Cane Creek Raffles Special Fork to Benefit IMBA

Apr 13, 2021 at 11:55
by Cane Creek  

PRESS RELEASE: Cane Creek Cycling Components

Cane Creek Cycling Components is proud to announce the “HELMyeah IMBA Sweepstakes”!

Cane Creek has built a very special HELM MKII fork in a mustard color to be raffled off with all of the proceeds going to support the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) - a non-profit organization whose mission is to create, enhance and protect great places to ride mountain bikes. Since 1988, IMBA has taught and encouraged low-impact riding, grassroots advocacy, sustainable trail design, innovative land management and cooperation among trail user groups. IMBA U.S. is a national network of local groups, individual riders and passionate volunteers working together for the benefit of the entire community - a community Cane Creek is proud to be a part of.

Supporting IMBA grows access to trails all over the nation closer to people’s doorsteps. IMBA is the worldwide leader in sustainable trail planning, design and managing mountain bike trails. Cane Creek is proud to donate this special HELM MKII 29 Mustard fork to benefit IMBA. The special HELM MKII fork includes a newly designed damper featuring a new compression and mid-valve circuit for increased support and control while a new SKF oil seal head and 2.5 weight damper oil reduce friction and provide a more supple ride feel.

HELM MKII 29 in Mustard - 150mm travel and 44mm offset

HELM MKII Air 29 Specs

The prize fork is a Cane Creek HELM MKII 29 in a special mustard color pre-set from the factory at 150mm of travel (travel adjustable between 100mm - 160mm) and retails for $1049.99. The Sweepstakes will begin Wednesday, April 14th, 2021 at 8:00 AM EDT and ends Friday, April 30th at midnight EDT. All proceeds will go directly to IMBA and mountain bike advocacy. The drawing will take place on Monday, May 3rd at 12:00PM EDT, the winner will be notified by Cane Creek. *If a participant is chosen outside of the United States, the participant will be responsible for paying import duties and taxes.*

