2016 Pinkbike Awards - Advocacy of the Year Winner

Nov 26, 2016 at 21:16
by Pinkbike Staff  


n a

Advocacy of the Year Winner


Ted Stroll of the Sustainable Trails Coalition

Picking a single advocate of the year isn’t easy.

There are countless individuals and organizations the world over, working tirelessly to improve trail access. They attend tedious meetings with land managers, rebuild trail in horrible conditions, write grant proposals until their fingers cramp and do all the hard, dirty and largely thankless work that allows the rest of us to simply climb on our bikes and head out for a ride. We owe them a lot.

Still, if pressed to pick a single person who made a difference in 2016, the nod goes to Ted Stroll of the Sustainable Trails Coalition (STC). Here’s why.


Pinkbike Advocate of the Year
Ted Stroll of the Sustainable Trails Coalition.

Advocacy
Since 1984, America’s Wilderness areas (currently about 110 million acres of public lands) have been off limits to mountain bikers. For more than 30 years, conventional wisdom held that this ban on bikes could never be challenged, much less lifted and yet one group and its leader, Ted Stroll, have done their best to prove conventional wisdom wrong.

True, the ban on biking in Wilderness areas is still very much alive and, unfortunately, well, but Stroll and his organization have raised a challenge to the status quo in Washington D.C. and that is worth our recognition all by itself.



In less than two year’s time, Stroll and the STC succeeded in persuading, two congressmen (Utah Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch) to introduce The Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Act. The Act is a revised version of a draft bill that Stroll authored. In a nutshell, the Act would put an end to the blanket ban on mountain biking in Wilderness areas and on some iconic backcountry trails, such as the Pacific Crest Trail, Pacific Northwest Trail and Continental Divide Trail.

Under the Act, Land managers would still be able to close trails to mountain bikes in these pristine areas, but if the bill passed, public officials would be legally required to actually give mountain bikers a fair shake at gaining access to trails—a monumental shift for the better.

Image Wikipedia

Will The Human Powered Travel in Wilderness Act actually go anywhere? That’s anyone’s guess. But whether or not it passes is almost beside the point.

Here is why Ted Stroll and the STC deserve some recognition. Bikes are banned from trails all over the world because of one depressingly common misconception: that mountain bikers have more of an impact on trails than hikers and equestrians. Numerous studies have proven otherwise--that bikes have about the same impact as hikers and less impact on trails than equestrians--but the general public has largely been unaware of those facts.

STC’s opposition to the Wilderness Act’s ban on bikes is a very public challenge to a fundamental lie that has kept trails closed to riders all over the world.

Every rider—no matter where they live—benefits from that.

Wilderness mountain biking Photo By Leslie Kehmeier Courtesy of IMBA
Castle Divide is yet another great trail closed to mountain biking by a recent Wilderness designation (this time around, in Idaho's Boulder-White Clouds).







85 Comments

  • 151 6
 Seems a most worthy winner, maybe as a prize you could give him some Fox clothing, get him out of that lycra Smile
  • 2 1
 You stole the very words from my mouth... LOL
  • 1 1
 @pigman65 I seem to remember a rumour of you in lycra a few years back lol
  • 2 1
 @mallorcadave: yep, flouro yellow with a fart flap Smile
  • 87 0
 Thank you, everyone. I am most honored. (I should say "honoured," since Pinkbike is headquartered in British Columbia.) We're operating at full steam as our volunteer Sustainable Trails Coalition board and our Washington, D.C., representative plan our strategy for 2017. Things are looking good. We mainly need (1) money to pay our representative, who is a long-time professional consultant, and (2) from Americans, letters to your member of Congress and two U.S. senators in support of the Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act (S.3205), the bill circulating in the U.S. Senate. Again, thanks! www.sustainabletrailscoalition.org
  • 7 75
flag isawtman (Nov 28, 2016 at 16:50) (Below Threshold)
 You're asking for more money when you've already wasted $130,000. People might as well flush their money down the toilet
  • 17 0
 @isawtman: hey!!!! It's the Anti-STC, Anti-IMBA, Anti-Mountain Bike Bikemag.com/Pinkbike troll!!!! How you doin'???
  • 23 0
 It really is an award to the six volunteer members of STC's board. All of us have been integral to this work. If I were doing it myself, it would be going exactly nowhere.
  • 10 0
 @TedStroll: Thanks for everything you've done!! Keep up the good fight!!
  • 8 0
 @isawtman: A decent marketing campaign can cost $10K-$20K per month. $130K in a year is nothing and it has done a wonderful job towards launching this multi-year effort to restore bike riding in wilderness.
  • 3 0
 @RBWebb: actually he'd be proIMBA since they aren't supporting the STC. Wink
  • 4 1
 @gdnorm: maybe politically different but they both share common values.

