2017 Pinkbike Awards - Advocates of the Year Winners

Dec 11, 2017
by Pinkbike Staff  
PB Awards

Advocates of the Year Winners

Most of our awards recognize the brilliance of a particular widget or the achievements of athletes. This award is a bit of a departure. The Advocacy award is given out, instead, to the people and organizations who are actively investing in our sport and our trails.

We also depart from the usual PB awards story line by giving the prize to several parties--this time around, there is no cage match in which one nominee emerges victorious. Why not? Because it's nigh impossible to measure the value of one good deed or do-gooder against another. It's the reason you probably haven't witnessed a whole lot of brawls over whether Mahatma Gandhi was better than Mother Theresa or vice versa. Along those lines, we think all three of the award winners listed below deserve our recognition and thanks. So without further ado, here they are: Trek Bicycles, Patagonia and Santa Cruz Bicycles.

Why they get the nod:

Trek Bicycles recently opened their stash of private trails to a small army of middle school and high-school aged mountain bikers. The special occasion? A round of racing in Wisconsin's National Interscholastic Cycling Association (NICA) race calendar. It was a massively successful affair with more than 500 groms toeing the line, but it was far from the first time that Trek has invested in youth racing in America.

Trek has committed a million dollars to NICA, in the form of $1 from every Bontrager tire sale. The money goes to support NICA and Trek/Bontrager’s mission of getting more kids on bikes. Trek has already given nearly a million dollars to NICA. to date. The bike company has been a N.I.C.A booster from the beginning--back before a national organization took root and high-school racing consisted of just two leagues (there are now 21 leagues in play). Trek's support goes back a good decade and includes a six-figure donation directly to the state leagues (with an emphasis on establishing the Wisconsin league on Trek's home dirt), bike and gear donations to NICA national fundraisers, sending top pros to NICA races, and donating bikes and gear directly to local Wisconsin high-school teams.

Why does any of this matter? It's not simply the sheer number of kids getting into racing (14,000 nationwide in 2017), it's that NICA represents the demystification of mountain biking to the masses. Mountain biking is far from being an "underground" sport, but unless you actually ride, it's something you'll never truly understand or come to love. NICA is consistently growing the number of people who ride--not just the kids, but, in many cases, also their parents.

From the story:
bigquotesThe beautiful thing that is fully on display at any NICA event is not the competition specifically....it's seeing the athletes and their parents alike experience the brilliance of riding bikes in the woods together. Many of these parents hadn't been on a bike for years, and yet, by virtue of their own children's ambitions and growing love for this sport and community, a bit of an awakening took place, and continues to take place across the country as more of these events unfold. With each NICA race that's held the mountain bike community gets to welcome scores of new members into the tribe....Brice Shirbach

Why they get the nod:

Patagonia has been an on again/off again player in the mountain bike apparel world (they are, for the record, back at it again), but we’d recognize them even if they didn’t make a stitch of mountain bike gear. The company is one of the foremost leaders in putting their money where their mouth is. The brand’s mission is “Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.”

While skeptics may scoff at the shiny-happy-warm-and-fuzziness of that statement (anyone, after all, can craft a heart-tugging mission statement), Patagonia has consistently delivered on its promise.

Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard also co-founded 1% for the Planet and his company has invested $89 million in funds and in-kind services since 1985, when they began rolling one percent of Patagonia’s total sales or 10 percent of its profit (whichever is more) into environmental stewardship. It’s a staggering investment and proof that you can make a buck (or crap ton of them) without also making the planet a shittier place to call home.

Is Patagonia product expensive? Yes. It’s earned the nickname “Patagucci” for a reason. Their gear has also proven consistently well made. But we’re not telling readers to rush out and buy anything. We’re simply giving a nod of recognition to a brand that puts money back into the lands we all care about and which has also been remarkably transparent about their own ecological footprint—going as far as calling out their own environmental impacts (good and bad).

Why they get the nod:

Santa Cruz, California, has always had a strong mountain bike community and a reputation for great trails. What it hasn’t always had is a ton of sanctioned, bike-legal trails. If you’re not from California that previous sentence may have thrown you. For those of us who grew up there, however, it makes all too much sense—it’s the old Don’t ask, don’t tell approach to riding trails. California boasts a long and not-so-stellar history of banning bikes from much of the singletrack on public lands. Consequently, mountain biking in that state has often taken on an unsanctioned, illicit character.

But times, thankfully, are starting to change and Santa Cruz Bicycles is one of the companies in the bike industry that deserves credit for helping invest in that reversal of fortune. By now, you’re probably familiar with the many "Donate $5” or "Five Bucks a Foot" contests that Santa Cruz has sponsored on Pinkbike (and elsewhere) to raise money for trailbuilding and advocacy in the Golden State. Riders pony up a few bucks, enter to possibly win a shiny, new Santa Cruz mountain bike and all the proceeds go to expanding trails.

It’s hard to quantify just how much good Santa Cruz Bicycles has done over the years, but if we merely look to the very recent past, Santa Cruz Bicycles’ support includes a recent contribution of $500,000 to the forthcoming San Vicente Redwoods open space near Davenport, California, $75,000 to the Stafford Lake Bike Park in Novato, California, $20,000 annually to the Sierra Buttes Trail Stewardship in Downieville, California, and numerous other smaller cash and product contributions to trail projects around the globe.

From the story:
bigquotesSanta Cruz Bicycles has been pivotal in advocating for sustainable mountain biking here and around the world. They regularly contribute cash, product, and sweat equity to ensure the future of mountain biking, and we’re very thankful to have them as a partner as we work towards expanding sustainable trail access in Santa Cruz.Amanda Schaper, Marketing/Events Director, Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz


  • 210 7
 Anyone, but IMBA!
  • 37 6
 Patagonia is not for bike Access FYI.
  • 10 1
 @Gregorysmithj1: Source to back that up? I'm genuinely curious.
  • 18 11
 @TheStabbyCyclist: www.parkrecord.com/news/summit-county/outdoor-community-unites-against-bikes-in-wilderness-proposal

The now infamous "president stole your land" bs. It never got stolen it is still federally protected land. I'm against the shrinking of the national monuments but misinformation meant to divide and sell more stuff is just as bad.
  • 4 1
 @Gregorysmithj1: That is not Patagonia as a company that was against the modification of the Wilderness Protection act - that was one person who worked at Patagonia before starting Black Diamond.