Enter the Sweepstakes Here


  • 51 2
 Enter to fund a brand new sidewalk near you!!
  • 20 2
 And switchbacks that go up and downhill.
  • 27 0
 My god, that color is hideous! I must own it!
  • 25 2
 Dont support groups that regress mtb
  • 7 8
 You are misinformed.
  • 11 2
 Inform me then. Some of us went to ride sick stuff. Not climb up fire roads @hardcore-hardtail:
  • 14 0
 really wish the decals were done in the Grey Poupon theme
  • 3 1
 Seems like a missed opportunity for sure.
  • 15 4
 Can we do a benefit for the STC instead?
  • 19 3
 Absolutely a better organization! IMBA and their friends at the Sierra Club need to go away.
  • 2 4
 @unrooted: Whats the controversy? I am legit interested
  • 14 3
 @joshwoodwardphoto: I see. Well, I will continue to not give money to IMBA.
  • 6 31
flag RBalicious (Apr 14, 2021 at 10:08) (Below Threshold)
 @joshwoodwardphoto: mountain bikes should not be in the wilderness.
  • 8 2
 @RBalicious: And the Sierra Club comes in! The Wilderness Act was hijacked over the years by environmental groups to remove cycle access (which is still human powered transport) to these areas. These are the same folks who put logs across trails and endanger lives.
  • 6 2
 @RBalicious: That's absurd. I mean, I ride up in Sun Valley and Stanley, Idaho all of the time and there is no obvious impact on the wilderness between the areas of Stanley, Idaho that you can ride a bike and those that you cannot (Boulder Whiteclouds Wilderness area).
  • 7 0
 @gnarlysipes: I pretty much wrote off ever donating to the Sierra Club after they disavowed John Muir.
  • 18 16
 @gnarlysipes: I am NOT a part of the Sierra Club. If you read what the ethos of what wilderness is and means, bicycles do NOT fit in a category of an area untrammeled, uninhabited by humans. Bicycles are mechanical and have fluids/parts that can & will be easily discarded by users unfortunately. In my opinion horses should also not be allowed as they are non native to North America.
I work for a land management agency and push hard for expansion of trails for MTB use, but wilderness should not be accessed by bicycles. In the area I live, I have seen a portion of wilderness take such a huge hit by users, that you can see the trail to a summit of a popular mountain from the highway, well over 10 miles away. I will continue working on front country trails and push hard for the expansion of MTB specific trails.
  • 13 5
 @RBalicious: By your logic neither do any humans because humans bring things with them like say water filters (not natural), food packaging, propane canisters for Jet Boils (not natural), etc. I mean, hiking trails aren't natural either.
  • 7 21
flag RBalicious (Apr 14, 2021 at 10:28) (Below Threshold)
 @HB208: "and by your logic", you are dense sir. I have spent a lot of time in the wilderness, went to school for Natural Resources & Forest Health. Those that are educated and understanding of what it means to be in the wilderness, they do not leave behind their water filters, or their food packaging, propane canisters, etc. By your logic, is EXACTLY the reasoning why wilderness areas need protection. And if you knew something about nature, I would imagine you would understand that "game trails" created by deer, elk, bears, etc are trails. I would suggest you do some reading on nature and native cultures. Unfortunately humans need their hands held these days with basic functions, including thinking logically it would seem. I do not support Sierra Club as they take things WAY too far.
  • 5 5
 @RBalicious: You are pretty much saying that nothing natural to wilderness area should be allowed in a wilderness area. You are the one that has a dense brain.
  • 6 5
 @HB208: you really do not understand the difference between non native and natural. I suggest reading a book some time.
  • 2 4
 @RBalicious: Ok, but you just said that horses shouldn't be allowed because they are non-native to North America... so what exactly is your point bud?
  • 2 6
flag RBalicious (Apr 14, 2021 at 10:47) (Below Threshold)
 @HB208: read, and learn the difference between the two. It is the lack of understanding of what wilderness is, what it means, why it was established, and why bicycles, motorized, mechanical and man made devices have been kept out of them.
  • 4 2
If you’ve spent any time working with land/wildlife conservation you’d already know that above all, the one thing that actually helps is money, getting money into the hands of the right people. This is why the US sells $50000 hunting tags for endangered animals to pay for programs that help them repopulate, it works. If you really wanted the most effective way to save the land, you’d make an attraction of any kind and have as many profits as possible going into the hands of people who can actually do what you want to do. One guy refusing to bike isn’t gonna do a god damn thing. But 1000 people over a summer biking and maybe donating to an organization or buying from a shop that supports that organization, the people making decisions, those are the ones that will actually make a difference.
That being said I’m staying out of the wilderness argument, because it’s wilderness, it’s a preserve, it’s meant to be completely undeveloped, I get it. But if you’re allowed to camp there you should 100% be allowed to bike there
  • 3 3
 @HB208: Here is a link on where to learn some more about it. If so inclined.
  • 3 4
 @fewnofrwgijn: and due to the explosion of usage, as will as lack of education and understanding. Many of the wilderness areas are having limited entry restrictions researched and implemented. Take a look at the Three Sisters Wilderness. Charging small ($1 a day/ $3 a night) for funding. Expect to see more of that due to damage by over use. Add mountain bikes to the mix, might as well just abolish wilderness designation and protection. Just develop it all, eh?
  • 6 5
 @RBalicious: Why don't you read your own link:

"Camping, backpacking, hiking, fishing, hunting, mountaineering, backcountry-skiing, wildlife-watching, and other outdoor pursuits, of course, can also take place in the "front-country." But for many recreationists, the special qualities of wilderness areas--the solitude, quiet, wild ambience, and the opportunity to step back in time and engage in age-old human adventures—makes them the preeminent venues for these activities. Depending on the sort of hunting, angling, or camping a visitor wishes to pursue, as John Hendee and Chad Dawson note in Wilderness Management, these forms of outdoor recreation can even be considered "wilderness-dependent." "

