Trad Gang
Main Boards => Hunting Legislation & Policies => Topic started by: Zradix on October 06, 2009, 04:41:00 PM
-
The national forests in my area of michigan have been a hunting spot for decades. The forestry service was sued by some group because they were not making enough land "NO motorized vehicles allowed" and things were being "ruined" by driving down decades old 2 tracks. Now ALL the roads inside the areas are being fenced or blocked off from vehicles. Sure we can still walk in it, but this is a 100,000+ acre area that now without hiking for days you can't get into the middle of it. They are being a little sneaky about it so it just sort of gradualy happens. Closing 1-3 roads a year. Does anybody know how to stop this from happening??
-
Not to P.O. anyone, but I would think that's a good thing. The reason I say that is No 4wheelers driving up as Your hunting, No kids 4wheeling at mach 3 down the roads. I'm sorry I like the State Forest to be with out motos, That's just me.
-
off road vehicles are not allowed in these areas. only plated cars and trucks. This area has been great for many and used for camping by many. There is a nice trout river you can get to also. After they close the road you'll have to walk appx 4 miles to get to the river.
-
mysticguido,
How do you get to your hunting spot? Do you drive and park somewhere near( mile or less from your stand) or do hike in a few miles?
-
Originally posted by Zradix:
mysticguido,
How do you get to you're hunting spot? Do you drive and park somewhere near( mile or less from your stand) or do hike in a few miles?
I haven't done the mile hike in years. Like I said I don't mean to P.O. anyone just stating My feelings. I under stand what You are saying, Isn't it better to have to walk miles then not being able to hunt there at all?
-
I completely agree with mysticguido on this one. The less access, the better. I live on the edge of 1 million acres of public land that have been severely compromised by 4wheeler access. I can't believe the number of Forest Service gates that have 4wheeler trails going around them. 4wheelers have become the scurge of our National Forests.
-
I kinda like trails much better then roads myself and have to agree that 4wheelers are doing lots of harm and not a lot of good. Just walk is my liking too. I tend to think that less roads will equal better hunting and a better enjoyment of it.
-
Originally posted by Zradix:
The national forests in my area of Michigan have been a hunting spot for decades. The forestry service was sued by some group because they were not making enough land "NO motorized vehicles allowed" and things were being "ruined" by driving down decades old 2 tracks. Now ALL the roads inside the areas are being fenced or blocked off from vehicles. Sure we can still walk in it, but this is a 100,000+ acre area that now without hiking for days you can't get into the middle of it. They are being a little sneaky about it so it just sort of gradually happens. Closing 1-3 roads a year. Does anybody know how to stop this from happening??
It is easier to close roads then to open them.I'm sorry to say that but it is so very true.
-
Zradix,
its a funny thing, but when people can drive all over a place- you get a ton of folks and they all hunt 50 feet off the road.
I would think you would welcome the "less crowded" atmosphere...as a "doing it the hard way" kind of guy yourself.
The fishing will get better, the fish will get larger, the deer will live longer...and you'll have a paradise all to yourself because the road hunters will have to find someplace else to hunt.
On my property in SC we do not allow people to drive anywhere. They walk from camp, or I take them out in one vehicle but still drop them off quite a way from where they will end up hunting.
Less vehicle traffic equals game that's a lot less SPOOKY.
-
I agree with the 4 wheeler stuff. It's illegal here to use them except in special areas that are far and few between. The 4 wheelers just aren't a problem around here. We are lucky that way. It just gets me... The national forests are there to be used by the people. The most common 2 uses by far is to camp and to hunt. Most of the people camping use trailers or RV's. Some people use a tent. The thing is they all DROVE there to use the land. Now the land won't be used near as much. It just seems wrong to me to tell the public sorry.. even though we haven't had any problems from you, we're not going to let you use the land the way you've used it for generations. Even though the whole reason for setting the land aside in the first place was so people and animals had a place to go! Then again having to pay $$$$$ for a hunting tag when most of the money doesn't go to the areas used seems wrong too. Makes me feel like I'm paying for the privelage to hunt the king's deer even though the king doesn't own them!....arrrggghhh !!! :banghead:
-
Originally posted by Zradix:
Most of the people camping use trailers or RV's. Some people use a tent. The thing is they all DROVE there to use the land.