I quote: "'m against the shrinking of the national monuments but misinformation meant to divide and sell more stuff is just as bad." ~ Gregorysmithj1
  • 4 3
 @oranjpeelz: it's that whole business market. They want the outdoors for themselves. It's insane there on here I'm sure I could find the lobbying firms Patagonia donated to all were against the bill.
  • 3 0
 ^ this. Simply, not IMBA.
  • 44 1
 @Gregorysmithj1: Respectfully, while it is still federal land, the Bears Ears and Escalante former Monument land could now be leased out, even on long 100 year leases, which means it's hardly public land anymore and you can be arrested for trespassing on said leased land. I'm not at all against having use on public land; I think it's great that ranchers, motorcyclists, mountain bikers, off-roaders and even oil drillers can use the vast majority of BLM and Forest Service land. I think that's quite egalitarian. However, I do think some areas do deserve more protection, namely the areas that were designated as national monuments for over 20 years, as in the case in Escalante. I also think the archeological and historical richness in Bears Ears of the native American sites all throughout the monument area, deserves protection, by all rights it should still be their land and they want it protected. I like Monuments as opposed to Wilderness designation because it still allows for recreation of bikes and motorized vehicles. Thanks to our first mountain biking president, Bush, we can even ride singletrack in Monuments.
There are some nuances here, but the only reason to scale back the Monument protection is to offer up development on these lands, either for mineral extraction, ranching, or building resorts. None of those activities can be performed without damage. Just like when Ford gets a leased car back, there will always be general permanent wear and tear of what was leased. Frankly, we don't need the land for energy extraction, we are now a net exporter of fossil fuels from the lands we can already drill and frack on and coal isn't worth the cost of mining due to the abundance of cheap natural gas. In 2011, even under Obama, the US became a net exporter of refined petroleum products and in 2014 we became the third largest producer of crude oil in the world. there just seems to be no national need for this land to be opened for development. At some point, this reduction in monuments seems like another way for the wealthiest to make large sums of money at the expense of the taxpayers that own the land. It honestly just reeks of crony capitalism. When public treasures are handed over to those that can bend the ear of politicians through large lobbying efforts and cash donations, it's hard for me to not call it theft.
As mountain bikers, we should be united on working on keeping protected lands that we can ride on protected and expanding our ability to use Wilderness areas.
  • 9 0
 @whambat: deserves more than my +1. well said
  • 4 9
flag Gregorysmithj1 (Dec 12, 2017 at 8:55) (Below Threshold)
 @whambat: Nothing has happened yet. No land has been leased there, No land has been sold. Courts still haven't weighed in on this issue. This is all fear based guesses and misinformation. No one can show me otherwise.
  • 3 0
 @Gregorysmithj1: Can you come up with any other reason to reduce the size of the monuments? I am willing to listen. If you cannot, then it’s not fear mongering.
  • 2 2
 @Gregorysmithj1: In all honesty the writing of Hatch's legislation and the now current iteration proposed by McClintock is summarized as follows:

HR 1349 - This bill amends the Wilderness Act to declare that provisions of such Act prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles, aircraft, or other forms of mechanical transport shall not prohibit the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized bicycles, strollers, wheelbarrows, survey wheels, or game carts within any wilderness areas.

If bicycles and wheelchair access were the only on the list, IMBA, Patagonia and other companies would most likely be on board. What turns then off is the mention of game carts and strollers.

1. Every hiker in their right mind IF they brought an infant into the wilderness, would be using a harness system as it is not efficient to drag or push a stroller up or down rock staircases and bench cut mountainsides.

2. Gamecarts - self explanatory

Rep. McClintock is a corporate shill, who would be the person to introduce this legislation to slowly chip away at the rest of the Wilderness Act in eventuality. The guy has no respect for his constituents or moral values. I live in his district and was happy when I first saw this bill. But after looking at it more, it honestly was just appeal to a user group (us) that vehemently supports trail access for bikes, one that in their fit of excitement would ignore the other things this resolution would open these trails to.
  • 7 1

Honestly, I’m not sure why you are against game carts and strollers. Game carts are nothing but off road push dolleys to help hunters get out their game quicker before they rot or get eaten by other animals. And there are plenty of former roads in Wilderness areas that would be good for a stroller like the Chariot I used to use with my kid.
  • 6 0
 @RideTahoe707: Game hunting is way more environmentally friendly than factory farming of cows. We should support hunters. Everyone wants to keep everything for themselves. Just because someone thinks crappy things about one issue doesn't mean EVERYTHING they think and support is evil. You'd think from these comments the republicans out west want to burn the world down and pave it.
  • 2 3
 Its a non-issue meant to divide and anger the alt-right and alt-left to get politicians more donations.
  • 8 5
 @Gregorysmithj1: the alt-left isn't a thing.
  • 4 2
 @lyfcycles: Really there's not absurd people on both sides? It is scary people think one party is infallible.
  • 8 1
 @Gregorysmithj1: I have to agree with you here: unless you are a vegan, you can’t have an argument against hunting. Not only environmentally, but hunting is way more ethical than conventional factory farming. Hunting is truly free range farming. Additionally with reductions in natural predators, grazing animals such as deer and elk, need to have their herds thinned now and again to reduce wasting disease and overgrazing. And this is coming from a guy, me, who doesn’t hunt.
  • 2 0
 @whambat: I dont hunt im scared of guns ha.
  • 6 0
 @Gregorysmithj1: But there’s actually a group that calls themselves alt-right, they named themselves that because calling your self a white nationalist, fascist, or a neo-nazi was no longer fashionable. It’s their own re-branding. It’s fair to use the term. No one calls themselves alt-left.
  • 2 0
 @Gregorysmithj1: I'm not saying anything about not supporting hunters and bringing factory farming into the conversation is not relevant and is a discussion I leave to over zealous vegans. I have hunted and have many family members who do every single year, I am not a vegan nor ever intend to be.

I'm saying from what I've gathered is that the Wilderness Act was meant to preserve the wilderness as a pristine natural habitat for us to explore, IMBA and Patagonia have their own opinions on it just like you and I and they may have felt that this was not the appropriate legislation to back for whatever reason. I personally believe from observing Hatch, Lee and McClintock's records that this is in fact their attempt to lay the first stepping stone to fully repealing the Wilderness Act.

This is an observation of information, not a political statement. (It's nuts that I have to subtext with this).