So basically, every other human powered form of outdoor recreation is cool except for mountain biking? The wilderness laws were written before mountain biking was even a thing. It seems reasonable that limited mountain biking can exist in wilderness areas if other types of recreation are permitted. The fact that they are grouped with ATVs and other motorized vehicles is absurd.
  • 3 1
There’s a point where it’s not even a question of recreation, not everybody is scouring the wilderness looking for spots to build ramps and 10ft trenches to dig out, many people just want to ride through the forest, just like people who want to walk through a forest. I get heavy recreational traffic can lead to development but you can’t realistically exclude the “roamers” on bikes while still allowing people to actually enter, hike, or hunt the wilderness.
Like yeah it’s a wilderness preserve, but it’s not some locked down no-go zone of america, it’s still publicly accessible
  • 6 6
 @HB208: so, when you say every other form of transport, you mean nothing that requires: gears, chains, mechanical items that require oils/fluids as well as tire sealant? Your argument keeps getting better... Once you open it to bicycles, then it's ebikes, motos, etc. It's the flood gate effect "bud".
  • 8 0
I mean come on, how many times have you identified a splash of lube on the trail vs how many times you’ve seen a bullet casing?
Yeah nobody should litter in the wilderness preserve, that’s messed up, but biking doesn’t come with any more risk of litter than any of those other activities, especially hunting and fishing which are pretty much guaranteed to leave waste of some kind
  • 4 1
 @RBalicious: @RBalicious: It's pretty reasonable to say that human powdered devices are ok but anything with a electronic or gas powered motor is not.
  • 6 2
 @RBalicious: next time you’re interested in persuading a group to believe your perspective, I wouldn’t lead with an ad hominem attack. I’m sure you’re a reasonable person, but so are these people you’re debating.
  • 7 0
 @RBalicious: Reasonable people can disagree on this, how staunch you are being is interesting. I have worked for decades in the public sector, much of which deals with public lands. I can tell you from my experience, in our valley, on one side, bikes would change the character negatively, and I'd like to see it stay as the type of wilderness it is now. On the other side, it would effect virtually nothing to open it up to bikes. That is why a more localized approach in this argument is imho better.
  • 6 1
 Even as a hardcore rider and pro-Mtb access advocate, I’m with you here. Broke my wrist this summer and spent every weekend for a month or so backpacking wilderness areas in the high Sierra, and realized what a gem the beauty of these places untouched save for a thin ribbon of single track truly is. they should remain as they are, which is as little impacted as possible. Backpackers do a great job of this. Wilderness trails would most likely suck to ride anyway (stairs, steep tight switchbacks for hundreds of vertical feet) horses are a tough one because trail work/maintenance in extremely remote areas would be very difficult without them, as much as they do suck. Lacing up your hiking boots to see these places is completely worth it, I don’t think mtbrs should be so selfish as to expect everything to be a bike trail. @RBalicious:
  • 3 3
 Why? They haven't gotten jack $h!t done in the last four years. IMBA saved slickrock in Moab from drilling permits just last year.
  • 2 2
 @unrooted: You are misinformed
  • 2 0
 @hardcore-hardtail: See my other comment, but IMBA did not singlehandedly save slickrock. It was one of many organizations that organized against the sale.
  • 3 3
 @RBalicious: we have a bunch of wilderness areas where I live with trails that allow foot and horse traffic only and honestly I don't give a shit if I can't ride those trails, but if you think bikes cause more damage to the area than horses or even hikers (who definitely wander off trail more than bikers) then you're wrong. I understand why those areas have certain rules but like another user said above, if you can camp there you should be able to ride bikes. Campers trash everything.
  • 4 5
 @gunnyhoney: @fewnofrwgijn @HB208 and how many trails do you ride where bikers strictly stay on the designated trail? Because as a trail steward, I spend more time covering up and decommissioning alternate lines created by MTBers, just to be able to maintain access to the limited trails bikes have access to in the area I live. For what reason? The entitlement that the land is theirs to do as they please, even though a vast majority of people do not see the forest for the trees. And as a hard core rider, volunteer and steward, I know bikers would not be able to handle staying on the trail, or lack there of in the wilderness.