www.imba.com/news/imba-stc-joint-statement
  • 4 0
 @Myfianceemademedoit: glad YOU said it. IMBA has name recognition, STC has ballz.....
  • 7 0
 @gdnorm: Props.... BUT.... I'm going to disagree. This dude's been trolling almost ALL of the bike porn sites for years. Any feature that celebrates advocacy or access, he reappears and plays the contrarian role. Predictable and getting old!! Bracing for my negative props now....
  • 1 0
 Well deserved honour indeed. You have my admiration for not backing up in spite of the steepness and length of the hill to climb. Let's hope the new administration does not let you down. I am fighting at a much local level to save some trails myself. The classic argument being that mountain bikes damage the trails, I am looking for references of studies - mentioned in the Pinkbike article - that prove that allegation to be wrong. Are there any you could share? Thanks,

Vincent
  • 4 9
flag isawtman (Nov 29, 2016 at 19:24) (Below Threshold)
 @RBWebb: I am doing fine. The mountain biking community is doing terrible. STC has wasted over $130,000. What did the mountain biking community get for their money. They got 3 of the Worst Senators on the Environment to sponsor the Bill. These are Senators that want to sell off Federal Lands to the Extractors like mining, logging and big oil. In fact big oil is one of Senator Hatch's top 5 contributors. STC and Ted Stroll originally said they had bipartisan support for their Bill. Well, that turned out to be another one of their little fibs.
  • 4 0
 @isawtman: have you contacted these Senators and tried to convince them to change? Have you done anything similar to or better than this STC group?
Or are you one of those people that sits in their arm-chair and bit$h's about other people and their accomplishments?
I can tell you the later is not what gets anything done.
I didn't know anything about the STC until this article, but I'm willing to think $130k is the cost it takes to just open the correct door in politics, much less walk through that door.
  • 3 4
 @Myfianceemademedoit: yes, I have done something better than STC. I believe that we should respect the Wilderness Act and the words "no other form of mechanical transport" as written in the Act. And I've been advocating to keep the Wilderness Act like it is. Opening up the Wilderness Act with a Republican President and Congress is a recipe for disaster. STC claims that they are a grass roots effort when they are using a high priced lobbying firm to do their bidding. The 116 Conservation Groups (mostly local groups) that sent a letter opposing the Bill to every member of Congress, well, that's a grass roots effort.
  • 3 0
 You the man!! Ted! Thank you and your team for everything you've done.
  • 2 0
 @isawtman: you are an imbecile and a misanthrope. Probably a paid shill for anti human pseudo environmentalists as well. Go away.
  • 2 2
 @Axxe: I am definitely not paid by any environmental group. I just think the Wilderness Act should be respected the way it is written. "No other form of mechanical transport" does include mountain bikes, and it's a fairy tale if you believe otherwise. Several mountain biking groups are not supporting this bill including the Evergreen Mountain biking Alliance and the Roaring Fork Mountain Biking Association. And thanks for calling me names, it just shows the lousy attitudes of people supporting this bill. If you are going to have that attitude here in the forum, it's probably going to be worst out on the trails.
  • 3 1
 @isawtman: so I guess you're against kayaks, skis, walking poles, snowshoes, etc... (swimming only on rivers and primitive lakes, no backcountry skiing) because they allow a mechanical advantage?? If you say yes, then good on ya and respect from me for sticking to your scruples and we will agree to disagree. If you say no, then it's a bit hypocritical, don't you think? Where do YOU draw the line?
  • 2 3
 @RBWebb: You guess wrong. Mountain bikes are obviously mechanical transport. Items such as snowshoes were invented centuries before the mechanical age and are not considered mechanical transport. They are simple devices that use only leverage. And hiking poles are obviously not mechanical transport because nobody is hopping on hiking poles and riding away. But if you feel that kayaks, skis, hiking poles and snowshoes,etc are mechanical transport, then you should be working on having them eliminated from wilderness areas, not adding more mechanical transport in the form of mountain biking. Who's the hypocrite now?
  • 2 1
 @isawtman: Listen, moron. Take your demagoguery and shove it where sun does not shine.
People like you is what is wrong with the world. Instead of seeing the big picture, just looking into petty little prejudices.
There is nothing f*cking wrong with a mechanical device in a wilderness. Nothing. Your religion will not crumble. Species will not go extinct. Butterflies will not be bothered. If you are too stupid to get it, just buzz off out of here.
  • 2 0
 @isawtman: Your argument, as well as calling me a hypocrite, makes absolutely NO sense. Again, I will type my argument slower so you understand. It has nothing to do with WHEN equipment was first used. It's about mechanized advantage. All things I mentioned above are mechanized in some way, but HUMAN POWERED. So is a mountain bike. This problem has many layers....