On the note of McClintock specifically, I'm sure if they found oil or gas deposits below Lake Tahoe he'd start catering to those interested in drilling the bottom of the Lake.
  • 1 0
 @RideTahoe707: I can't speak for others, but my concern would be that similar to the recent tax bill when it passed the senate, you can get through committee with one bill, and then change the entire text on the floor through the amendment process. Without a majority (this is assuming that Republicans would favor more resource extraction in Wilderness Areas based on their recent actions regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the tax bill) it would be very hard for any group in the minority to stop an amendment that sneaks in the ability to conduct extraction activities in wilderness areas on the floor or in committee as no Republicans balked at the ANWR addition. Attach this bill to some must pass-legislation, and then you have gutted the Wilderness Act completely.
  • 112 10
 How the hell is Evergreen Mountain Bike Association not on this list. What they have done in a Washington in the last five years is amazing. They should be the model on how othe advocacy mountain groups move forward.
  • 23 1
 don't boo, vote
  • 35 2
 EMBA is by all accounts awesome, and there are a TON of other organizations we could add to this list. Awesome to see organizations doing great work to support great trails.
  • 2 0
 @addatx: Political feelings aside, that was a fantastic and witty response.
  • 15 4
 @brianpark: That statement says nothing. EMBA is the pinnacle of what mountain bike trail organizations could be. It is easy to measure, look at the quality and quantity of trails EMBA has put down in WA.
  • 4 1
 upvote infinity
  • 6 3
 @cogsci: The pinnacle? Bold statement.
  • 9 1
 @brianpark: It is a bit odd that the 3 trail advocates on this list are corporations. In an effort to be more inclusive, perhaps there could be a separate award category for trail associations like EMBA and others that deserve a mention that aren't for-profit bike/clothing companies.
  • 9 1
 @cogsci: I think WORCA, SORCA & NSMBA would equally be equally on the same level as Evergreen. All are RAD and worth major cred (and some of your donated cash and time)!
  • 10 0
 @boxxerace: All awesome organizations but why I say EMBA is they basically started from nothing. The MTB attitude in Washington prior to EMBA was all NIMBY or not on my land. By working with the local agencies and land agencies they single handly changed the connotation of mountain bikers to the general public.
  • 6 0
 @bedell99: That's a good point. So maybe EMBA should get the award of the decade! It's true, Evergreen has played it's cards right and for the long term. We are tremendously lucky to have the dedicated team fighting for and developing really fun trails in Washington State! It's a slow and often thankless task to legalize and build trails, I'm not sure I have the patience!
  • 2 6
flag isawtman (Dec 11, 2017 at 21:52) (Below Threshold)
 I'd have to agree with Evergreen. They have been leading the way with their stance that mountain bikes really shouldn't be in Wilderness Areas. The Roaring Fork Mountain Biking Association is even a better example. They deserve it
  • 4 0
 @isawtman: don’t make assumptions about people you don’t work or volunteer with. You don’t even live anywhere near Washington.

Your view is as backward and you know it Todd. So does everyone that reads your comments. You are quite literally wasting your time on Pinkbike or Bike Mag.
  • 2 0
 @cogsci: how do you know they're better than what other states have, that you're unfamiliar of?
  • 1 0
 @addatx: The only problem with your comment is that the pinkbike public don't get to vote on the winners. Sure, you can voice your opinions in the comments, but ultimately the Pinkbike awards are decided by staff members.

So, perhaps more appropriate- Continue booing, you can't vote
  • 6 0
 @lobohusky: we saw this topic as a "who is putting their money where their mouth is." I totally agree that we should find ways to celebrate and thank the kickass trail orgs that are doing it right.
  • 1 0
 @brianpark: Nonprofit of the year nominees? I'd be super into that as an award.
  • 1 2
 @boxxerace: @boxxerace: Well, according to the email I got from Yvonne, Evergreen is not pushing for mountain biking access to either the PCT or Wilderness Areas. They have opted not to be a part of STC's effort. It's obvious that the STC Bill stinks. IMBA couldn't stand the smell of Bears Ears being reduced by 85%, and they are not willing to let that happen to Wilderness Area. Good for them, and good for Evergreen
  • 1 0
 @isawtman: Political expediency, because of shortsighted people like you Todd.
  • 4 0
 @isawtman: Bears Ears and Wilderness are separate issues. Devil is in the details on these issues, which is whey we need boots on the ground and local groups like Evergreen, and all our equivalent state level orgs. In states like WA, Wilderness is still a big issue, with a lot of risk to bike trails. Even something becoming "recommended Wilderness" by USFS staff usually means bikes get kicked off of trails. The wrong set of circumstances and staffers line up, and we get totally screwed, with very little recourse and getting politicians involved might not even matter at that point.

Wilderness as a concept is broken because of that. There needs to be a change or an alternate designation or we'll eventually lose places like Angel's Staircase, Entiat, some of the Kettle Crest, and probably even stuff like Palisades. We need to be able to push for strong land protection that allows bikes. Right now we don't have good tools to do that.

Hey, I like the idea of Wilderness, in the right location. I also really like our best high-country bike trails. These two things are in conflict, and that sucks. Something needs to change. I personally think it is most likely to be fixed in a bi-partisan way, and shouldn't be hijacked by the extremes from either side.

I think IMBA has screwed up on this issue, obviously. I also think STC has screwed up by allowing the most extreme members of one party be the champion of their bill, which ultimately means it has very little chance of succeeding. The best case scenario is that STC has paved the way for IMBA to do something such as Wilderness B or Wild and Scenic Forests (taking a cue from the great results of Wild and Scenic Rivers). Unfortunately, we haven't seen anything visible on this front. Hopefully new leadership is working the levers behind the scenes. Grandstanding means nothing. Results are all that matters.
  • 1 0
 @JustinVP: I'd like to see Ted get some Democrats to co-sign the bill. Do your fellow EMBA staff have any ears with House members here in WA? app.leg.wa.gov/Rosters/Members/House

It would take a bold Democrat that understands how non-partisan human powered wilderness access (or not a blanket ban) is considering today's gotcha politics. But it's not out of the question.
  • 1 0
 @JustinVP: Justin, Bears Ears and the Wilderness are the exact same issue. If the Republicans reduced Bears Ears by 85% for a mining company, well, they will be just as willing to reduce or eliminate Wilderness Areas for special interests. Even Ted Stroll of STC says that the Wilderness Act has only been amended one time for a small technical issue. The Wilderness Act is doing absolutely fine as it is.

There already is a land protection designation that allows bikes. It's called National Recreation Areas. It protects the land from timber, mining and oil, etc, and you can go mountain biking. To me, that's what you guys should b pushing for. Unfortunately, you think we need to make some other designation and try to reinvent the wheel.
  • 47 0
 How about Sustainable Trails coalition?