As a user group we are our own worst advocates (as are many groups, see: Sierra Club, hiker groups, horse groups). So take it or leave it, until we all can be on the same page with how a trail is utilized, stay on the designated trail, clean up after ourselves. This is an issue that will not be resolved easily.

@Hayek: so saying, bikes should not be allowed in the wilderness is an ad hominem attack? I would look up that definition. Wink
  • 4 2
 @RBalicious: Yeah, maybe you’re right. Maybe I don’t know what an ad hominem attack is. And maybe the topic of debate here is actually the intelligence of @HB208, in which case your statement “you are dense, sir” would have bearing on the topic. Or maybe you made a personal attack on someone when the topic of debate is the definition of “mechanical transport” in designated wilderness areas, and then attacked my intelligence for calling you out on it. And maybe I gave you too much credit when I said that I assumed that you were a reasonable person.
  • 5 2
 @Hayek: And now you understand how it feels when someone questions your logic with an absurd claim, such as HB208. Yes, I agree, most people are reasonable. Until you tell them they can't have something, and have a very valid justification for it. It is like the "a drop in the bucket" idiom. A little bit adds up, so adding another user group to an already strained environment that is our planet...? Even as a hardcore rider and advocate, yes, the allure of adventure riding in the Wilderness is there for me. I will not support it however, as there are so many factors many on this site do not, and likely will not understand. And that, is where my being a reasonable person probably took a hit. Trying to argue a point to a group that obviously does not spend time in the true Wilderness. Thankfully there are some like @Kieranf that have, and understand what I am getting at.
  • 5 0
 @RBalicious: interesting way to bring up a topic. And the delivery, a bit brash even. However, being from Bend, I totally understand where you are coming from. If bicycles were allowed in the wilderness, it wouldn’t be a preserve anymore. Yeah, some campers are trashy. Yeah, some MTBers are going to ride in new lines. Yes, horses do the most damage to trails... unfortunately those that do have bad behaviors give a bad reputation for those of us that do abide. Having spent a lot of time backpacking in the wilderness, most people do a great job of keeping things clean. Packing out what they packed in (including their own excrement).

People are going to disagree because you are trying to argue keeping bikes out of the wilderness on a MTB site...
  • 4 0
 @RBalicious: @RBalicious: I applaud your efforts to share reasoning but I believe it's falling on deaf ears. A lot of riders fall into that "a drop in the bucket" category; riding off the trail instead of stopping and yielding for uphill riders, straightlining a switchback section, making their own parking spots at the trailhead, yelling at hikers on the trails to move. They don't realize that all those things add up and strain the agreements and relationships that allow us to continue to use those trails. I see it a lot from new riders that have never known what it's like to not have trails, or worse have a trail no longer allow bikes. Like you said we're our own worst advocates and people that don't see that will never understand why we can't be allowed in wilderness areas if not just for the fact it's mechanical equipment.
  • 1 0
 @skierdud89: Thanks man. It is truly a crazy world we are in these days.
  • 1 1
 @loamhunter08: I was wondering if anyone from Bend would see this. And yeah, probably not the best approach as was brought to my attention...
  • 3 2
 @skierdud89: My issue is that the current law allows no bikes full stop. I am in complete agreement that some wilderness areas would not be suitable to bikes. However, there are other areas that would be.

For example, the Boulder Whiteclouds in Idaho. It is a huge area that sees very little traffic as is and is hours from any major metro area. The closest being Boise, which is about 3-4 hours away, depending on where exactly you are going. This is also the case for areas in Jackson Hole/Western Wyoming and in Montana.

As such, if the law is re-written, it should give discretion to local land managers (which is what the proposed laws did). I completely agree that wilderness preserves that do not allow mountain bikes are necessary and good in some areas, especially those close to cities and/or areas that would see a lot of impact. However, there are areas that would not see enough impact to make an discernable difference.