1). When the Wilderness Act was written, there WERE no mountain bikes. In the early 80s, groups like the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society saw us coming before we had a chance to have any organization or juice behind our cause. Through lobbying, power, money, Barbara Boxer, just to name a few, mountain bikes were lumped into the same user group as motorcycles, ATVs, etc....

2). Fast forward to the past 5-10 years and now you have Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) as well as new Wilderness being designated all the time now, effectively closing hundreds, even thousands of miles of singletrack here in the West. (If I remember right, you're from Chicago or Wisconsin or something, so you haven't seen this first hand). These decisions are being made sometimes literally overnight. A WSA can be treated as Wilderness, not being designated, but reserving the right to designate SOMETIME in the future. These decisions are being made by beaurocrats in DC at the federal level, by people that may have never even visited the areas they're making decisions about.

3). Please read up on the Boulder White Cloud. This was one of these designations that affected riders and outdoor recreationists at the local level. STC was a local group that said enough was enough. Their platform is to not only push these decisions back to the local level, but also to revert the interpretation of the Wilderness Act back to before the re-interpretation of 1984 (?). It DOESN'T mean there won't be areas where bike aren't allowed. These guys just want our trails back, as well as protect what we have.

I'm personally on a local IMBA board, and I have a different outlook. I believe there's room for 2 dogs in this fight. Name recognition with IMBA, and ballz with STC. I support both.

There might be a couple of small speciifics I might have missed, but I believe I've captured the spirit of the cause.
  • 1 2
 @RBWebb:

1) Mountain bikes are mechanical transport period. Don't blame the Sierra Club for finally getting the Forest Service to interpret the Wilderness Act correctly.

2) In the case of the Wilderness Study Areas in Montana the Montana Wilderness Act of 1970 specifically says that the WSA's created by the Bill were to be managed like Wilderness Areas. In other words, mountain bikers should have never been allowed in those areas in the first place. It was only when Snowmobilers sued for having Snowmobiles in WSAs that the Judge enforced the Montana Wilderness Act that excludes mountain bikes. So, the whole thing had absolutely nothing to do with "beaurocrats in DC at the federal level."

3)I have read up on Boulders/White Clouds and mountain bikers got a great deal with that legislation. The Bowery loop is completely out of the wilderness, but is surrounded by the wilderness so that the views on that 32 mile loop will never be scarred by clear cuts, oil rigs or mining. They cut 23,000 acres out of the Wilderness Proposal so the 4th of July Trail could be completely out of the Wilderness. Plus with Boulders/White Clouds, 155,000 acres were released from Wilderness Study Area Status, thereby potentially becoming multi use. Even the local mountain bikers are saying Boulders/White Clouds is not that big of deal. There are still many great places to ride in that area. Furthermore, only about 40 miles of trails that mountain bikers actually used were closed.