Or what about just a big round of props to all the trail builders out there?
  • 8 1
 Yes. The STC is the clear cut only meaningful advocate for bike access nationally
  • 3 10
flag isawtman (Dec 11, 2017 at 21:54) (Below Threshold)
 @leelau: You know those Congressman that want to cut Bears Ears National Monument by 85%. They are the same ones that are sponsoring the STC Bill. If you care anything about the environment, you should stay far away from STC
  • 5 1
 @isawtman: nah, we mountain bikers love the environment and we seek to protect it. Wrong again and again Todd.
  • 3 7
flag projectnortheast (Dec 12, 2017 at 6:14) (Below Threshold)
 @isawtman: The whole "president stole your land" is BS. Stop buying into the whole garbage that the left is spewing
  • 3 0
 @isawtman: go away. Sometimes local governance is better.
  • 2 2
 @manchvegas: the president did steal land...just not this president.
  • 34 4
 As a Californian, Santa Cruz, hands down. Those guys are changing the face of mountain biking and land management. MBoSC as well, doing some crazy stuff down south.
  • 26 1
 Meanwhile in the east bay, I still have to poach everything, because it's ALL illegal.
  • 4 0
 Skeggs rips, miss riding there@Trouterspace:
  • 4 1
 WTF all the riding is illegal in SC, I dont get it.
  • 3 0
 @Trouterspace: yeah but even if you lived in SC you wouldn't ride anything legal. And nobody will sanction trails like the best ones in the east bay.
  • 5 0
 @tttyyler: Yeah but I mean, there are still fun legal trails in SC. And the illegal ones... everyone rides them.

Rangers out here bust night riders and patrol singletrack on motos or with radar guns... it's a whole different ball of wax out here. The cows have better access than I do..
  • 1 0
 @Trouterspace: Where do I sign up for that job? haha. I haven't seen that yet, but I only ride out there a few times a year
  • 1 0
 I live in Palo Alto after moving 6 years ago, my local options are very limited even within an hour driving distance. Lots of rangers and bullshit here too but MBoSV works quite closely with the fellas in my hometown, so it is on the up. Easy bay sounds super rough!
  • 1 0
 @Trouterspace: Marin is as bad or worse, so I feel your pain. And I agree @tttyyler, all the best trails in SC are illegal as well. It's a joke, but all the money around here is with dog walking hikers and equestrian's. We all know those 2 groups hate mtb's!
  • 5 0
 @Trouterspace: Been there, lived that. Clayton born and bred. It sucks--so much potential out your way and so damn much of it off limits. Lame.
  • 3 4
 @vernonfelton: Hey, Vernon, have you changed your mind yet about letting the Republican mess with Wilderness Areas? They have proposed carving up Bears Ears by 85%. They are probably itching to get their hands on Wilderness Areas
  • 1 0
 @Trouterspace: be careful what you ask for, legalization doesn't always end up the way you want it to.
  • 3 2
 Does PinkBike have a ban feature? How do I report a persistent troll such as @isawtman?
  • 1 0
 @vernonfelton: Indeed... that Clayton side of Diablo is some of the best riding around too!
  • 23 1
 Obviously Mother Theresa was better. Gandhi had a pretty bad ketamine addiction and loved to play the ponies. Most of his kids college savings went up his nose.
  • 4 1
  • 11 2
 @Junk2016: He used to roll dice in the alleys of New Dehli. He would wait until the pot got nice and fat and would grab all the cash and run. Took a couple bad beatings but they always let him play. His quote "In a gentle way, you can shake the world" is about alley dice games.
  • 3 0
 @employee7: So what you'e saying is that every week " Ghandhi" would rob the game?? my only question is why did you let him play??
  • 10 1
 It's 4:20 somewhere...
  • 4 0
 @Bigernmcracken: Got to. This is America, man.
  • 4 0
 @bkm303: That poor bastard forgot his coat one day and his nickname was snot boogie for the rest of his life.
  • 1 1
 Seriously...?! You guys are actually harshing on Ghandi?? Wow! I’m actually at a loss to even attempt humor at that one.
  • 21 3
 A bike oriented website nominating Patagonia for bike related advocacy efforts. You might as well just take a shit in an envelope and mail it to STC.
  • 27 12
 Patagonia - Laundry is a surprising source of plastic pollution. Every time you wash synthetic clothes, such as fleeces, athletic wear, and leggings, minuscule plastic fibers are released into the wash water. These fibers are known as microplastics, since they fall into the category of tiny plastic pellets, fragments, and films that measure less than 1 millimetre across.

This also means that they’re nearly impossible to filter out at wastewater plants and most end up in the ocean, to the detriment of marine life—and ultimately, inside humans, too, as a third of our food is thought to be contaminated by these plastic microfibers.
Fibers are unique among microplastics because of their shape. Chelsea Rochman, lead scientist for a University of California Davis study on how ingested plastic transfers chemicals to fish, explains:

“These fibers are a bit longer, and they’re loopy, and they can get caught in the digestive tract or in the stomach. They can cause an animal to starve or stop eating, or can actually loop around the organ… So you could say a whale with a big rope isn’t that different from plankton with a small fiber.”

When the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco tested the effluent of eight Bay Area wastewater treatment plants last year, they “found that 80 percent of the microplastics and other microscopic particles were fibers.”

“When Yvon Chouinard [Patagonia’s founder] was confronted with the dilemma of clean climbing, he didn't proclaim that he would look into the matter; he stopped making pitons altogether. The same approach should be taken with the manufacturing of synthetic fleece. When the only available information is anecdotal the response should be to err on the side of caution, not business as usual until someone proves otherwise.”
  • 86 2
 Luckily, all my clothing is made out of carbon fiber.
  • 20 1
 Look up their Feb 3rd update, "An Update on Microfiber Pollution." They're actively addressing these issues.
  • 6 6
 Is your only suggestion that all production of synthetic fleece apparel should cease immediately? That's not going to happen.
  • 13 3
 It's impossible to be environmentally flawless (they try to do as well as they can). Hard to argue with what they're doing when they've given $87 million to environmental charities and are leading the way in making performance clothing from recycled material, with less water, encouraging good buying habits and putting out good information.
  • 13 1
 It's why I only use 100% burlap potato sacks.
  • 11 16
flag Gregorysmithj1 (Dec 11, 2017 at 16:57) (Below Threshold)
 Patagonia is turning into a quasi religion/ political party. They are just like any for profit business I don't like the self righteous self serving preaching.
  • 9 15
flag otto99 (Dec 11, 2017 at 17:13) (Below Threshold)
 @Gregorysmithj1: yep, exactly..
They think they're a special bunch of snowflakes.

