denouncing the way mountain bikes have been excluded from some Wilderness Study Areas, most notably in Montana, saying, “We have raised these concerns with the Secretary of Agriculture and will not waiver in our fight to see this administrative mechanism reformed in a way that makes sense for mountain bikers across the country.”
IMBA also published a press release further clarifying their testimony. In that release, Dave Wiens, Executive Director of IMBA, says, “We know Wilderness hits some mountain bikers’ backyards, and we understand why those riders support this legislation. To continue elevating mountain biking nationally, IMBA must remain focused on its long-term strategy for the bigger picture of our sport.”
To some riders, it’s difficult to fathom how the thousands of miles of trails rendered off-limits to mountain bikes by Wilderness designation isn’t part of the bigger picture for our sport. In their statement, IMBA’s rhetoric appears to paint the pro-Wilderness riders as the minority, despite our own poll showing that 96% of mountain bikers think some Wilderness trails should be opened to mountain bikes.
While a public statement to IMBA Chapter Leaders in July 2016 indicated that IMBA was opposed to amending the Wilderness Act, IMBA did speak highly of some parts of the STC’s companion bill working its way through the Senate. But now, they’ve vocally and adamantly opposed the House version of the bill.
This seemingly-drastic change in approach could be due to the regime change within IMBA leadership in 2016, but exactly why IMBA chose to submit a written testimony on this matter is unclear. We’ve reached out to IMBA for comment, and have also asked whether or not their testimony in this matter was even necessary. As of press time, they have not responded.
We’ve also reached out to the STC for comment on IMBA’s testimony, and while they are interested in providing comment, they are otherwise engaged in testifying before Congress as of press time.
[see_also id=’231107′]
39 Comments
Dec 8, 2017
TRAITORS!!!
I think a lawsuit is in order. A lot if people have made a lot of investment into IMBA with there time and money, just for them to turn around and do this.
Dec 8, 2017
Dec 7, 2017
Dec 8, 2017
Dec 7, 2017
"REAFFIRMING A COLLABORATIVE WILDERNESS APPROACH
Recent legislation offered an opportunity for IMBA to submit testimony regarding its Wilderness position. IMBA continues to pursue collaborative approaches to legislative land protections. Mountain bikers are exemplary public land stewards and highly engaged advocates who should have a voice in the future of their local trails, and when they do, important trails can be protected while finding common ground."
Speaking out of both cheeks of their ass.
Dec 11, 2017
Dec 7, 2017
Dec 8, 2017
Dec 8, 2017
Dec 7, 2017
I am surrounded by Wilderness areas & the anti-bike advocates are pushing for more solely to eliminate bikes from established trails. The STC represents us here in the West who have to live with these misguided policies!
Maybe Dave's Hartman Rocks should become the Hartman Wilderness Area... I guarantee the IMBA would fight hard against that!
Dec 7, 2017
Dec 20, 2017
Dec 8, 2017
It was a historic day, the first ever congressional hearing on this topic, and IMBA testified AGAINST.
And now all the groups that oppose mt bikes anywhere can point to IMBA and their position on the wilderness act.
Dec 8, 2017
https://www.singletracks.com/blog/trail-advocacy/highlights-stcs-historic-congressional-testimony-mountain-bikes-wilderness/
Dec 7, 2017
Dec 7, 2017
Dec 11, 2017
I very much agree with you and can't fathom why IMBA chose to oppose the bill.
Dec 9, 2017
Dec 11, 2017
Dec 20, 2017
Apr 11, 2018
Even if IMBA was doing a good job, the result is the same. Loss after loss after loss of highly prized bike routes.
Environmental assessments may not be necessary. There is plenty of legal grounds to support that position. Even if they are, just because something is hard doesn't mean don't do it.
And this doesn't "open up the wilderness act AT ALL." It only returns its administration to the exact same model it followed until 1984, before the blanket ban was initiated.
Dec 7, 2017
The only thing I can think is that there were some behind the scenes discussions with the "leaders in the conservation community" mentioned in IMBA's testimony. Perhaps they came to an agreement that IMBA would provide testimony in exchange for... something. Hopefully it's big, and it's even better than bikes in Wilderness. Otherwise, I have to think mountain bikers will end up on the short side of negotiations (again.)
Dec 12, 2017
Dec 8, 2017
Dec 8, 2017
Dec 8, 2017
Dec 8, 2017
Dec 7, 2017
Dec 12, 2017
Dec 8, 2017
Dec 8, 2017
Dec 8, 2017
You're right, and I agree with you, but I don't know how many others will feel that way.
Dec 8, 2017
Dec 12, 2017
Dec 8, 2017
Is this some sort of work around to co operate on this but get more access to trails by using other methods?
Dec 19, 2017
Dec 7, 2017
I'm now officially anti-IMBA.
Dec 8, 2017
Dec 8, 2017