I know that you believe that there is room for two dogs in this fight, but STC is totally wasting all the money they have collected. They are spewing misinformation every time they open their mouth. I would rather give you $160,000 to build trails than have STC waste it on 3 Anti-Environment Senators. At least you would build some great trails with that money near where people would use them.
  • 1 0
 @isawtman: what part of the fact that being mechanical does not cause any objective problems whatsoever does not get through your head? Had you been kicked by a horse as a child?

Your semantic bullshit is irrelevant. Bikes belong. Period.
  • 1 2
 @Axxe: If something is mechanical you should be working to have those objects eliminated from the Wilderness instead of adding more mechanical transport. What part of that don't you understand? It's a very easy concept to understand, I don't know why you are not getting it.

And here is how the Forest Service defines Mechanical Transport now:

"Mechanical Transport. Any contrivance for moving people or material in or over land, water, or air, having moving parts, that provides a mechanical advantage to the user, and that is powered by a living or nonliving power source. This includes, but is not limited to, sailboats, hang gliders, parachutes, bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons. It does not include wheelchairs when used as necessary medical appliances. It also does not include skis, snowshoes, rafts, canoes, sleds, travois, or similar primitive devices without moving parts."

As you can clearly see it calls snowshoes, skis, etc primitive devices without moving parts.
  • 1 0
 @isawtman: So I've been reading almost all the Mountain Bike websites since the beginning. (Pinkbike, Bikemag, Vitalmtb, MTBR, Teton Gravity Research, etc.). Hell, I only JOINED Pinkbike to read the redacted comments because they are the most entertaining. I also have made it a personal policy to read, not post. If I post, it's usually because I've been drinking beer and I decide to engage a troll, which is what you've been called on EVERY site I've seen you on (one lady even turned you in to the Moderator for harassment, which is HILARIOUS!). I've got @Axxe 's back, and I'm going to do this one more time for those that have subscribed to or care about a 2 week old, page 4 thread.

1). If I eluded to WSAs as a new concept, that wasn't my intent. It's not. It's become a hot button topic in the last 5-10 years. BUT.... under the current administration, there is continual increased regulation. So YES, added WSAs ARE being pushed by those in DC that can barely find Montana on a map. As a lifetime Montanan, I look out my back door and see established singletrack being closed frequently. This kind of "regulation from afar" affects people here personally, recreationally, and sometimes even financially. You look out your backdoor and see squirrels and powerlines. It's all about perspective. Which is why you've kind of made my point for me. Your only education on the subject of Montana Wilderness is what you can read on the internet. I will say it loud so you can hear it behind your Middle America keyboard.... THERE IS NO WAY SOME KEYBOARD WARRIOR GETS TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT MY BACKYARD! Decisions at the local agency level is the most educated way to regulate.

2). You were able to cut and paste a definition. Sweet. Now I ask, who do you think lobbied for that definition? Even YOU'RE smarter than that. And if you're such a purist, why are you so afraid of reverting back to the original spirit of the Wilderness Act?

3). As far as STC wasting money, you've made it clear it's not YOUR money, so why do you care? At least they're doing SOMETHING. I, like many other Pinkbikers, donate my time and money to this industry at the local level to try to make a difference. I don't know you, but appearance is reality. Besides sitting behind your computer criticizing ideals you don't agree with, what are you doing to make a difference?? Soul searching....

4). Anti-Environment? Definitely an opinion, but I suggest you read the proposed legislation. Doesn't look like there's a lot of wiggle room to sneak in an oil rig, club a baby seal, or displace some rare spotted field mouse.

I'm done. Back to my "No Post" Policy. Probably not even worth responding because I won't be back to this dead thread.

