What about SUWA?

[OREGON85]

Well, I got a full statement of Backcountry's support yesterday. Here are the highlights:

"Backcountry has never had an official relationship with SUWA.
The only items on which we’ve been involved with SUWA have been:
1) the effort to keep drilling out of Arches and surrounding areas
2) support of ARWA"

"After much research into both items and their impacts, we still support both of these endeavors."

"That said, some clarification is needed with regards to our relationship with SUWA, ARWA, and IMBA.
We do not pay dues to SUWA and are not supporting members.
We do pay dues to IMBA and are corporate level sponsors.
After multiple long conversations with both SUWA and IMBA regarding their interactions with each other on the ARWA, they appear to be headed toward the same goal in regard to ARWA, but haven’t officially announced anything.

Unfortunately, this has lead to confusion among the mountain biking community and many now believe that ARWA will close some of the amazing trails near Moab. This is NOT true. All of the trails that have established mountain bike use are specifically grandfathered in and will remain open to mountain biking. This is due to 12 years of close negotiations between IMBA and SUWA on the ARWA."

In conclusion he said "As for our support of organizations with donations, we have chosen to focus our efforts more directly on greening our internal processes and employees."

Now the really interesting thing is SUWA claims Backcountry.com is a business member at the "Platinum Level."

 

[Tacoma]

Grandfathered in, eh. No RS477 for mt. bike trails I guess. Lucky them.

 

[drtsqrl]

Unfortunately, this has lead to confusion among the mountain biking community and many now believe that ARWA will close some of the amazing trails near Moab. This is NOT true. All of the trails that have established mountain bike use are specifically grandfathered in and will remain open to mountain biking. This is due to 12 years of close negotiations between IMBA and SUWA on the ARWA."

I guess they don't consider Crystal Geyser, Secret Spire, Hey Joe Canyon (almost all), Hell Roaring Rim, Gold Bar Rim (most all), Golden Spike (most all), Copper Ridge, Dome Plateau spurs, Top of the World, Rose Garden Hill, Dolores Triangle, Porcupine Rim Coffee Pot loop, Steel Bender, Behind the Rocks, Moab Rim, Chicken Corners, Flat Iron Mesa, and Fins and Things (2 short sections) to be mountain bike trails. Funny, I see bikers on those trails all the time...

These are Moab trails that would be closed, at least that is the best I can tell by overlaying the maps. And these are just EJS trails, there are countless more.

 

[jackjoh]

These are Moab trails that would be closed, at least that is the best I can tell by overlaying the maps. And these are just EJS trails, there are countless more.
__________________
drtsgrl

Is there any way this can be proven? I will contact Don Black (U4WDA), Brian Hawthorne (BRC), and Mike Swenson (USA-ALL) for a clarification.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...These are Moab trails that would be closed, at least that is the best I can tell by overlaying the maps. And these are just EJS trails, there are countless more.

...Is there any way this can be proven? I will contact Don Black (U4WDA), Brian Hawthorne (BRC), and Mike Swenson (USA-ALL) for a clarification.

That's just it... we can't prove anything until after the bill passes. It is worded right into the bill that that the actual borders and definitions will be defined AFTER it becomes law So there is not a doubt in my mind the overlay's will bleed deep when they actually make it on to a map.

 

[drtsqrl]

Kurt is right, there is nothing to "prove" at this time. All we have at this time are maps with blocked-out areas showing proposed wilderness. The exact boundaries would be determined after the fact. But at this moment, to the best of my ability, the trails I listed appear to be within the proposed areas when the maps are overlayed.

 

[jackjoh]

Does anyone know what the mountain bike people have to say about this? I got an answer from someone but only if I don't repeat it and want to stay on their good side.

 

[Skylinerider]

I don't speak for the "people", but from what I gather on the MTB forums is it's about split in half. Half fully support SUWA, and half don't. The organized groups (ie IMBA etc) seem up for supporting wilderness designation so long as they are told they to keep their trails. I've even read talk of certain MTB groups hoping to rewrite the "mechanized" part of wilderness designation so they can be allowed to still ride there.

I think SUWA is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of MTBers. Honestly with many MTB'ers following along with the so-called "green" ethic, it's probably the easiest group for SUWA to attempt to gain support from.
FWIW, IMBA has never gotten any of my money, and never will. I don't feel they support the sport very well, and this is another reason why.

 

[OREGON85]

As a person among the "people" that is what I've heard too.

 

[Tacoma]

I think there are going to be a lot of disappointed MTB'ers. As one of them, I wish more would open their eyes to the "legal" definition of "mechanized". And then I think..

"... when they came for the rockcrawlers and expeditionists, I did not help.." etc.

IMBA used to run a pretty solid trail-maintenance program... in the early 90's.