But think of it this way. Where do you think some of those campers are dumping their black water? Is their RV leaking anything that can hurt the land? Now I'm all for a nice drive in the woods, I done it where I used to live in Jersey. But some just think I pay so I can do what I want to. You can try and fight this but it will be long and hard fight and You are more likely to lose.. Just deal with it and think about getting a bike and peddle in to your spot.
-
Zradix- are you talking about the area just north of lupton? we were mad when they closed it off because it was never that popular with 4 wheelers anyway- we played cat and mouse with them for a while because they did not close some of the older 2 tracks. but eventually they closed them all- they had a huge area clearcut around 1979-80 and from the mid 80s to the mid 90s it was a deer factory in the poplar jungle that grew up. I suspect it had more to do with forcing hunters to pay for camping at the state park in lupton than it did with the environment. by ways it was only a short drive from Fred Bears famous Grousehaven camp
-
Without icing on the cake -
Get rid of the $#@!^&*^%$! ATV's and the access closures might stop. These infernal machines were let loose in our state forests some years ago, and now thank God, there's a backlash. It will take decades for nature to heal the track ruts & erosion.
Nothing infuriates me more than to listen to the constant, distant roar-roar-roar on evening-stand. Are there no quiet places left? What the hell did hunters(?) do before the advent of ATV's? Oh my gosh, did they hike ?
-
Gotta say it. Where I live, we have a lot of old logging roads in the forest. And used to be, you could actually pass by on some of them in a truck or jeep. But now you can't hardly do it on some roads. Not because of road closures, but because of ATVs. They'd get out there and do "roosters" in every standing puddle of water after a rain until the road was one big, muddy swamp. Then guess what happens? People go around the big mud bog and then you have this giant mud bog with circles of tire tracks around both sides where people went around. Then there's the idiots who go off even the logging roads, tear up the woods, do "roosters", and so on. It's pathetic. It makes you sick to see it.
The thing is, there is an ORV park just a few miles outside of town here where you can play on ATVs to your heart's content. Instead, these vandals destroy the forest. Every time I see one of the "Mother Ships" (these big bus-sized RVs with TVs, satellite dishes, and waterbeds for those folks "roughing it")towing a trailer full of ATVs up here from the city, I can tell that somewhere, the woods will take another hit.
Wife and I were out gathering mushrooms last year. Guy on an ATV with a compound bow is going up and down the old logging road. Up and down, up and down. He stops and asks if we've seen any deer. I say, "You must be new to this kinda thing or maybe you ain't from around here. Any deer that were here were long gone by the time they heard that ATV. You know, these deer are kinda afraid of funny noise like motors and such. You might try parking that and sitting a spell." He didn't like hearing that, but what am I supposed to say?
There's a lot of folks in this town who see these ATVs with rifle scabbards come up behind the "Mother Ships" in deer and elk season and people are like, what, these guys can't walk or something? It's kind of a black eye for hunting, in its own way. People see the damage done to the forest and they start lobbying to close the roads altogether. Because if someone proposes just closing the roads to ATV and dirt bike traffic, then the riders of those ATVs start whining about that not being fair. Well, then stop doing "roosters" in every mud puddle, guys!
Coming down off a gravel road, had one of them flip me the bird because I wasn't going the unsafe speed he was and he couldn't pass until about 1/2 mile. I don't have any love for the ATV or their riders.
-
I would like to know, if the forest service closes the roads are they also changing their management practices on that same area? I like old growth, I like the mix of small openings and huge trees that eventually develops. When the woods are nothing more than a congestion of post sized trees and sticks that are too thick to walk through it is not so much fun to hunt the big woods. Would you be allowed to ride a mountain bike down these same roads? My bike really gives me some distance that I would not have otherwise.