Deuces.....
  • 1 1
 @RBWebb: 1) having the decision done by local land managers is an administrative nightmare and a financial boondoggle. Each one of the 765 Wilderness Areas will need to have a Environmental Impact Statement for NEPA. That's of course unless the Republicans totally gut our environmental laws. Be careful what you wish for. But getting back to the Environmental Impact Statements, they take years to complete and cost 10's of thousands of dollars, and in the end, they might not support having mountain bikes in a specific Wilderness Area.

Yes, Montana has 3.5 million acres of Wilderness and another 7 million acres that could become Wilderness, but in total, Montana has over 27 million acres of public land so you have something like 17 million acres that you can potentially build mountain biking trails on. We are all feeling sorry for you living in Montana.

2.) It doesn't really mattered who lobbied for that definition. The Wilderness Act Clearly says "no other form of mechanical transport." And the Forest Service is one of 4 agencies that manage Wilderness Areas. The National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and Fish & Wildlife Service all interpreted the Wilderness Act correctly the first time. It's obvious that mountain bike ARE mechanical transport and ARE NOT in the spirit of the Wilderness Act.

3) Yes, it is clearly not my money. But yet I am concerned because the money could be put to much better use than trying to get mountain bikes in less than 3% of the land area in the lower 48 states. Mountain bikers are less than 3% of the population and having mountain biking out in the middle of nowhere isn't going to help the sport grow. The $160,000 would be better used building mountain biking trail where the people are.

4) Senator Lee, the main sponsor of the Bill, wants to give Federal Lands to the States so States can sell them off to the extractors. So, while you are messing around supporting the STC, many lands that you could have built mountain biking trails on, will be lost to Big Oil, Timber and Mining.

Yes, this is not only a dead thread, but a dead subject, too. Congress is not going to pass this bill this time around and it remains to be seen if the three Senators will sponsor it in the next Congress. I've heard they've heard so much against this Bill, that they are not going to sponsor it again. That's what happens when STC spews misinformation every time they open their mouths.
  • 1 0
 @isawtman: You keep rambling?

It does not f*cking matter what letter of the law currently says. The goal is to change that law, as it is misguided, rigged, and counterproductive. It is not based in science, and it does not fulfill the ultimate purpose of the Wilderness Act: "administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness".

Bike travel is 120% compatible with that goal. Abandoned and unmaintained trails are not.

If you can not see this, your are an imbecile with an agenda. And you are.
  • 1 2
 @Axxe: I would rather stay with the original intentions of the writers of the Wilderness Act. The Act specifically bans "mechanical transport" so bike are 0% compatible with Wilderness Areas. Also, abandoned and unmaintained trails ARE Compatible with Wilderness Ares. The Act specifically says that Wilderness Areas should be "untrammeled by man." The main goal of the Wilderness Act is land preservation, not recreation.
  • 1 1
 After last week's announcement that President Obama would make bears ears a national monument and Mike Lee's outrageous remarks about said monument I really question the intentions of Mike Lee and Orin Hatch. I think it is a definite possibility that Mike Lee's bill is a Trojan Horse that will put precious land in jeopardy.
  • 1 0
 @tbubier: bullshit.
  • 1 0
 @isawtman: you are indeed an imbecile with an agenda.

The goal of the Wilderness act is exactly as I have cited. Your anti human interpretation is not.
  • 1 0
 Really, how can one possibly misinterpret "use and enjoyment". Takes special kind of stupid not to get it.
  • 1 0
 @Axxe: From Mike Lee "“This arrogant act by a lame duck president will not stand,” said Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, in a statement. “I will work tirelessly with Congress and the incoming Trump administration to honor the will of the people of Utah and undo this designation.”
Care to elaborate on your comment?
  • 1 0
 @tbubier: the arrogant act by a lame duck president has little to do with this bill, except is it a similar overreach of executive branch that have misinterpreted the intent of the Wilderness Act in the first place.
Our fight is just, no reason to lump it with anything else.
  • 1 0
 @Axxe: I am not sure I understand you. Do you believe that Mike Lee is working in our best interests or is he working in the best interest of the oil and gas industry?
  • 1 2
 @Axxe: I not sure how you can misinterpret the phrase "no other form of mechanical transport." It's obvious that bicycles are mechanical device, and it's also obvious that they transport people and supplies.
  • 1 0
 @isawtman: What part of a misguided interpretation of the core intent does not sink in?