There's lots of companies doing good...

They think they have some kind of political clout because they sell lots of jackets..

The more active they are the less I respect them. Never liked their products but that's irrelevant.
  • 2 2
 @Thustlewhumber: Mine are aluminum
  • 4 7
 @otto99: I'm not even close to a Trump fan but whatever... I don't get why I'm getting down voted for calling out a business that lies and advocates against mountain biking.
  • 4 8
flag otto99 (Dec 11, 2017 at 22:06) (Below Threshold)
 @Gregorysmithj1: I'm a huge supporter of Trump. But regardless our culture doesn't like inconvenient facts.

If you haven't made enemies, then you've never stood for anything.
  • 8 4
 @Gregorysmithj1: Just like any for-profit business except they go miles out of their way to make clothing that's better for the environment and donate a lot of their profits.

Some real "snowflake" shit. Meanwhile real-man companies make their clothing using as much water and virgin fibre as possible and the CEO uses the profits to drive 90 down the freeway, rolling coal, running as many critters over as possible whilst firing an AR-15 in the air, yelling yeehawww!
  • 7 3
 "If you haven't made enemies, then you've never stood for anything."

I could not imagine a douchier comment. Didn't Pinochet have that as his screensaver?
  • 3 6
 @tom666: hunting is more environmentally friendly than buying from the store.... I think Patagonia still chooses to make product in china.. The most environmentally friendly coat is the one in wall Mart because it took the least amount of transportation costs and production costs to get there. People buy Patagonia because it makes them feel good.
  • 1 4
 @Gregorysmithj1: Please stop. You're clearly a racist bigot. Logic and reason not welcome here.
  • 1 3
 @tom666: I knew snowflake would trigger at least a few of you haha
  • 3 0
 @TheR: the best comment yet
  • 2 0
 Well, shit. The more you know. Good thing I don't wear clothes.
  • 19 1
 Insane that the Sustainable Trails Coalition isn't on this list...that's a huge fail
  • 14 0
 IMBA wrote in and wouldn't support them. They weren't OPPOSED, mind you. They just felt the need to chime in and specifically state they weren't supporting STC's bid for Advocate of the Year.
  • 15 3
 Bummer Patagonia has been so vocal about designating more wilderness (where bikes are banned), with the Bear's Ears NM being the latest push from them.
  • 8 1
 While they do make a pretty big push for more wilderness areas, they also do a lot of work to make sure land still stays available to mountain bikers. For example there is actually some great riding in the Bears Ears area which was a national monument but did not have much as far as designated wilderness areas.
  • 4 1
 Eh, I've spent tons of time in the Bears Ears area, which was full of WSAs anyways, and there practically zero mtb trials other than dirt roads.
  • 8 7
 Patagonia is a for profit company with some self serving ethics I think the whole brand is a bunch of BS. There's better gear anyways.
  • 3 2
 @Gregorysmithj1: yes Patagonia's ethics absolutely help endear them to a customer base. And they are absolutely a for profit company. You don't have to like their gear. But those ethics have not only helped preserve and fight for public lands, but also made the process behind consumerism more transparent. These are big issues in our world and Patagonia is taking active steps to try and make the planet and products we enjoy a better place. I find it silly that you feel the need to argue against this. Their money is where their mouth is. They're not trying to trick you, they're going to keep keep supporting these causes whether you or I buy their expensive product or not.
  • 11 2
 Santa Cruz makes carbon bikes, and according to Paul Aston, carbon bikes are the number one threat facing the environment today. #oceanfill

Trek makes eBikes. eBike batteries are mined out of the Congo by slave labor. Also, eBikes erode the trails.

Patagonia is the leading manufacture of clothing for people who idle their Range Rover in elementary school pickup lines contributing untold volumes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
  • 13 3
 Patagonia is against mountain bikes in the Wilderness. Patagonia is against the opening of of "Monument" areas which will equate to more mountain biking opportunities.
  • 7 0
 I am planning to buy a shovel when the ice melts.
  • 10 8
 Patagonia for life! I grew up where they were founded and still have gear purchased in 1992. Whether or not they deserve the nod from dirt worshiping bikers is debatable, because Santa Cruz rocks, but there is no denying they are doing their best to lead other corporations down a path of giving back and taking action to protect our planet. they give $millions to local non-profits and host a 5-star advocacy training for environmental grant recipients. My vote is partial because I also surf, snowboard, and lead outdoor tours so I am using Patagonia gear every day to play, but can only get on my bike a couple of times a week.
  • 6 3
 I can attest! I have some Patagonia Salopettes for skiing in that I bought in a mad sale probably 15 years ago that are still mint to this day. Tough as anything!
  • 2 1
 @cunning-linguist: pics or it didn't happen
  • 2 1
 @BenPea: they're in the attic and I CBA to get them out for a photo shoot. You'll just have to believe. Like people do in God. But this is real & actually feasible!!!
  • 3 1
 So... only American for profit companies are advocates? Are there really no companies in Europe, Asia or Africa doing good work? Are there no charities or non-profit organisations on the planet "advocating" for cyclists? It'd be great if Pinkbike could look further afield for this award.
  • 1 1
 I'll believe Trek and Santa Cruz are environmental advocates when lifetime warranties become transferable to nonoriginal owners for $99.

By including Patagonia in the awards, our mountain-dwelling host has confused the self-serving Award category--mtb advocacy--with environmental advocacy. Down here in the comments--ocean.