-
in the National forest I believe you are allowed bikes or horses in the closed off areas
-
I think we should be guarded about closures I live in extreme northern CA and hunt in many western states with my family and that includes my 4 year old son this is steep and rough country and a little too much to ask of my two youngest to hike far into these areas.Now I don't have or want an ATV so I will not defend them. The region I live in has seen many land closures in recent years and I can honestly say it sucks, the land i not used by anyone for anything just closed to access and to hunting. Now I know that is not what the original post is speaking of but it starts small and then moves to worse things.Strict rules about road use and stiff enforcement some closures of spur roads leaving major access routes open is a much better plan.I have seen the damage that some speak of by ATV travel but have seen alot of damage by trucks also.I think if we just close these areas we eliminate many options for people who need the access option these areas provide.Even in Rays post encouraging closure you can find one reason access does not mean poor hunting and that is that everyone is within 50 feet of the road.Granted I live and hunt out west and there are plenty of wildernesses if that is the experience you crave so it is good to have options.Sorry for the long post and if I have offended anyone.Bill
-
This is not about Bill.
Where I live; Idaho: there is a lot of wilderness land. However; these areas have emergency air strips; and pilots are encouraged to land at them so they are familiar with landing- on these remote strips.
However; the strips are used to take back in tourists and hunters- for a great cost: in the reality of the vast majority of people.
That leaves OUT the average Joe or Josephine.
I have been flown back into numerous of these strips while working. The outfitters there do their best to deter the average person from passing through the leased land they are on.
They down trees across trails; put up signs saying the areas are private; and circle water holes so that if you are on horseback you cannot get your horse to water.
The back country called wilderness is the playground of the rich. Yes - anyone can walk back in; and if you can afford horses you can ride back in.
While virtually everyone can walk; few people can afford horses; and the trailers and trucks needed to get to the wilderness spots.
Meanwhile the rich fly in. They hire the outfitters; they have the 'playing field'.
So- while the excuse for some- is that there is ample wilderness for all. Then that it is an excuse: for them to abuse road-less areas (by driving in them anyway).
There are those that believe that those that violate the road-less rules in non wilderness areas are not really a problem; because there is so much wilderness.
Well I don't agree with that thinking.
We need road closures; and mostly: we need the current rules enforced.
Because that is NOT being done. Signs are torn down; atv's go where ever they want; as signs saying 'road ends' morphs into 'fun begins' ( as in the TV ad for ATV's) - and there is nothing to stop them.
I would ask that you contact your representatives and ask that points be assigned to drivers licenses for those that ~are~ caught.
If areas now closed can be kept closed; then perhaps new areas will not be violated.
I live where you can still see the ruts of wagons from the wagon trains headed to California. The trails of ATVs will stay just as long; and leave only a legacy of disrespect and wanton disregard of rules; and laws; and common sense.
You want to keep more road open? Make sure the ones that are closed now are kept closed. If you go through a gate on private land; close it behind you.
Disregard for the rights of land owners; and for public land can only lead to more closures.
-
I couldn't agree more with you Brian!My point even though I might not have expressed it properly is not to say open all of the closed roads or don't close more or even do not create more wilderness in areas that warrant it.My point was in some areas of this country there is very little public land and many people who want to use it. If it is just closed to fit your wants or my wants or the wants of that guy over there then the average joe or josephine of whom you speak will lose out because unfortunately (and I know this because I have hunted all over the west) joe has a 4wheeler and josephine is looking for a good deal on one.Now I have not been east of Colorado but from what I understand there is not much public land out there and although if I lived there I would welcome less access to improve my experience the "majority" would not and I do not think that that alone makes them "less" than me in any way.Closures against what the majority want is what I don't like to see because where I live that has meant more than no access it has meant no hunting.Strict punishment for disregard of the rules is what is needed so I agree with you Brian on all points including it is not about Bill.Bill
-
:thumbsup:
-
You are 100% correct, Brian. A problem we have here is that many of the out-of-state hunters don't care if they tear up the forest. They don't live here, so they don't care about the land, and they HAVE to fill that tag and get that RACK on the wall. Getting that RACK is the most important thing, no matter what it takes to do that. Dang, what happened to enjoying the wilderness, enjoying seeing the birds and hearing them sing, enjoying the smell of pine and the good Earth, and maybe going home with some meat if you're lucky?