You are absolutely wrong and everybody else who thinks that riding bycicles is somehow incompatible with the core goal of wilderness preservation is also dead wrong.

We will win over you, because you are misguided and wrong.
  • 49 0
 thx to all keeping our singletracks open
  • 22 0
 Advocates of the Mountain Bike World we salute you. Without your tireless efforts to open up eyes, minds and trails Mountain Biking wouldn't be what and where it is today. Thank You
  • 25 3
 Tell me more about these tireless efforts. How is the traction??
  • 2 0
 @skelldify: Time to get some grip in D.C. They washed out a loooong time ago.
  • 12 0
 Thanks to all the campaigners that keep our trails open, and another to the builders for making them!
  • 8 0
 As a non-American it is hard to understand why on earth mtb use is prohibited to the extent it is in the USA. It is sad that you even have to fight for the use of natural trails. However it is not easy to find the time to write letters and go to meetings until you are older and retired-unfortunately the people in that age range consist more of walkers and people who want us off the trails than us mtb'ers. Thanks to those who do find the time. Not an easy task no matter how much we love biking.
  • 15 0
 Banning things you don't like other people doing is very much a thing in the US and it applies universally to many activities.
  • 5 9
flag makkman (Nov 28, 2016 at 16:59) (Below Threshold)
 Its called UN agenda 21 or the newer agenda 2030. Its about seperating humans from the land and turning us all into surfs. "Sustainable" is the buzzword for all this to make us feel good about loosing our rights. After all, its for the planet.
  • 8 1
 @makkman: you must have clicked the wrong link on your favorites. This isn't infowars. And many people wouldn't mind being surfers. Now serfs, on the other hand....
  • 5 4
 @kabanosipyvo: now is that remark meant to invalidate my comment or label me a "conspiricy theorist" ? If you havent noticed we are losing more trails than we are gaining plus the trails we do have are mostley being dumbed down in the name of sustainability.Here on the north shore we just had a slap upside the head with some obscure government agency trying to shut down a good chunk of the lower seymore trail network. They didn't anticipate the public backlash against this move so they had to back off. Our freedoms are something we have to fight for or we will lose them! Ya i miss spelt serf but that doesn't make these agendas less threatening to ALL our mountain biking freedoms.
  • 5 1
 @makkman: #NoDAPL. Losing rights is not a conspiracy but something you can watch on live stream. Happy Thanksgiving Native Americans. Still rapping your land.
  • 3 0
 @Adodero: My father calls this "The alliance against fun".
  • 18 11
 Worst advocate winner, IMBA! IMBA has won this award 10 years in a row. Accepting on behalf of IMBA is an e-bike with a non-recycleable leaking battery. Congrats!
  • 12 3
 IMBA is horrible. I wonder how much the president makes.
  • 21 1
 $143,914 according to their 2015 IRS Form 990, Page 7.
  • 4 2
 @Dmsullivan2: good find! I've always hoped for info like that in their annual report, but it's just full of b.s.
  • 7 1
 @Dmsullivan2: Great find, I guess membership has its privileges. IMBA seems to have a lot of folks on staff. I wonder how many of them make a six figure salary?

www.imba.com/about/staff

Look at the most recent 990..........interesting information. I guess we should all do a little research before we give our hard earned money to an organization.

www.imba.com/about/irs-form-990
  • 1 0
 @rivercitycycles: you deserve ALL the props! Great find!
  • 4 0
 @skelldify: @rivercitycycles I seriously doubt anyone else makes 6 figures, but I agree 100% that you should do your research before donating to anything! A lot of nonprofits have crazy overhead costs. I appreciate some of the advocacy work of IMBA but I also disagree with them in many areas. My money goes to local advocacy groups that are heavily volunteer run with minimal overhead. Locals know best!
  • 4 0
 Here's a much better option: www.nemba.org And I live in Utah. These guys have their ish together. Read this: www.nemba.org/news/open-letter-imba-about-wilderness-sustainable-trails-coalition-and-e-mtbs
  • 1 0
 @gdnorm: Please don't hold up NEMBA as an example of who to give money to. If you lived out here you would know they most certainly do not have their ish together. It's a bunch of control freaks who want to boss people around, but couldn't get elected to the local school board. Biggest bunch of hypocrites you will ever meet.
  • 1 0
 @wibblywobbly: I lived in Upstate New York for four years. I do not share your opinion.
  • 2 4
 @Dmsullivan2: And all of that money is being wasted. It's being wasted mainly because The Sustainable Trails Coalition is spewing misinformation every time it does something. Just look at their website. The first thing you see is a statement that the President never banned bicycles, baby carriages or wheel barrows when he signed the Wilderness Act. Really!!!!!!!!! Does STC supply a quote from LBJ to back up their claim. NO THEY DON'T. They are just making stuff up. Again, all of that money would be put to better use building new trails.
  • 1 3
 @Dmsullivan2: What about STC's tax form? STC is formed under the 501(c)4 chapter of the IRS. Do you know all those quasi political groups that you've never heard of before, that run political ads during campaigns? These are groups such as the Swift Boat Veterans, One Nation, etc. These are commonly referred to as "Dark Money" groups. Well, Those groups are all formed under the 501(c)4 chapter of the IRS

So, basically, STC is a dark money group. They don't have to reveal their donors, etc. We don't know who is donating to their cause. And STC has never produce an accounting of how the money they have collected is exactly spent.
  • 3 0
 @isawtman: shut up you idiot. You have no clue what you are blabbing about.
  • 1 1
 @Axxe: I know exactly what I am talking about, that's why you are so upset
  • 1 0
 @isawtman: no you do not. You are a trolling imbecile.
  • 1 1
 @Axxe: I am the voice of reason here. STC is wasting $160,000 on a hair brained theory that mountain bikes are not mechanical transport. It's actually quite a sad series of events considering all that money could have been used to build great mountain biking trails
  • 1 0
 @isawtman: You exhibit an amazing level of dishonesty and delusion.

Bikes belong on all trails. Horses do not. Anybody denying that is an idiot with an anti human agenda.
  • 1 2
 @Axxe: Horses do not belong on trails? wow, talk about delusion
  • 2 0
 @isawtman: no they don't. They are ten time more destructive than bikes, and there is nothing natural in riding a slave animal clad in iron shoes and shitting all over trail spreading invasive species and endangering people around them.
It is a toy. Leave your pony dreams to your bedroom.
  • 9 1
 Thanks Mr. Ted Stroll and STC for all you do. Also, hilarious that Mr. Stroll is wearing an IMBA jersey in the photo.
  • 5 0
 All the Canadians and most of the American's support your effort for freedom @TedStroll ! Here here!
  • 1 0
 Great event! love it, if you guys need professional bike lights, feel free to visite our website:http://www.ferei.com/en/product.asp?sid=1 , and email me:Email:ferei2@ferei.com
  • 4 0
 How's it feel Ashley?
  • 3 0
 I 3 ted stroll
  • 1 0
 Damn Ted Stroll. When I'm that age it will be all slurpees, and alphaghettis through straws, along with dementia.
  • 3 1
 Maximum respect
  • 1 0
 #DavidReidgotrobbed
  • 1 0
 fuck the system!
  • 11 14
 What about IMBA??!! That had that amazing World Summit in Arkansas!
  • 15 2
 Wow, Pinkbike's sarcasm detector must be busted, jeez!
  • 8 1
 @skelldify: Sarcasm on pinkbike requires some type of silly smiley face. And maybe a couple hahah's
  • 4 0
 @sampolicky: Double ?? and dounble !! are just not enough!!!!

Post a Comment



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

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.027908
Mobile Version of Website