Enjoy your oysters, gentlemen.
  • 6 0
 The list looks more like a corporate marketing event than advocacy
  • 4 3
 Trek for the win. Nica is changing the mountain bike community in this country in the best way possible. The more we can get people to appreciate the land the live on the better our future will be. Getting kids on bikes is one small step towards that.
  • 8 7
 Patagonia deserves some sort of credit, but mostly for convincing people to buy horribly overpriced stuff of mediocre quality simply by being very vocal..... on this topic, many other people/companies deserve more credit.... glad to see Trek and SC getting the nod.
  • 13 6
 Patagonia makes excellent products and contributes to the outdoor community like no other company, they deserve all the credit they get.
  • 7 3
 @mountain-life: $500 for a Chinese made jacket, or $150 for an R1 with zippers that always fail..... I'll pass.
  • 7 3
 @mountain-life: I think there a bunch of BS, there little quasi religion is just to sell more products. They do not even make the best longest lasting products.
  • 6 4
 "horribly overpriced stuff of mediocre quality" sounds like Santa Cruz to me.
  • 2 1
 I like my Padaguchi stuff. Of course I only buy it once a year when it is half off.
  • 25 24
 This is the same Patagonia that is threatening to sue Trump,because he repealed the land grab by the Obama administration, in order to give access back to the people. Not everything that Patagonia does under the name of environmentalism is good or even right. I’m not defending everything Trump does either. Sometimes he can act like a bozo but in this case he has done a good thing. My vote would be Santa Cruz because of the work they are doing to open up trail access in one of the most antagonistic biking environments there is. I was born and raised and lived in Santa Cruz for 50 years so I know how hard it is to get anything done there.
  • 10 9
 Wow- Reason and logic displayed on PB comments. This is like a unicorn.
  • 18 7
 Logic? It was Federal land to begin with. It wasn't a grab nor a give back. It was just a change of the rangers badge for God's sake...
  • 22 14
 Respectfully disagree. Your boy Trump repealed because he hates the first black pres and his republican homies in Utah can't make money on national monuments. Just read an article about a uranium company poking their nose around Bears Ears? How can Trail bulding in Santa Cruz compete with being a global environmental activist. Not just at home!
  • 7 13
flag Chasen911 (Dec 11, 2017 at 18:53) (Below Threshold)
 @Mtb4joe: Way to reply to the first logical coment in PB history, with no logic.
  • 14 5
 @Chasen911: care to elaborate? I shared my opinion. @endoguru thinks shrinking a national monument is good and building trails is more important then global enviromental activism. I disagree. I love to ride trails, but protecting and preserving so my children can too is more important. You still can't ride the 85% of the monuments they took back. I commend SC for building/maintaining trails where I live, but it fails to compare to Patagonia.
  • 3 8
flag Gregorysmithj1 (Dec 11, 2017 at 21:29) (Below Threshold)
 @Mtb4joe: funny stuff
  • 6 2
 @Gregorysmithj1: Glad you got a chuckle Smile I see you are Patagonia hater and that's ok with me. But I'm not sure of any other profitable corporation that has done more for the environment? Ok I will shut the f*+$k up now and get back to my hippie sh#t.
  • 5 5
 @Mtb4joe: what have they done? Made cute movies and ads! Seriously? Who invented the led light bulb I'm sure that's been millions of times better. The train Industry saves billions of gallons of gas.
  • 4 1
 @Gregorysmithj1: ok no one is arguing that Patagonia is singlehandedly changing the world. If that's the mindset you have then the dude who invented to bicycle should win this award hands down. But initiatives like 1% for the Planet (created by Patagonia)have allowed almost $200 million dollars to be put just towards environmental advocacy and education. You can look at the non profit and business partners at www.onepercentfortheplanet.org. Patagonia also is taking initiatives to reduce the use of harmful chemicals. Something that should absolutely come before us getting to ride our bikes in special places is the health and wellness of the people who and environmental where our clothes and bikes are manufactured.
  • 2 3
 @Gregorysmithj1: I don't have enough time to list all the issues they have championed. Seriously! Do a little research if your interested. Cut movies and ads help too, if people pull their heads out of the sand and watch. Hate on hater.
  • 2 0
 @DaysToCome: ."But I'm not sure of any other profitable corporation that has done more for the environment?" seems like people think they're the BEST. I am pro environment, I buy used as much as I can and dont waste materials, I spend extra to keep my house energy efficient as well. Patagonia mostly sells stuff people don't need, its all good but if you are selling products people don't need you shouldn't act like you're a positive effect on the environment. I have issues with patagonia branding because people buy it because they think it's helping the environment. When you buy something that will always be a net negative to the world not a positive. Its bothering to me people feel buying products help the environment buying ANYTHING will always be damaging. We should think about what we buy and only buy the best so it will last. If Patagonia cared about making lasting products they wouldn't sell cheaply made puffy coats that fall apart after a year of use. I am just ranting sorry.
  • 25 21
 A more anti MTB corporation cannot be found than Patagonia. Hilarious. Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.
  • 20 7
 Ignorance is a mental disorder! The mountains are more important than the mtb!
  • 11 5
 @Mtb4joe: don't worry about Chase, he can't get off Brietbart long enough to do any real harm.
  • 4 6
 @schofell84: Lol! Yes another Fox News buff. F*%!k politics, let's ride bikes!
  • 6 0
 It's unfortunate that protecting the environment has become a partisan issue. Fun fact, the USEPA was formed by President Nixon and saw widespread support from republicans and democrats. We Americans got tired of poisoned and polluted air and water and worked together to fix the problem. Hopefully we can work together again to continue to protect the environment and ensure responsible recreation access to undeveloped lands.
  • 2 2
 @MrFogg: The problem is the EPA like all government agencies whether well intentioned or not become infected with politics and the rot of bureaucracy. They begin making regs with the intent of punishing political foes and those they simply dislike. The EPA is THE worst of all the Federal agencies. I know many in different Fed agencies and the EPA is universally hated and despised for their arrogance and waste of government resources. It has lost its way and needs to be scaled back considerably. The amazing thing is scaling it back will literally have zero negative affect on keeping air/water/ground cleaner.
  • 3 1
 @chasejj: Those are some broad statements there, care to provide evidence for your claims?

I am an environmental engineer and have spent a fair amount of time working with the USEPA and the regulations it enforces. Some of those regulations may seem harsh but businesses (and even ignorant/greedy politicians, looking at you Flint) have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to put public safety above profit or other personal gains.

In an ideal world the USEPA would not be needed but in our world businesses exist for a single purpose, to make money. Trusting a business to regulate itself at the expense of profit (recycling and treating industrial waste is expensive) is like giving a junkie access to unlimited drugs and telling that person to use them responsibly. Not going to happen.
  • 2 2
 @MrFogg: Never said they didn't have a purpose. The problem is they went astray of their intended mission and do nothing but create reg after reg after reg with no measurable goal except to create more jobs, more demand for funding and with virtually no checks and balances. Any challenge to their authority is labeled with hyper ad hominem attacks nonstop by their benefactors. The Left aka Democrats.
You know I'm right if you work with them, and you're honest.
  • 3 1
 @chasejj: Again, you have made broad damning statements without providing evidence to back up your claims. Ironically that is the exact opposite of how environmental regulations are formed. A regulation is put into law after peer-reviewed studies have been completed the conclusively show that 1) There is a problem (arsenic in drinking water supply for example), 2) There is a way to mitigate or remove the problem altogether (treat water to remove arsenic or eliminate source of arsenic), 3) The proposed solution actually works (verified using bench and pilot systems), and 4) A plan is put into place to monitor the effects of the regulation. Enjoy being able to drink clean water? Your water provider is required to sample the water frequently to ensure compliance with regulations. As an added bonus frequent monitoring and data collection often allows problems to be detected before they become a public health risk, plus data collection allows the treatment technology employed to be improved and made (GASP!) more cost effective.