-
Having hunted out of state in CO,ID,OR and NV I know there is a huge problem with destruction of habitat by ATV use and driving trucks off of designated routes and agree the solution is strict enforcement.I have always respected the laws of the respective state I was hunting in and try not to take it personally when very few if any of the local hunters return my wave when I pass them on the road as I know what they have seen by not only out of state but out of area hunters thrashing their hunting spot.I do not have an ATV partly because I hunt with my family of six and the price of that many ATVs would break me but also because I don't see a real advantage for my hunting style.I don't think closing all roads is the answer as it effects even the innocent just as it does when blanket statements about out of state hunters and treating people from out of town as if they are the cause when not all of them are.JMO.BILL
-
Bill, I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement about out-of-state hunters. To be sure, we have plenty of local yokels here tearing up the woods with ATVs. I used to hear them at work talking about "making rooster tails" after the rains muddied the roads. There's a big debate here over ATVs right now, because it's gotten so bad that the granola-n-tevas crowd has noticed the damage and they're not real happy about it. They're the politically active ones around here.
There's talk about licensing and fees for ATVs. That's not a bad idea. Hunters and shooters have been paying an excise tax for wildlife conservation for years. I'd go a step further and do what some game-n-fish depts do. When they catch a poacher, they confiscate the firearms and many times the vehicle used. I'd say if an ATV is off a road and gets caught, then confiscate the ATV, trailer, and truck attached to the trailer. (Around here, the ATV has to stay on the dirt road, see, but don't.)
Some people just don't know. Maybe part of the licensing should be like hunter's ed. Make them take a class and maybe at least a couple will be responsible. Maybe not; who knows?
Some time back, there was a guy here who probably read a lot of Edward Abbey books and was stringing rope about chest-height to an ATV rider between trees. Some riders got clotheslined and they caught and arrested the guy. All the ATV crowd here were calling for the guy's head. But then it was pointed out the ropes weren't across ROADS and, therefore, it was the ATV riders that were breaking the law by riding off the road. The guy got off pretty lightly because since he wasn't stringing ropes acorss roads, it couldn't be proven he had actual intent of getting the ATVers (even though that's what he was doing.) I'm not defending what the guy did, but it was interesting how the pro-ATV crowd leaped into this and basically called the guy another incarnation of Attila the Hun and then it was pointed out, hey, he wasn't roping off roads---the ATV riders were breaking the law in a fashion the pro-ATV crowd claimed "Oh, we never do that!" Hmmm...they never do that? Then where do all those ATV tracks off the roads come from? I guess the elk here have funny feet?
Some time back, some geniuses were chasing elk on ATVs right in sight of some campers. And these geniuses had the good sense to be wearing Mossy Oak or what-have-ye. So, the flurry of letters to the editor were all about "those kill-crazy hunters using ATVs to hunt elk by running them into the ground." Well, those dirtbags weren't anything I'd call a hunter. But this is a good reason why we really need to distance ourselves from these people.
When I've talked to them person-to-person over tea of coffee, I have found that many people opposed to hunting aren't really against hunting as the way a responsible, ethical hunter hunts. Many of them will actually have a spark of admiration for traditional bowhunters. What they're against are these jerks out there on ATVs, tearing down roads, leaving trashed camps full of beer cans in the woods, and parking outside of a bar with a blood-splattered elk head hanging out the bed of a pickup. Because these clowns are so visible to the public (and the ethical hunter is such a "small footprint" person that is barely noticed), that's the impression the public gets of all hunters. That's how these goons are threatening the future of hunting.
-
Let's not forget that National Forest is NOT National Park or National Wilderness. It is property managed by the Department of Agriculture for forest products, cattle ranching, minerals, etc. It is NOT a park!
So... if the patrons using ATV's are doing damage to the resources then they HAVE to go. There is no legal language giving you a right to it. The roads were put in for access to the resources, nothing more, nothing less.
-
And yep, I know it sucks, but I'm grateful they haven't posted a guard at the trail head and said, "sorry, no access, no way."