After researching the subject, I really can't say I support IMBA's approach (which is advocating against allowing MTB in wilderness areas). I don't think that is a good position. There is more nuance that has to be had than a full stop ban on mechanical bikes.
  • 3 1
 @HB208: out of curiosity are you a member of your local trail stewardship?
  • 2 0
 @skierdud89: Yes, I also do trail maintenance and all of that.
  • 3 2
 @HB208: Ok so you know how much physical work goes in and you may know about the admin side and how much of a headache that is and how much time it takes. Now imagine that times 100, that's what those regional land managers are dealing with. So lets say hypothetically they did make it up to the regional managers discretion. If their choice is between adding more users to an already decrepit area in need of repairs and updates, while trying to understand how those new users will effect the ecosystem and erosion, and all other headaches that would come with that, all of this while on their paper thin budget OR deciding to not allow bikes because after all it is their discretion, well I'm willing to bet they'd keep bikes out every time. And even IF they charged more for bike access A) would you pay or would you go ride "free" trails? B) that has no direct impact on how much funding that particular region receives next year because well... Government.

All of this is to say that I don't personally feel IMBAs position is that radical because even if the law had passed I don't think the staus quo would have changed.
  • 3 0
 @HB208: Oh and I forgot to put it in that comment but right now the highest priority on every land managers list is fire management and recreation is at the very bottom with mountain bikes being a tiny little cliff note in the margins. While yes you can argue that trails can act as fire breaks, the fires these areas are susceptible to are not phased by a singletrack trail let alone a dozer track sometimes.
  • 3 2
 @skierdud89: Having them have the option and say no is better than not having the option and saying no.

I think the part that you are missing is that established trail systems often get eaten up by the wilderness designation. This is the case for the boulder whiteclouds and part of Wyoming. So basically, areas that have long been open to mountain biking get taken away when the designation is placed. This is where it would be good if a land manager could step in and say that the area will remain open to MTB, or at least have the option to.

When I was in college, I actually worked on the campaign to turn the area into a wilderness area. This was before I mountain biked. The number one issue that I heard from people who refused to sign the petition the organization I worked for circulated was losing access for mountain biking. If this wasn't an issue, I imagine there would have been much more support. That is why I am for some nuance in the regulations and for land managers to have the ability to designate parts or all of a wilderness area open to mountain bikes.

I think this is a good overview:
  • 2 1
 @skierdud89: I get that, but the land managers in the Sawtooths in Idaho work very closely with the mountain bike community.
  • 2 1
 @HB208: That's a very good point and a good article read. My main takeaway is exactly what was expressly written in the first article linked when IMBA said that we're better off fighting to change wilderness boundaries rather than trying to rewrite all new legislation. Like I said before I personally don't think IMBA is trying to hurt us although they may be towing a line a little too close to the Sierra Club. What I DO think is that two advocacy groups STC and IMBA are less powerful than one united group. So as long as we have a large percentage of riders that are anti-IMBA or not even part of either group then we ALL lose.
  • 2 1
 @skierdud89: I just dont agree with that take. If the purpose of the wilderness area is to preserve wildlife and nature (which I agree with), I want as much land as possible to be included. That is why I don't agree with IMBA's take: I want wilderness areas to exist, but I also want land managers to have discretion on whether or not mountain biking can be included in an area.
  • 2 1
 @skierdud89: I think this is a good portion of the article:

"While that might be an overstatement, it does get at a growing issue. As local mountain bike activist Brett Stevenson wrote me in an email, “Can the conservation community continue to marginalize human-powered recreation when they actually really need them as future members?”

According to the Outdoor Foundation’s most recent participation report, there are roughly 8 million mountain bikers in America and 10 million backpackers. And mountain biking, which didn’t exist to have a seat at the table when the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964, is only getting more popular."

