HB 4684 - Immediate action needed!

[Critter7r]

I think you miss my point. As long as the state (or an arm thereof) in control of these resources, they will be essentially "for sale" to the highest bidder in terms of political pull. Whether the mountain bikers' pull or the BCH's pull wins out is yet to be determined. But the story will not end there, because new legislators are elected every 2 years.

Maybe a system like Scotland's would be better, where anyone can go essentially anywhere as long as they don't hurt anything. That likely wouldn't work here, but it's cool to think about.

I understand that without State control, there would be no control for them to 'sell' via political pull. And without State control there would be no need for us to have this discussion. But there also wouldn't be any outlet for us to air our grievances against the BCHG. The BCHG would probably like to replicate Scotland's system so that they could go wherever they want. But then, who is the body of people that determines how "hurting anything" is defined?

Your statement is a little like wondering, "if there were no birds, would man have ever created flying machines?", and then setting about trying to recreate a world without birds.

[utabintarbo]

I understand that without State control, there would be no control for them to 'sell' via political pull. And without State control there would be no need for us to have this discussion. But there also wouldn't be any outlet for us to air our grievances against the BCHG. The BCHG would probably like to replicate Scotland's system so that they could go wherever they want. But then, who is the body of people that determines how "hurting anything" is defined?

The land owners.

Your statement is a little like wondering, "if there were no birds, would man have ever created flying machines?", and then setting about trying to recreate a world without birds.

Actually, I'm thinking more along the lines of "If there were no birds, would man have wasted so much time trying to emulate them with flapping-type machines?", then setting about trying to create a system that doesn't rely on birds for inspiration.

Substitute "political pull" for "birds" in the above, to see where I'm coming from.

[Critter7r]

I understand that without State control, there would be no control for them to 'sell' via political pull. And without State control there would be no need for us to have this discussion. But there also wouldn't be any outlet for us to air our grievances against the BCHG. The BCHG would probably like to replicate Scotland's system so that they could go wherever they want. But then, who is the body of people that determines how "hurting anything" is defined?

The land owners. .

Ah see, now we're getting somewhere. WE ARE THE LAND OWNERS!! You, me, him, them. It's public land that we are discussing. And through our convoluted system, the representatives (POLITICIANS) of the land owners (US!) get to decide who gets to use the (OUR!) land by attempting to determine a fair and equitible distribution of use of said lands, presumably and hopefully by hearing statements from both sides and judiciously weighing the pros and cons of each side's statements.

(I know .... I should have been a judge)...

[dennismurphy]

Critter- Notice he only says "landowners" but doesn't define it. I think we can safely say when he says that he doesn't mean "we the people via our state govt' - rather he means PRIVATE landowners and as such there would be no public land.

Which goes directly to my comment in an earlier post about merely kicking the issue to another bucket

So rather than this getting fought in our state legislature- and his comments about who can "buy" their position with who makes the rules- we'd still be faced with the same issue- of one group "buying" their position with a private landowner over other user groups.

I don't see that as an improvement

[utabintarbo]

Face it - unless you get the $$$ together to buy land yourself, you are always going to be at the mercy of the whims (political or otherwise) of others. When dealing with private land owners, however, you generally have one point of contact, and one relatively stable and consistent set of rules. When dealing with the state/county/whatever, the rules, and the person administering such rules, can change as the political winds change. These are the consequences of wishing to travel across land not belonging to you. One cannot have their cake, and eat it too. This should not be such a surprise.

[dennismurphy]

Except that publicly owned/held lands DO belong to us, to all of us, and only needs consensus and cooperation and is NOT an arbitrary process-

Cake has nothing to do with it

[utabintarbo]

Except that publicly owned/held lands DO belong to us, to all of us, and only needs consensus and cooperation and is NOT an arbitrary process-

Until the next election cycle. Or not.

Cake has nothing to do with it

Enjoy.

[dennismurphy]

We (MMBA) did consult with IMBA but they have no experience fighting legislation like this.

so what good are they to MICHIGAN? what was the point? affiliate with a Colorado group that can't actually HELP us? While we send the 60% of our membership money?