-
NorthernCaliforniaHunter is right and if I am correct the forest service meets and creates a 5 year management plan that works similar to a county board of supervisor meeting in which your voice can be heard but not necessarily heeded.I believe I read this in a CA. DFG newsletter once written by a warden who was tired of hearing all the complaints of closures (logging,access etc.)He went to the meetings as a hunter and it sounded pretty lonely for him.He said there was a handful of loggers there a few hunters and a hoard of anti-types.Luckily the forest service doesn't have any say in whether or not we can hunt only if we can access it because I think you all know where public land logging has gone.They also vote on controlled burns firewood harvest and the like.My part of the world is overgrown with brush and tan oak.Point is the antis know how to unite in force and divide us and get what they want.I wish I could say me and my friends go to these meetings but we don't.So when I say we need to put our best foot forward and become involved and vote I'm talking about me too.None of us are perfect but as hunters we need to try to stick together hard as it is.I am scared for what my kids face. Bill
-
I take the side of what is right. IMHO, the antis don't divide us so much as we have people that call themselves "hunters" who are just inconsiderate bums that then expect us to stick by them. These will be the same guys that try to intrude on archery season by claiming scoped crossbows are "archery". Or try to get archery season opened up to something called "HAM" (Handgun-Archery-Muzzleloader)where we'll get to compete with folks packing T/C Encores in .300WinMag and inline "muzzleloaders" with scopes.
I will go the extra mile to support hunting and hunters. What I won't do is support people that call themselves "hunters" that are putting black eyes on hunting. Those folks are the ones that are an embarrassment and a liability to hunting. We have to support ethical hunting, not everything under the sun calling itself "hunting" from canned hunts of near-captive animals to guys hunting from the backs of ATVs and what-not. Because if we support the things we know are wrong, we're sure to lose in the end. Those slob hunters will just shrug their shoulders, walk away, and find another hobby to disgrace. We'll be the ones hurting.
-
Tsalagi I did not ask any of the fine people on this site to support slobs, I said hunters.I don't want to share my archery season with crossbow hunters or the woods with any of the slobs you describe.But be careful of the stand alone mentality as you have seen the slobs are probably the majority and you the minority and to some who aren't even in the slob category if one comes across as an elitist snob they are further isolated.I say use those slobs for their good (voting numbers,fund raising and such)and heavily chastise publicly for their many faults and then you are fighting in the manner that won the logging industry wars for the tree-huggers .They aligned even with the idiots who spiked trees endangering lives but publicly separated themselves from them.I hope I am wrong about what I think our future might be and I think if years ago the high road was encouraged and not the gold laden road of make it rich off of what you love that the "hunting" industry has turned into maybe we could take this back by total separation from the slobs but I fear its too late for that.I guess long story short is if some idiot wants to raise money and votes for what I cherish while being hanged for what I loath well that sounds like a win win situation to me.Remember the right side is a matter of perspective. Oh and leave a few roads open.JMO. Bill
-
I'll be honest, my friend. I won't give up my principles or ethics for political expediency. That's one of the major problems with the country today. I'd rather look myself in the mirror without hesitation. I won't stand with people doing things I know are wrong. It's not elitism, it's having a conscience.
I never supported clear-cut logging. I'm a conservationist. I believe we need managed logging and done wisely, it's good for forests. But, see, if some companies had their way, they'd cut every tree and leave nothing just to get rich quick. That's where the balance between environmentalism and the logging industry needs to come in. I don't call the environmentalists "tree huggers" because there's nothing wrong with loving Nature. I call many of them misled or uneducated because they go off on the deep end just as much as pro-logging people do.
The truth is, many hunters and environmentalists actually have the same objectives. Now, it was said that the anti-hunters divide hunters. Quid pro quo, certain elements within the hunting crowd actually cause hunters to do things against thier own best interests. For example, seeing the enviromentalists as always "the enemy". The fact is, environmentalists have saved a number of places that would otherwise be lost to mining or logging. These places remain open for hunting as a result. Sorry to tell ya, but corporate business in this country doesn't care a fig about your hunting rights. They'll use hunters to cudgel at the "tree huggers", but they actually don't care if there's a single place left to hunt because they're strip mining it or clear cutting it. They can fly to Africa to hunt, you see. So, be aware that the "dividing" isn't a one-sided gig here. We need to remember that one of the major reasons Teddy Roosevelt saw to protect the environment was for people to have a place to hunt. So, it works against our own interests to support mining or logging just because the environmentalists don't.