At the end of the day, I think almost all mountain bikers care deeply about preserving the environment. I don't think we should be pitted against one of the best ways to do so (wilderness designations).
  • 2 0
 @HB208: Honestly we're only a couple degrees away from being on the same page. IMO the problem is designating an area as wilderness is not the only way to protect it. It's easier to advocate to things not become wilderness in the first place or change their boundaries than it is to try and grant MTB access. Yes I understand that being up in Idaho you have experienced first hand your trails becoming wilderness with the wave of a pen but for the rest of the country I think prevention is the best approach.
My GF is an environmental lawyer for the "bad guys" so she is well versed in the Wilderness Act and doesn't believe the MTB issue would be an easy resolution if ever at all.
  • 2 0
 @skierdud89: We probably are. I appreciate the wilderness designation because it does offer a somewhat unique protection status and wilderness areas do not get the same attention as national parks (which I think is good if you don't want crowds).
  • 4 1
 The truth is, regardless of IMBA's stance on bikes in wilderness areas, their views on how trails are built and maintained are silly and outdated. I have worked on a trail crew for two years, and we are required to follow IMBA standards in our trails. Their regulations on trails grade, berms, jumps, etc. really do make trails look more like paved roads than anything remotely fun to ride.
  • 2 1
 @Aiden-Gowans: I don't think we follow their guidelines in my trail stewardship though we are a member and I actually haven't read their trail building book lol (which one are you referring to BTW?). My guess would be that's because it was written in partnership with the BLM so fire breaks and water control are probably key priorities for them.
  • 2 0
 @HB208: true that. Monuments help as most weekend warriors just think it's just that... a monument lol.
I don't know what the answer is but I do know that trails are more crowded than ever and we need to aggressively plan the the future.
  • 1 2
 @joshwoodwardphoto: I would suggest you read the entirety of the post regarding this. In short, do you spend the lions share of money on ONE item that may not even benefit riders much OR do you spend it on several new trail projects that absolutely will be of benefit to riders? Sometimes its all about picking your battles in a political landscape.
  • 3 0
 @scstrail: TBH, I don't really care. I just shared the main article on why people don't like IMBA. I'll leave the bureaucracy to you boomers while I have fun riding my bike no matter the trail. If you truly love mtb you can find the good in any trail system that allows bikes Smile
  • 1 0
 @joshwoodwardphoto: That is sort of the point though, sharing something without knowing the complete picture and claiming it as reason for that action. You may not like the trails that IMBA builds or consults on currently. At any given time IMBA is in either the building or planning stages of numerous trails. To quote you, IMBA is handling the bureaucracy so that riders like you (and frankly everyone else) can spend our time riding the trails. No one says you have to like or support IMBA or any other trail organization. But it is likely that some of the trails you currently ride were either built by or because of IMBA.
  • 1 0
 @scstrail: I think IMBA would have a heart attack if they saw what I was riding lol. Again I don't really care and maybe that's agreeing with you or not, idk. However, I don't have to know all if any of the details to know what article got people to question IMBA. I haven't shared my opinion on this matter nor do I feel like I need to. Simply just gave the information to someone else who's actually interested in knowing why people might be against them, allowing them to make an informed decision on their own rather than me spouting random crap ok one side or the other.
  • 8 0
 so now im paying to lose, usually i just click that button.
  • 7 0
 You can enter for free, it's the law in the US otherwise the sweepstakes would be illegal gambling. Of course in this case IMBA makes you ask for an email, fill out an online form, then print and mail that form to them after which you will receive an email confirming your one free entry.
  • 1 0
 I supported IMBA for years until I saw how ineffective and out of touch with real mountain biking my local chapter was. It’s not all their fault, where I live the cards are stacked against mtn bikers so badly there’s not much anyone can do. Sadly, life is short, and in some jurisdictions the best thing you can do I f you want to ride good trails is poach poach poach as by the time any progress is made, I’ll need two knee replacements.

The last straw for me was when our chapter volunteered their time to OC parks to work on trails that bikes are not allowed on (for no good reason) as if they could score some brownie points for the future. Nope, it didn’t work and OC parks took away bike races that had been running for over a decade because it encouraged riders to exceed the 10 mph speed limit.