Then again we all know science and engineering is just liberal propaganda designed to hurt economic growth right?
  • 2 0
 @MrFogg: @chasejj: You're both right the original intent of the EPA was to keep businesses from ruining the environment but the EPA left unchecked is ruining the business environment which is forcing businesses to use countries like India and China as their manufacturing base.

Just do research on rare earth minerals........China is the worlds leader in mining rare earth minerals. Although, America has a large reserve of rare earth minerals their has been limited production. So while as a society we demand zero emission transportation and other energy sources........just break down the bill of materials to the simplest form and trace their origin.

I worked for a company that had a policy to use only USA sourced material.....but one oversight, just because ALCOA forged the aluminum billet in the USA doesn't mean the elements that go into making said aluminum billet were mined in the USA. It's a sticky wicket...............
  • 1 1
 @rivercitycycles: lol ... Surely it has nothing to do with tax code or important tariffs ...

Yes that's sarcasm.
  • 2 1
 While I can always count on getting ran over by a high school race team member in Draper. Pivot has been doing great things for the local community here in Utah: www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-news/pivot-cycles-sponsors-utah-nica-league-platinum-level . While the author said they can't mention everyone, they should at least get a plug. Especially when the local teams here are some of the bigger ones in the States.
  • 2 0
 I don't know biggest high school league ever vs coats..
  • 5 4
 I’m just going to say one thing about the whole down with Patagonia and down with IMBA thing. Well maybe a few things. We can all agree that we don’t always like what IMBA does, and I respect that some people are worried about who is there to speak up for the mountain bikers. Access loss is real, and trail building is real. It’s all happening. What I want to say here is that there is a much bigger picture and a much larger threat to our access to public lands. We can argue the fine points of who does more damage to trails, who cares more about impact, which company supports which user group, And on and on. But while we sit around the shop or internet and bitch about it over our IPA’s, we are truly looking down the barrel of an administration who is fighting to take away access to public lands for all users. All users deserve their places to play, with and without other user groups in their midst. If we’re not careful about picking a little pissing match with hikers over the bigger issue at hand, we will wake up one morning and find out that not only our favorite trail is closed, but access as a whole has been made more difficult. Anywho, back to my Mac ‘n Cheese and IPA.
  • 9 9
 It is actually the complete opposite. The administration is in fact comitted to opening up federal lands to recreation of all types. Not just MTB's. They fundamentally are against Federal control when it is not serve a federal security purpose. Returning the BS Monuments back to the states is just a small way to correct the punitive policies and blatant land grabbing of previous admins. Get you facts straight.
  • 8 6
 @chasejj: they want to open it up so private business can make money off it at the expense of your opportunity to recreate. But keep hating Obama bro.
  • 4 1
 Where has access been taken away from any user?
  • 3 0
 @wibblywobbly: I hate to say it, but commercial logging has been fantastic for mtb access in pnw. Easier to build on logging land than anywhere else.
  • 2 0
 @chasejj: they aren't returning any land to the states just letting states have input on how the land is used.
  • 2 1
 @chasejj: The Feds aren't "opening up lands to recreation of all types" - that's exactly what a National Monument is. I've spent plenty of time in the Utah Monuments and unless they are under some additional protection (Wilderness Study Area, etc.) you can pretty much do whatever you want (bike, moto, ORV, shoot guns, bon fires, whatever). The number one thing motivating the shrinking of Monuments is industry extraction (mining, drilling, logging), which really only benefits the rich corporations and the politicians on their payroll.

  • 2 0
 @daddymiles: there isnt anything to extract out there.
  • 3 1
 I agree. I don't buy into the trojan horse conspiracy theories about bikes in wilderness that so many of our Outdoor groups (like Patagonia) proclaim, so my only concern with modifying the Wilderness Act is how it's dividing the bikers from the hikers. If we spend more time pointing fingers at each others, we miss the opportunity to be heard as one strong voice.
One opportunity for this is the Recreation not Red Tape bill that Bishop and Wyden have introduced. It prioritizes Recreation in budget for National Recreation Areas, forces land managers to work together, and builds a collective of these recreation areas. Well worth supporting!

  • 2 0
 @chasejj: Ok, let’s talk facts. FIrst off, it is still federal land. About 1/4 of the land in Bears ears is National Forest, and 3/4 is BLM land. So none of it is being “returned to the state”. But let’s talk about what Utah does with state land. Utah has a long history of selling off its trust lands to the highest bidder. There was a chunk of land along Comb Ridge that would’ve been in or near Bears Ears. It was sold in 2016 to a private buyer. There are sensitive archaeological sites on that land that were protected under the Archaological Resources Protection Act. The land owner can now do whatever he wants to the sites, because private land isn’t protected under ARPA. They also gated off what was historically considered public land. Near Moab we have some awesome trails that are on this same state trust land (there are blocks of this land all over the state). So that’s what is at stake if this land were to get turned over to the State. They may do nothing, but it’s not a risk worth taking. I see someone already posted about the Uranium mining company that was lobbying the trump administration to reduce the size of the monuments. There is not as much oil and gas for extraction as some of the environmental groups have said there is, but there is still enough to cause concern. My point is that we risk far more by turning back the clock and letting the trump administration and Utah’s elected officials have their way with the land. Mountain bikers, hikers, equestrians, moto riders, etc all need to take a look at what’s best in the big picture for access to public lands. Also, I completely accept that there are differing opinions on how to do this. Also, if anyone cares to do so... listen to this podcast about this topic from a few days ago:

  • 2 1
 @CanyoneEJ: Ridiculous-Turning back what clock? 4 years? What a joke. State sovereignty is a founding precept of this country. If the state of Utah has other needs or uses for their own land, let them and their residents decide its fate. Fact is, there are indeed resources on some land that serve a national interest to allow extraction. That phone in your hand has lots of them that we are not producing enough of for our own security interest.