And if some environmentalists supported tree-spiking (a crime), does that make it right? Does that mean we, as hunters, then support poachers? No. People will respect ethics more than numbers. That tree-spiking set back the environmental movement by several years. If they hadn't resorted to that, they'd have probably acheived their objectives much earlier than they did. There is no other road to take besides the high road.
Not trying to argue or criticize your points. Just offering my own views and enjoying the conversation. These are important topics and ones well worth discussion. We need to remember the Number One reason why hunting is under assault: It is how we are SEEN by the public.
-
VERY well said Tsalagi!
We need to remove emotion from the equation folks! The rules by which the Forest Service manages the land is codified. It may seem willy-nilly but involves untold meetings, public input and an effort to keep the Forest viable and profitable. If you want the real truth, it's about the bottom line.
The only way to effect change is to find common ground and build bridges. Formulate a list of reasons and proofs showing the benefits hunters provide National Forests and local businesses, understand the arguments from all perspectives, get well dressed and presentable, AND THEN SHOW UP WHEN PUBLIC INPUT IS REVIEWED!!
The "Anti's" are well funded and focused. They lobby hard and support candidates. I'd love to see a "Save the Hunter" fund but we're all too busy whining about road closures, a.t.v.'s and all the other ways we see ourselves as "victims". Make your case for the ways in which hunters will bring the Forest revenue, preserve it's long term interests and viability, and say what you've got to say in a cool and collected manner with respect for different opinions. Trust me, the anti's will be the ones left looking like the goons.
-
Tsalagi is right about some key points.
One thing to keep in mind is that the Forest Service is not the the dept of Interior(Fish and wildlife, Park service, BLM etc.) they are the dept of Agriculture and the bottom line is making use of resources. If it wasnt for the environmentalists they would be just that, tree farms and resource mines.
As much as I disagree with the Sierra Club (we have battled them here about Prescribed Fire), they have helped to keep Forest service areas about more than just trees and such.
And I say this as a government Biologist. there are still many in the agencies that view me and other biologists as just in their way of harvesting trees.
-
One thing is that 1 ATV driven at 10 mph for 5 hours off road; creates 50 miles of what looks like a road to the next ATV rider; and thus the trails get longer- and go in deeper into the forest: than is reasonable.
WE are conservationists. Aldo Leopold was the father of conservation in this country; and he was a bowhunter.
WE are environmentalists; and WE seek to protect the wilds; while observing the ideology of conservation. ( the WISE use of our natural resources).
Fact is; there is not an effort to stop those that are ruining things for everyone.
Those people don't have to be hunters; they don't have to be men - by law in Idaho; a child can ride on forest service roads- without insurance or a license - no age requirement.
Loggers for a long time- cut down ALL trees to replant with more trees.. which could be logged; and that included the yew tree; which was found to produce a successful treatment for many types of breast cancer.
That was not conservation.
The forest service is supposed to be coming up with a new road plan next month. We shall see how that all goes over - it will be a nation-wide plan.
Personally going to meetings is good; but calling your representatives is best. Because you can do that any day. And I think demanding that those that misuse their off road vehicles be assigned points on their drivers licenses ( which could hurt real bad when it comes to paying for insurance) is appropriate and necessary.
On a funny note MWMWMB - I used to work for NET television; and I met Bozo the clown. Out of that paint and character- he was a down to earth nice guy. Which is not true of Carl Sagan right now :biglaugh:
-
You're correct, Brian. And I agree; ATV misuse should be points against a driver's license. The whole ATV thing is getting way out of hand and tearing up even the existing roads seems to be an advertising talking point for these things.