So I’m sure IMBA is great in some places. They should change it to where you can choose which IMBA club you wish to donate to as I won’t give my local chapter another dime.
  • 4 2
 It's a good thing that color is called 'mustard'.......keeps me from immediately thinking it looks like 'sick babyshit' brown.
  • 2 1
 Spoken like someone with ample experience with that color.... haha..
  • 1 0
 @jaytdubs: Yup, and it ain't all been seen coming from babies..........
  • 4 1
 That would look so good on a tan Commencal Meta
  • 10 6
 IMBA sucks
  • 3 5
 Name checks out, obviously a Russian bot.
  • 6 4
 This is actually pretty cool. Props to you, cane creek!
  • 3 0
 The color!!!
  • 1 0
 I'd enter for the coil version... oh well
  • 1 3
 I'm not a huge fan of online raffles that don't cap how many people can enter. Like I understand raising money for a cause, but there also should be 20k entries for a $1k fork out there when it is $100 for 200 entries.
  • 6 5
 Hard pass. IMBA can get f'd.
  • 2 5
 Spoken like a true greenie. You must hate Curt Gowdy and they're shitty IMBA trails eh?
  • 2 0
 @hardcore-hardtail: Looks like we found an IMBA employee
  • 4 5
 How do this many mountain bikers hate an organization dedicated solely to the sport? The internet is literally making people crazy, it's really the only answer.
  • 5 0
 After digging a bit, because they roll over when trails are taken away due to wilderness designations and do not make an effort to get congress to include MTB in wilderness areas. Second, the trail building guides they have lead to land managers building smooth green and blue trails with few features.
  • 2 0
 Based on the trails I have ridden that IMBA has built, I don't know if I agree with the second criticism. However, I don't think people are arguing that the trails THEY build are bad, but the trail guidebook leads to boring trails.
  • 6 5
 @HB208: I know the arguments, I'm actually surprised most of the people here do. Do you know that IMBA was instrumental in stopping drilling permits on slickrock in Moab last year? No one cares or hears about most of this stuff but if they were not an organization, MTB would be in a far worse place than it is now.

I suspect a lot of the "F IMBA" is actually internet trolls chest beating because they finally know a small amount of info that they assume everyone else does not. It's the typical 2020 attitude, if I don't agree with a single part of your plan, I hate everything you do and stand for.

There is an organization dedicated specifically to opening the definition of Wilderness to allow for bikes. It has been a long, expensive fight with zero victories. THey are called STC, you should check them out.

For some reason people think that they can only choose one organization to support. I support both for innumerable reasons. I would wager most of the loud mouths on here have never volunteered their time for anything.

These are not reasons for not supporting an organization when the alternative is just no trails being built. I knew there were a lot of loud mouthed idiots in this comment section but to see this does not give me much hope for an future where mtb is inclusive and approachable to beginners.
  • 3 1
 @hardcore-hardtail: I think it is a valid criticism that IMBA does not advocate for expanding access to millions of acres of currently inaccessible terrain and that, as the organization that many local land managers rely upon when building trails, the book encourages a certain type of trail design.

I am not saying they do no good. They most certainly do and they are responsible for a lot of the early access that MTB received.

I, however, am pretty darn sure that slickrock would have received the same attention without IMBA. Patagonia (along with other organizations) was pretty on top of organizing organizations to stop the leasing.
  • 3 0
 @hardcore-hardtail: Also, based on another article posted here, IMBA actively advocates against wilderness areas being opened to bikes. I'm sorry, but I am not going to support an organization that actively advocates against my own interests.
  • 6 4
 Fuck IMBA.
  • 2 6
flag hardcore-hardtail (Apr 14, 2021 at 14:24) (Below Threshold)
 You should shorten your name, just "Hack" would be more appropriate.
  • 4 1
 @hardcore-hardtail: Why are you being such a dick? Maybe its because IMBA did a project in SD. They also did one in an area I ride in (google Croy Canyon, Hailey Idaho). The trails are honestly pretty fun. However, I still have issues with other parts of their advocacy.

You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2022. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.015223
Mobile Version of Website