This is why you do not just go granting protected status to land unless their is a very serious need to lock it up. Which all these various designations do such as Wilderness, National Monuments, etc. You cannot do whatever recreation you want in these areas it is very restricted. Basically designating it at the federal level locks it up for anyone other than some granola chewing hiker. Which the last time I looked and most on here are not.
The Wilderness designation (Clinton put in place and that POS Bush allowed to proceed) BS is a travesty and the rules applied basically lock up vast areas of open land from any recreational use despite the 100's of years of previous use they had provided to citizens. Dream on if you think you are going to get lumped in with hikers for all this. News flash hikers hate you. MarinCo should have shown you all something about that. They will string you along and then cut you off. It is what they do. Patagonia,SC and the rest of the Enviro cabal are all playing their own game and you will all be excluded from the club as it moves through its phases.

Don't buy the liberal bullshit, which you are currently doing. Basically promoting being locked out of your very own land.
  • 1 0
 @Gregorysmithj1: not true.
1) why else would a uranium mining company lobby hard for Bears Ears to be smaller?
2) Bears Ears has 23 oil and gas leases within the current boundary that would be open for drilling if the monument border changes.

3) Grand Staircase has tons of oil, gas, and coal along the current border. so any shrinkage results in more drilling.

Follow the money.
  • 2 1
 @chasejj: you are 100% right. The hikers hate us. They will screw us over. Right now we all hate the same things, but when the time comes they will kick us out the boat and watch us drown.

The problem is that I would rather public land be preserved in situ so nobody except granola eating hikers in Patagonia jackets can use it than have it destroyed by extractive interests for their own profit. At that point the land is destroyed so nobody can use it at all. The few cents I get off my taxes aren't worth it to me.

Also, eff people like the Bundy's and their ilk who are nothing more than a bunch of leaches off the government who want it both ways.
  • 4 0
 @chasejj: Have you ever spent time in the Utah National Monuments? trust me, on 90% of it the only restrictions are not taking artifacts, not driving off trail, and not drilling. Don't mistake Monument status for Wilderness or Wilderness Study Area, which definitely cut out all mechanized travel (no bikes, no wheel barrows, no chainsaws, no 4x4s)
  • 1 0
 @daddymiles: 1 it's about pushing there interests in large not the specific property. That industry is big in the area and I think they don't want to get shut down. 2 There is millions of oil leases EVERYWHERE it's a gamble the fact that there's only 23 in a large area shows nothing is out there.
  • 1 0
 @daddymiles: 3 I agree with it was a monument for 20 years. I actually am bummed bears ears got cut down but it's not as BIG of a deal as it's made out to be.
  • 1 0
 @chasejj: This wasn’t state of Utah land. It was never in their hands or control. It belongs to the taxpayers of the United States.

This isn’t about state sovereignty. This was and has been federal land since it was taken from the Indians. The control of those lands was laid out before Utah was ratified as a state. Federal dollars paid for the lands out West either from the Jefferson purchase or from the payout at the end of the Spanish American war.
  • 1 0
 @whambat: I agree with you but we still need to be kind to the generations of Americans who made their living off that land. Back east and in the south generations gto to keep that farm and ranching land out in the west it was never theirs, great for us bad for them. I would like to not see another Bundy family fiasco and I feel to stop that we need to compromise.
  • 3 0
 This award should have gone to Sustainable Trails Coalition for, you know, actually advocating for mountain bikers and supporting HR1349 instead of what IMBA is doing.
  • 3 0
 Big companies getting recognition for doing something they should be doing! Come on Pinkbike you can do better than this.
  • 7 7
 Big fan of Santa Cruz and truly appreciate their work - but you can build all the trails you want and it won't matter if broader environmental issues aren't addressed. My vote goes to Patagonia, hands down.
  • 3 1
 Nice to read positive articles when pretty much all news outlets only report bad news. I love Pinkbike.
  • 4 2
 patagonias zippers always break.. anyone else have that problem? also their stuff doesent last very long.
  • 2 3
 "It's the reason you probably haven't witnessed a whole lot of brawls over whether Mahatma Gandhi was better than Mother Theresa or vice versa."

TBF Gandhi was a racist, class obsessed sexual deviant while mother Theresa was an evil bitch.
  • 1 0
 What about including 50 to 1 with josh and loosedog getting back to just having a laugh and f*cking around on their bikes with mates ? its all about having fun.
  • 8 9
 Patagonia are really championing environment. Unfortunately Santa Cruz and Trek both suffer from a single united problem: how to recycle carbon fibre effectively and sustainably.
  • 7 6
 I just did some quick googling and this carbon fibre recycling issue isn't an issue. Global production of carbon fibre for this year is estimated to be 70,000 tonnes. That is about equivalent to the annual garbage produced by 87,000 people. Recycling carbon firbe is not an issue at these scales.
  • 2 1
 Millions of jackets & retail shops vs long lasting green transportation?
  • 8 10
 My vote goes to Patagonia. Yes every yuppie from BC to San Diego has an arsenal of down sweaters, but they do so much for the environment. Santa Cruz trail stewardship is great, but in my opinion it's mostly used as a marketing tool. One trailside sign is like 10 bike mag adds... Can we really catagorize that as pro-bono?
  • 8 1
 Of course there's some marketing involved, but what's wrong with that?

Your local trail organization needs time and money, Santa Cruz puts in both.

Why begrudge them for that??
  • 3 2
 @cooperquinn-wy: calling their trail stewardship "great" is begrudging? Not in the least. However my point was if your doing volunteer/pro bono work that your ultimately marketing and profiting from, is it really pro bono?
  • 3 0
 @Mtb4joe: But who's calling it pro-bono?

I don't read that above?
  • 2 1
 @cooperquinn-wy: You are 100% correct on that point sir. I just have a hard time seeing past the marketing aspect of bike companies being glorified for doing trail work. It sells bikes and they write it off(taxes). That said I ride trails that were sponsered by bike companies all the time. WTB does a ton in Downieville, one of my favorite spots.
  • 2 0
 All three of these companies use it as a marketing tool. Not knocking it, but don't start taking it for more than it is.
  • 2 1
 @tylenoljones: Good point. The difference in my opinion is Patagonia's broad reach of conservation. Not just a huge bike corporation building trails.
  • 2 0
 Wait. These are winners. All three nominees win? What is this, tee ball?
  • 1 0
 Next year, I think whoever invents the new standard that obsoletes our current bikes should be advocate of the year.
  • 1 0
 Habitat for humanity sells bikes sometimes
  • 1 1
 TREK has the Powerfly, they`re advocating epeding in the forests!
  • 1 2
 What about me, I've been working so hard protecting Wilderness Areas from the awful Republicans
  • 1 1
 What a joke
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment

Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.059946
Mobile Version of Website