We had a sad incident a while back here in Arizona where the two issues---thoughtless mining and ATV use---collided with terrible results. Some kids were riding an ATV off the dirt roads and fell down an abandoned mine shaft. One was killed. Ok, so the mine shaft was from the late 1800s-early 1900s back when they weren't required to fill them back in. But there's an example of what happens when you have a totally unregulated mining free-for-all. They left behind several thousand abandoned mines without a thought to people and animals falling into them since they're unmarked. Then on the other hand, we have these kids riding off the given roads. The dirt roads there don't have mine shafts in them. So, the parents are leading this charge to have every mine shaft in the state filled in or fenced off. Uh, excuse me, but what happened to teaching your kids some common sense, respect for Nature, and the law in riding the ATV? We don't have the money to fill in every mine shaft in this state. And there are hundreds that are on no existing map at all and the claims were never registered. But, no one stopped to say, hey, why were the kids riding the ATV off the roads? Hey parents, what, you just handed them the keys and said have at totally unsupervised? Would they do that with a car? They're both motor vehicles.
Now the old mines are "historical" but they're gigantic blights on the landscape and many of the sites are full of cyanide and mercury that they used to extract the gold. This is a great example of what happens when mines are just allowed to do as they please. And here in Northern Arizona, we're still trying to recover from unrestricted logging that went on in the late 1800s-early 1900s. They went through and cut down huge swathes of Ponderosa pines and put out every fire that started. So, the ones that grew back were all spindly little pines growing too close together in "doghair thickets" that no natural fire was allowed to checkmate. They've spent the last few decades trying to clear those doghair thickets because the doghair thickets are what creates catastrophic wildfires and provides the "Perfect Storm" for bark beetles. In the end, the logging companies made the money and the taxpayers are footing the bill to clean up the mess. The same with the mines.
And most of the dirt roads in the forest here are old logging roads. They're not maintained. So it only takes three guys on ATVs to turn a dirt road into a giant mud bog that just gets bigger and bigger with rain, snow, freeze, thaw, and then snowmelt. And the whole time, more and more people are mudwomping through it with ATVs. After a while, the mud bog is quite a bit bigger than the width of the road and guys are coming on ATVs specifically to mudwomp in it. This is ugly. You find this all over the forest here. The forest service has closed some roads by dragging boulders across and putting up signs. Often, too late, because the damage is done and will take a hundred years or more to go away. Some ecosystems are very fragile and there are still ruts from wagons that passed in 1860 still very visible. When ATVs run over these ecosystems, those tracks will be there for at least a couple hundred years.
Massive public image problem is people see some ATVs with gun cases on them and go, "AHA! It's those darn hunters tearing up the woods with those!" And the users of the ATVs, hunters or no, don't care a fig for their own safety, so why should they care about the forest? We've had other kids killed on ATVs here and several adults, too. This within the past 4 years. Mostly due to a lack of proper training and people taking incredible risks, or handing these to kids like they're Tonka toys and not motor vehicles. Some people are riding these things drunk. Kids need to be strictly supervised with these. When this kind of thing is normal, then we can see how it is the woods are being ruined by these things. It's a total free-for-all and the woods suffer.
-
This is why come to this site ,my initial reaction to disagreement to my opinion is to strike back but when I read and re-read peoples posts I must agree with all on some points actually most points. I do honestly respect every opinion on this topic as I know all of you deeply care about our environment and the game we pursue in it as do I. We are conservationists and we owe this respect to our environment the foes we face are the people who only take and destroy and those who want preservation of the game we hunt. I have always believed that their hearts are in the right place but the facts are not in support of their good intentions.Please know that I do not intend any disrespect to any on this site or even the tree-huggers this is what I will always refer to them as because I personally saw them doing just that a group hug of a giant redwood that they were trying to save. I wasn't speaking of all environmentalists when I spoke of tree-huggers just the extremists I was referring to in the statement.I think that our opinions on these issues are formed much by what we experience in our lives.I have never worked in the timber industry or owned an ATV but I do know that both used properly have their place.In the terrain I chase blacktails in I love clearcuts only behind burns for habitat but with both you need edge cover and diversity.I have seen too many closures in my life here not just closed gates but large tracts of land purchased by the government and closed to hunting and access.A local waterfowl area was closed this year after 25 years of being open to hunting and their response was it should have never been hunted in the first place.So when people say what someone else should or should not be able to do I tend to get defensive.Punish the abusers not the whole group! I have more times than I can count walked out an old logging road only to find an ATV at the end or worse walked in the wilderness only to see or hear an ATV in there too.But I cannot condemn the guy who is riding responsibly.What I meant by using these slobs for their numbers is that most of us probably belong to an organization that raises funds for the causes we believe in that has some of the slobs that we are talking about as members.Maybe even this site.This should not deter us from belonging to them as long as the org. openly and publicly condemns these activities I can look myself in the mirror readily, well as readily as any ugly man can.Bill
-
Yes, every organization has members that are complete dolts and/or scumbags. My only point is I wouldn't go along with an ATV riders advocacy group that was wanting my support to keep roads open or really anything else.