What a crock. A world wide "advocacy group" can't seem to come up with the necessary support to fight this kind of legislation means we've wasted our money with them, in my opinion- if all we get from IMBA for $16 dollars per member is socks and a membership card

[Nelg]

We (MMBA) did consult with IMBA but they have no experience fighting legislation like this.

so what good are they to MICHIGAN? what was the point? affiliate with a Colorado group that can't actually HELP us? While we send the 60% of our membership money?

What a crock. A world wide "advocacy group" can't seem to come up with the necessary support to fight this kind of legislation means we've wasted our money with them, in my opinion- if all we get from IMBA for $16 dollars per member is socks and a membership card

Did they ever promise us local and state wide advocacy help as part of the deal?

[amadkins]

so what good are they to MICHIGAN? what was the point? affiliate with a Colorado group that can't actually HELP us? While we send the 60% of our membership money?

What a crock. A world wide "advocacy group" can't seem to come up with the necessary support to fight this kind of legislation means we've wasted our money with them, in my opinion- if all we get from IMBA for $16 dollars per member is socks and a membership card

Likely one of the few times I'll totally agree with Dennis.

[Critter7r]

We (MMBA) did consult with IMBA but they have no experience fighting legislation like this.

so what good are they to MICHIGAN? what was the point? affiliate with a Colorado group that can't actually HELP us? While we send the 60% of our membership money?

What a crock. A world wide "advocacy group" can't seem to come up with the necessary support to fight this kind of legislation means we've wasted our money with them, in my opinion- if all we get from IMBA for $16 dollars per member is socks and a membership card

^this

i'm not one that is familiar with the inner workings or stated mission of IMBA, but it would certainly seem that opposing this type of legislation would be their MAIN PURPOSE FOR EXISTING. If IMBA is really just a race-sactioning body, then I need to start an actual advocacy group that can at least be consulted for leadership in a situation such as this.

[dirt]

From http://mmba.org/imba-chap/imba-chap-faq:

Q. Will the IMBA take over our advocacy efforts in Lansing?

A. No, the IMBA will not take this over. And this is why the MMBA will remain. We need the MMBA to restructure and grow so that it will be able to be the voice of Mountain Bikers in Michigan. However, as IMBA chapters, we would have a regional representative that would be our paid local representative. While this does not replace the MMBA, being a IMBA chapter with a regional representative is a model that currently works for the majority of Mountain Biking organizations in the country. The majority do not have our current model of organization.

[utabintarbo]

It appears some (even some who have held positions on the MMBA board) have completely missed the point of the IMBA partnership. They were never going to supplant the MMBA's advocacy function - they were going to act as an adjunct to relieve the administrative burden of running the business of the MMBA.

Think of IMBA like a payroll company - we negotiate the salaries and benefits; they make sure the checks are printed and the taxes are paid. Some seem to be confused on where the boundaries of this division of labor actually lie.

[Doc_d]

I'll point back to the NRA again. The NRA is a very successful political organization because they throw the entire weight of their membership against any issue (federal, state or local) that poses a threat to their goals.

If the IMBA is not willing to do that, I'm not sure what the point of their existence is other than to provide socks as someone else pointed out.

[Nelg]

It appears some (even some who have held positions on the MMBA board) have completely missed the point of the IMBA partnership. They were never going to supplant the MMBA's advocacy function - they were going to act as an adjunct to relieve the administrative burden of running the business of the MMBA.

Think of IMBA like a payroll company - we negotiate the salaries and benefits; they make sure the checks are printed and the taxes are paid. Some seem to be confused on where the boundaries of this division of labor actually lie.

Bingo! IMBA never promised us a state legislative representative, they simply take care of most of the back-office needs like membership, tax compliance, etc. They are not a race organization like mentioned, and they do indeed lobby in Washington as they were there most of last week.

Rantings against Imba are mis-guided, we would be much better served by using that energy to rally against this legislation.