You know, we hunters pay an excise tax for wildlife every time we buy something related to hunting like firearms, ammo, bows, arrows. Every time an anti-hunter starts whining, we shouldn't spend all our time countering his argument. Instead, we should be lobbying for the same excise tax on all the goodies HE uses, like all that fancy Patagonia outdoor clothing, tents, sleeping bags, mountain bikes, hiking gear, skiing equipment, etc. Hikers, skiers, backpackers, and wildlife photographers all enjoy the wildlife we hunters pay for without chipping in a single penny. Most of the public doesn't know that. We need to get the word out. And also get the word out that if people are going to try and hammer us about hunting, we're going to lobby for THEM to start paying their fair share of this tax. So far, we haven't said anything about it because we're not generally the type to complain about it. But if these folks are going to make wildlife such an issue, then it's time they PAID for it. Watch how quickly support for the antis will dry up when all the people who use the outdoors but don't hunt will suddenly be paying a 14% excise tax on everything they buy---including the backpacking food and hiking shoes.
Another thing is, fight fire with fire. A local and very vocal anti writes into the online blog of our local paper here all the time. He was always advocating banning hunting on there. He's the typical stereotype; believes in cultural sensitivity, for example. Imagine his surprise when I got on and accused him of cultural imperialism because he wants to deprive me of part of my culture. I'm Native American and hunting is part of my peoples' culture. Suddenly, his support dried up and he became toxic. He coudn't defend himself without looking like what he's so adamantly against. He couldn't backpedal fast enough and that's when I went after him and pointed out that he's practicing a type of bigotry in other cases as well, trying to force people hunting for the pot in Appalachia to go hungry, for example. He lost the debate hugely and hasn't been back to say another word about it. I was polite the whole time, but used his own beliefs against him. And I truly believe what I told him anyway. And I think it applies to everyone, too. Hunting is part of our culture as human beings period.
We probably should stop going about this as a "sport" issue and come at this from a cultural issue. No one can prove a "need" for sport, but people are very scared to get into a public debate with someone who says the thing you're trying to ban is part of his culture and can prove it. It's not hard to prove. Even most Europeans countries have some kind of hunting tradition that's been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Doing this, we don't need unsavory fellow travelers. We make the case for hunting as a cultural one.
-
I agree fully on all points especially the tax!
-
huntingdad and tsalagi good stuff.
Brian On a funny note MWMWMB - I used to work for NET television; and I met Bozo the clown. Out of that paint and character- he was a down to earth nice guy. Which is not true of Carl Sagan right now
???
the man is dead. maybe he is down IN earth?
-
Actually, I think he's in orbit along with Timothy Leary, if I recall correctly.
-
Up where I live the DNR has not only gated everything but have dug trenches 10' deep across roads to keep ATV's out. Do I agree with the gates? Yes. ATV's are a small problem compared to low-lifes that think state owned wilderness is a good place to dump their trash, old cars, every kind of appliance you can name...PR
-
Yea, Its happening in North Dakota national grasslands too. Not necessarily a bad thing. Makes the road hunters work or go home.
-
I under stand what You are saying, Isn't it better to have to walk miles then not being able to hunt there at all? [/QB]
Hit the nail right on the head! :clapper: