SageGhost
New member
hey elk i am having too much fun replying to your posts to do my homework...
any dirt bikers or off roaders?
- Thread starter SageGhost
- Start date
SageGhost
New member
reply
goota love T1 internet
goota love T1 internet
SageGhost
New member
i have showed you a few already... anytime roads are kept open that benefits hunters, especially HANDICAP hunters (wait) you want to discriminate aginst handicap hunters !!!
Nut
New member
SG posting like that you will be up to 4800 plus posts in no time at all. 
SageGhost
New member
CAUSES OF SOIL EROSION
Wind and water are the main agents of soil erosion. The amount of soil they can carry away is influenced by two related factors:
* speed - the faster either moves, the more soil it can erode;
* plant cover - plants protect the soil and in their absence wind and water can do much more damage.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANTS
Plants provide protective cover on the land and prevent soil erosion for the following reasons:
* plants slow down water as it flows over the land (runoff) and this allows much of the rain to soak into the ground;
* plant roots hold the soil in position and prevent it from being washed away;
* plants break the impact of a raindrop before it hits the soil, thus reducing its ability to erode;
* plants in wetlands and on the banks of rivers are of particular importance as they slow down the flow of the water and their roots bind the soil, thus preventing erosion.
The loss of protective vegetation through deforestation (see Enviro Facts "Deforestation"), over-grazing, ploughing, and fire makes soil vulnerable to being swept away by wind and water. In addition, over-cultivation and compaction cause the soil to lose its structure and cohesion and it becomes more easily eroded. Erosion will remove the top-soil first. Once this nutrient-rich layer of soil is gone, few plants will grow in the soil again. Without soil and plants the land becomes desert-like and unable to support life - this process is called desertification (see Enviro Facts "Desertification"). It is very difficult and often impossible to restore desertified land.
oil erosion is one form of soil degradation along with soil compaction, low organic matter, loss of soil structure, poor internal drainage, salinisation, and soil acidity problems. These other forms of soil degradation, serious in themselves, usually contribute to accelerated soil erosion.
Soil erosion is a naturally occurring process on all land. The agents of soil erosion are water and wind, each contributing a significant amount of soil loss each year in Ontario.
Soil erosion may be a slow process that continues relatively unnoticed, or it may occur at an alarming rate causing serious loss of topsoil. The loss of soil from farmland may be reflected in reduced crop production potential, lower surface water quality and damaged drainage networks.
Erosion by Water
The rate and magnitude of soil erosion by water is controlled by the following factors:
Rainfall Intensity and Runoff
Both rainfall and runoff factors must be considered in assessing a water erosion problem. The impact of raindrops on the soil surface can break down soil aggregates and disperse the aggregate material. Lighter aggregate materials such as very fine sand, silt, clay and organic matter can be easily removed by the raindrop splash and runoff water; greater raindrop energy or runoff amounts might be required to move the larger sand and gravel particles.
Soil movement by rainfall (raindrop splash) is usually greatest and most noticeable during short-duration, high-intensity thunderstorms. Although the erosion caused by long-lasting and less-intense storms is not as spectacular or noticeable as that produced during thunderstorms, the amount of soil loss can be significant, especially when compounded over time. Runoff can occur whenever there is excess water on a slope that cannot be absorbed into the soil or trapped on the surface. The amount of runoff can be increased if infiltration is reduced due to soil compaction, crusting or freezing. Runoff from the agricultural land may be greatest during spring months when the soils are usually saturated, snow is melting and vegetative cover is minimal.
Soil Erodibility
Soil erodibility is an estimate of the ability of soils to resist erosion, based on the physical characteristics of each soil. Generally, soils with faster infiltration rates, higher levels of organic matter and improved soil structure have a greater resistance to erosion. Sand, sandy loam and loam textured soils tend to be less erodible than silt, very fine sand, and certain clay textured soils.
Tillage and cropping practices which lower soil organic matter levels, cause poor soil structure, and result of compacted contribute to increases in soil erodibility. Decreased infiltration and increased runoff can be a result of compacted subsurface soil layers. A decrease in infiltration can also be caused by a formation of a soil crust, which tends to "seal" the surface. On some sites, a soil crust might decrease the amount of soil loss from sheet or rain splash erosion, however, a corresponding increase in the amount of runoff water can contribute to greater rill erosion problems.
Past erosion has an effect on a soils erodibility for a number of reasons. Many exposed subsurface soils on eroded sites tend to be more erodible than the original soils were, because of their poorer structure and lower organic matter. The lower nutrient levels often associated with subsoils contribute to lower crop yields and generally poorer crop cover, which in turn provides less crop protection for the soil.
Slope Gradient and Length
Naturally, the steeper the slope of a field, the greater the amount of soil loss from erosion by water. Soil erosion by water also increases as the slope length increases due to the greater accumulation of runoff. Consolidation of small fields into larger ones often results in longer slope lengths with increased erosion potential, due to increased velocity of water which permits a greater degree of scouring (carrying capacity for sediment).
Vegetation
Soil erosion potential is increased if the soil has no or very little vegetative cover of plants and/or crop residues. Plant and residue cover protects the soil from raindrop impact and splash, tends to slow down the movement of surface runoff and allows excess surface water to infiltrate.
The erosion-reducing effectiveness of plant and/or residue covers depends on the type, extent and quantity of cover. Vegetation and residue combinations that completely cover the soil, and which intercept all falling raindrops at and close to the surface and the most efficient in controlling soil (e.g. forests, permanent grasses ). Partially incorporated residues and residual roots are also important as these provide channels that allow surface water to move into the soil.
The effectiveness of any crop, management system or protective cover also depends on how much protection is available at various periods during the year, relative to the amount of erosive rainfall that falls during these periods. In this respect, crops which provide a food, protective cover for a major portion of the year (for example, alfalfa or winter cover crops) can reduce erosion much more than can crops which leave the soil bare for a longer period of time (e.g. row crops) and particularly during periods of high erosive rainfall (spring and summer). However, most of the erosion on annual row crop land can be reduced by leaving a residue cover greater than 30% after harvest and over the winter months, or by inter-seeding a forage crop (e.g. red clover).
Soil erosion potential is affected by tillage operations, depending on the depth, direction and timing of plowing, the type of tillage equipment and the number of passes. Generally, the less the disturbance of vegetation or residue cover at or near the surface, the more effective the tillage practice in reducing erosion.
Certain conservation measures can reduce soil erosion by both water and wind. Tillage and cropping practices, as well a land management practices, directly affect the overall soil erosion problem and solutions on a farm. When crop rotations or changing tillage practices are not enough to control erosion on a field, a combination of approaches or more extreme measures might be necessary. For example, contour plowing, strip cropping, or terracing may be considered.
Sheet and Rill Erosion: Sheet erosion is soil movement from raindrop splash resulting in the breakdown of soil surface structure and surface runoff; it occurs rather uniformly over the slope and may go unnoticed until most of the productive topsoil has been lost. Rill erosion results when surface runoff concentrates forming small yet well-defined channels
Gully Erosion : There are farms in Ontario that are losing large quantities of topsoil and subsoil each year due to fully erosion (Figure 2). Surface runoff, causing gull formation or the enlarging of existing gullies, is usually the result of improper outlet design for local surface and subsurface drainage systems. The soil instability of fully banks, usually associated with seepage of ground water, leads to sloughing and slumping (caving-in) of bank slopes. Such failures usually occur during spring months when the soil water conditions are most conducive to the problem.
Gully formations can be difficult to control if remedial measures are not designed and properly constructed. Control measures have to consider the cause of the increased flow of water across the landscape. This where the multitude of conservation measures come into play. Operations with farm machinery adjacent to gullies can be quite hazardous when cropping or attempting to reclaim lost land.
Stream and Ditch Bank Erosion: Poor construction, or inadequate maintenance, of surface drainage systems, uncontrolled livestock access, and cropping too close to both stream banks has led to bank erosion problems.
The direct damages from bank erosion include:
1. The loss of productive farmland.
2. The undermining of structures such as bridges.
3. The washing out of lanes, roads and fence rows.
Poorly constructed tile outlets may also contribute to stream and ditch bank erosion. Some do not function properly because they have no rigid outlet pipe, or have outlet pipes that have been damaged by erosion, machinery, inadequate or no splash pads, and bank cave-ins.
On-Site Effects: The implications of soil erosion extend beyond the removal of valuable topsoil. Crop emergence, growth and yield are directly affected through the loss of natural nutrients and applied fertilizers with the soil. Seeds and plants can be disturbed or completely removed from the eroded site. Organic matter from the soil, residues and any applied manure, is relatively light-weight and can be readily transported off the field, particularly during spring thaw conditions. Pesticides may also be carried off the site with the eroded soil.
Soil quality, structure, stability and texture can be affected by the loss of soil. The breakdown of aggregates and the removal of smaller particles or entire layers of soil or organic matter can weaken the structure and even change the texture. Textural changes can in turn affect the water-holding capacity of the soil, making it more susceptible to extreme condition such a drought.
Off-Site Effects: Off-site impacts of soil erosion are not always as apparent as the on-site effects. Eroded soil, deposited down slope can inhibit or delay the emergence of seeds, bury small seedling and necessitate replanting in the affected areas. Sediment can be deposited on down slope properties and can contribute to road damage.
Sediment which reaches streams or watercourses can accelerate ban erosion, clog drainage ditches and stream channels, silt in reservoirs, cover fish spawning grounds and reduce downstream water quality. Pesticides and fertilizers, frequently transported along with the eroding soil can contaminate or pollute downstream water sources and recreational areas. Because of the potential seriousness of some of the off-site impacts, the control of "non-point" pollution from agricultural land has become of increasing importance in Ontario.
Erosion by Wind
The rate and magnitude of soil erosion by wind is controlled by the following factors:
Erodibility of Soil
Very fine particles can be suspended by the wind and then transported great distances. Fine and medium size particles can be lifted and deposited, while coarse particles can be blown along the surface (commonly known as the saltation effect). The abrasion that results can reduce soil particle size and further increase the soil erodibility.
Soil Surface Roughness
Soil surfaces that are not rough or ridged offer little resistance to the wind. However, over time, ridges can be filled in and the roughness broken down by abrasion to produce a smoother surface susceptible to the wind. Excess tillage can contribute to soil structure breakdown and increased erosion.
Climate
The speed and duration of the wind have direct relationship to the extent of soil erosion. Soil moisture levels can be very low at the surface of excessively drained soils or during periods of drought, thus releasing the particles for transport by wind. This effect also occurs in freeze drying of the surface during winter months.
Unsheltered Distance
The lack of windbreaks (trees, shrubs, residue, etc.) allows the wind to put soil particles into motion for greater distances thus increasing the abrasion and soil erosion. Knolls are usually exposed and suffer the most.
Vegetative Cover
The lack of permanent vegetation cover in certain locations has resulted in extensive erosion by wind. Loose, dry, bare soil is the most susceptible, however, crops that produce low levels of residue also may not provide enough resistance. As well, crops that produce a lot of residue also may not protect the soil in severe cases.
The most effective vegetative cover for protection should include an adequate network of living windbreaks combined with good tillage, residue management, and crop selection.
Resulting Effect
Wind erosion may create adverse operating conditions in the field. Crops can be totally ruined so that costly delay and reseeding is necessary - or the plants may be sandblasted and set back with a resulting decrease in yield, loss of quality, and market value
Soil drifting is a fertility-depleting process that can lead to poor crop growth and yield reductions in areas of fields where wind erosion is a recurring problem. Continual drifting of an area gradually causes a textural change in the soil. Loss of fine sand, silt, clay and organic particles from sandy soils serves to lower the moisture holding capacity of the soil. This, in turn, increases the erodibility of the soil and compounds the problem.
The removal of wind blown soils from fence rows, ditches, roads and from around buildings is a costly process.
Summary
Many farmers in Ontario have already made significant progress in dealing with soil erosion problems in their farms. However, because of continued advances in soil management and crop production technology that have maintained or increased yields in spite of soil erosion, others have not been aware of the increasing problem on farmland. Awareness usually occurs only when property is damaged and productive areas of soil are lost. hump youve been served !
Wind and water are the main agents of soil erosion. The amount of soil they can carry away is influenced by two related factors:
* speed - the faster either moves, the more soil it can erode;
* plant cover - plants protect the soil and in their absence wind and water can do much more damage.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANTS
Plants provide protective cover on the land and prevent soil erosion for the following reasons:
* plants slow down water as it flows over the land (runoff) and this allows much of the rain to soak into the ground;
* plant roots hold the soil in position and prevent it from being washed away;
* plants break the impact of a raindrop before it hits the soil, thus reducing its ability to erode;
* plants in wetlands and on the banks of rivers are of particular importance as they slow down the flow of the water and their roots bind the soil, thus preventing erosion.
The loss of protective vegetation through deforestation (see Enviro Facts "Deforestation"), over-grazing, ploughing, and fire makes soil vulnerable to being swept away by wind and water. In addition, over-cultivation and compaction cause the soil to lose its structure and cohesion and it becomes more easily eroded. Erosion will remove the top-soil first. Once this nutrient-rich layer of soil is gone, few plants will grow in the soil again. Without soil and plants the land becomes desert-like and unable to support life - this process is called desertification (see Enviro Facts "Desertification"). It is very difficult and often impossible to restore desertified land.
oil erosion is one form of soil degradation along with soil compaction, low organic matter, loss of soil structure, poor internal drainage, salinisation, and soil acidity problems. These other forms of soil degradation, serious in themselves, usually contribute to accelerated soil erosion.
Soil erosion is a naturally occurring process on all land. The agents of soil erosion are water and wind, each contributing a significant amount of soil loss each year in Ontario.
Soil erosion may be a slow process that continues relatively unnoticed, or it may occur at an alarming rate causing serious loss of topsoil. The loss of soil from farmland may be reflected in reduced crop production potential, lower surface water quality and damaged drainage networks.
Erosion by Water
The rate and magnitude of soil erosion by water is controlled by the following factors:
Rainfall Intensity and Runoff
Both rainfall and runoff factors must be considered in assessing a water erosion problem. The impact of raindrops on the soil surface can break down soil aggregates and disperse the aggregate material. Lighter aggregate materials such as very fine sand, silt, clay and organic matter can be easily removed by the raindrop splash and runoff water; greater raindrop energy or runoff amounts might be required to move the larger sand and gravel particles.
Soil movement by rainfall (raindrop splash) is usually greatest and most noticeable during short-duration, high-intensity thunderstorms. Although the erosion caused by long-lasting and less-intense storms is not as spectacular or noticeable as that produced during thunderstorms, the amount of soil loss can be significant, especially when compounded over time. Runoff can occur whenever there is excess water on a slope that cannot be absorbed into the soil or trapped on the surface. The amount of runoff can be increased if infiltration is reduced due to soil compaction, crusting or freezing. Runoff from the agricultural land may be greatest during spring months when the soils are usually saturated, snow is melting and vegetative cover is minimal.
Soil Erodibility
Soil erodibility is an estimate of the ability of soils to resist erosion, based on the physical characteristics of each soil. Generally, soils with faster infiltration rates, higher levels of organic matter and improved soil structure have a greater resistance to erosion. Sand, sandy loam and loam textured soils tend to be less erodible than silt, very fine sand, and certain clay textured soils.
Tillage and cropping practices which lower soil organic matter levels, cause poor soil structure, and result of compacted contribute to increases in soil erodibility. Decreased infiltration and increased runoff can be a result of compacted subsurface soil layers. A decrease in infiltration can also be caused by a formation of a soil crust, which tends to "seal" the surface. On some sites, a soil crust might decrease the amount of soil loss from sheet or rain splash erosion, however, a corresponding increase in the amount of runoff water can contribute to greater rill erosion problems.
Past erosion has an effect on a soils erodibility for a number of reasons. Many exposed subsurface soils on eroded sites tend to be more erodible than the original soils were, because of their poorer structure and lower organic matter. The lower nutrient levels often associated with subsoils contribute to lower crop yields and generally poorer crop cover, which in turn provides less crop protection for the soil.
Slope Gradient and Length
Naturally, the steeper the slope of a field, the greater the amount of soil loss from erosion by water. Soil erosion by water also increases as the slope length increases due to the greater accumulation of runoff. Consolidation of small fields into larger ones often results in longer slope lengths with increased erosion potential, due to increased velocity of water which permits a greater degree of scouring (carrying capacity for sediment).
Vegetation
Soil erosion potential is increased if the soil has no or very little vegetative cover of plants and/or crop residues. Plant and residue cover protects the soil from raindrop impact and splash, tends to slow down the movement of surface runoff and allows excess surface water to infiltrate.
The erosion-reducing effectiveness of plant and/or residue covers depends on the type, extent and quantity of cover. Vegetation and residue combinations that completely cover the soil, and which intercept all falling raindrops at and close to the surface and the most efficient in controlling soil (e.g. forests, permanent grasses ). Partially incorporated residues and residual roots are also important as these provide channels that allow surface water to move into the soil.
The effectiveness of any crop, management system or protective cover also depends on how much protection is available at various periods during the year, relative to the amount of erosive rainfall that falls during these periods. In this respect, crops which provide a food, protective cover for a major portion of the year (for example, alfalfa or winter cover crops) can reduce erosion much more than can crops which leave the soil bare for a longer period of time (e.g. row crops) and particularly during periods of high erosive rainfall (spring and summer). However, most of the erosion on annual row crop land can be reduced by leaving a residue cover greater than 30% after harvest and over the winter months, or by inter-seeding a forage crop (e.g. red clover).
Soil erosion potential is affected by tillage operations, depending on the depth, direction and timing of plowing, the type of tillage equipment and the number of passes. Generally, the less the disturbance of vegetation or residue cover at or near the surface, the more effective the tillage practice in reducing erosion.
Certain conservation measures can reduce soil erosion by both water and wind. Tillage and cropping practices, as well a land management practices, directly affect the overall soil erosion problem and solutions on a farm. When crop rotations or changing tillage practices are not enough to control erosion on a field, a combination of approaches or more extreme measures might be necessary. For example, contour plowing, strip cropping, or terracing may be considered.
Sheet and Rill Erosion: Sheet erosion is soil movement from raindrop splash resulting in the breakdown of soil surface structure and surface runoff; it occurs rather uniformly over the slope and may go unnoticed until most of the productive topsoil has been lost. Rill erosion results when surface runoff concentrates forming small yet well-defined channels
Gully Erosion : There are farms in Ontario that are losing large quantities of topsoil and subsoil each year due to fully erosion (Figure 2). Surface runoff, causing gull formation or the enlarging of existing gullies, is usually the result of improper outlet design for local surface and subsurface drainage systems. The soil instability of fully banks, usually associated with seepage of ground water, leads to sloughing and slumping (caving-in) of bank slopes. Such failures usually occur during spring months when the soil water conditions are most conducive to the problem.
Gully formations can be difficult to control if remedial measures are not designed and properly constructed. Control measures have to consider the cause of the increased flow of water across the landscape. This where the multitude of conservation measures come into play. Operations with farm machinery adjacent to gullies can be quite hazardous when cropping or attempting to reclaim lost land.
Stream and Ditch Bank Erosion: Poor construction, or inadequate maintenance, of surface drainage systems, uncontrolled livestock access, and cropping too close to both stream banks has led to bank erosion problems.
The direct damages from bank erosion include:
1. The loss of productive farmland.
2. The undermining of structures such as bridges.
3. The washing out of lanes, roads and fence rows.
Poorly constructed tile outlets may also contribute to stream and ditch bank erosion. Some do not function properly because they have no rigid outlet pipe, or have outlet pipes that have been damaged by erosion, machinery, inadequate or no splash pads, and bank cave-ins.
On-Site Effects: The implications of soil erosion extend beyond the removal of valuable topsoil. Crop emergence, growth and yield are directly affected through the loss of natural nutrients and applied fertilizers with the soil. Seeds and plants can be disturbed or completely removed from the eroded site. Organic matter from the soil, residues and any applied manure, is relatively light-weight and can be readily transported off the field, particularly during spring thaw conditions. Pesticides may also be carried off the site with the eroded soil.
Soil quality, structure, stability and texture can be affected by the loss of soil. The breakdown of aggregates and the removal of smaller particles or entire layers of soil or organic matter can weaken the structure and even change the texture. Textural changes can in turn affect the water-holding capacity of the soil, making it more susceptible to extreme condition such a drought.
Off-Site Effects: Off-site impacts of soil erosion are not always as apparent as the on-site effects. Eroded soil, deposited down slope can inhibit or delay the emergence of seeds, bury small seedling and necessitate replanting in the affected areas. Sediment can be deposited on down slope properties and can contribute to road damage.
Sediment which reaches streams or watercourses can accelerate ban erosion, clog drainage ditches and stream channels, silt in reservoirs, cover fish spawning grounds and reduce downstream water quality. Pesticides and fertilizers, frequently transported along with the eroding soil can contaminate or pollute downstream water sources and recreational areas. Because of the potential seriousness of some of the off-site impacts, the control of "non-point" pollution from agricultural land has become of increasing importance in Ontario.
Erosion by Wind
The rate and magnitude of soil erosion by wind is controlled by the following factors:
Erodibility of Soil
Very fine particles can be suspended by the wind and then transported great distances. Fine and medium size particles can be lifted and deposited, while coarse particles can be blown along the surface (commonly known as the saltation effect). The abrasion that results can reduce soil particle size and further increase the soil erodibility.
Soil Surface Roughness
Soil surfaces that are not rough or ridged offer little resistance to the wind. However, over time, ridges can be filled in and the roughness broken down by abrasion to produce a smoother surface susceptible to the wind. Excess tillage can contribute to soil structure breakdown and increased erosion.
Climate
The speed and duration of the wind have direct relationship to the extent of soil erosion. Soil moisture levels can be very low at the surface of excessively drained soils or during periods of drought, thus releasing the particles for transport by wind. This effect also occurs in freeze drying of the surface during winter months.
Unsheltered Distance
The lack of windbreaks (trees, shrubs, residue, etc.) allows the wind to put soil particles into motion for greater distances thus increasing the abrasion and soil erosion. Knolls are usually exposed and suffer the most.
Vegetative Cover
The lack of permanent vegetation cover in certain locations has resulted in extensive erosion by wind. Loose, dry, bare soil is the most susceptible, however, crops that produce low levels of residue also may not provide enough resistance. As well, crops that produce a lot of residue also may not protect the soil in severe cases.
The most effective vegetative cover for protection should include an adequate network of living windbreaks combined with good tillage, residue management, and crop selection.
Resulting Effect
Wind erosion may create adverse operating conditions in the field. Crops can be totally ruined so that costly delay and reseeding is necessary - or the plants may be sandblasted and set back with a resulting decrease in yield, loss of quality, and market value
Soil drifting is a fertility-depleting process that can lead to poor crop growth and yield reductions in areas of fields where wind erosion is a recurring problem. Continual drifting of an area gradually causes a textural change in the soil. Loss of fine sand, silt, clay and organic particles from sandy soils serves to lower the moisture holding capacity of the soil. This, in turn, increases the erodibility of the soil and compounds the problem.
The removal of wind blown soils from fence rows, ditches, roads and from around buildings is a costly process.
Summary
Many farmers in Ontario have already made significant progress in dealing with soil erosion problems in their farms. However, because of continued advances in soil management and crop production technology that have maintained or increased yields in spite of soil erosion, others have not been aware of the increasing problem on farmland. Awareness usually occurs only when property is damaged and productive areas of soil are lost. hump youve been served !
Common now gunner, don't read more into my posts than I put there...
So what if this is going on....
I said as long as it is legal in the areas their in, then let it be, if it isn't legal, then let the ax fall on their heads...
What does it gain YOU for trying to read more into some thing than is actually there?
JoseCuervo
New member
ELKCHSR said:
You are right, good advice. Given that there is NOTHING in most of your posts, why bother even reading them. How about you do us all a favor and just keep your posts to the Curling Iron section?
I'm surprised you didn't have a back to back post to tell Sage thanks for the good information on Soil Erosion that he posted on 4 different threads. You could have thanked him on all 4 threads for the same nonsense....
BuzzH
Well-known member
Sageghost,
If you hiked for nine days in Wyoming and didnt see a good buck, you're not hunting in the correct areas or you dont have a clue what you're doing.
Oh, and way to stretch your deer to more than it is...its an average buck, and I'd pass it up.I consider bucks like that very average for people who are serious about mule deer hunting...very average. It is a decent roadie and a buck any fat-assed ATVer would be proud of. Are you sure its a 7x8? I right clicked on your photo and you've saved it under the file name "5x8...." Which is it?
You never answered the question either, do you think your odds of killing another average buck will be better or worse now that the road is open?
If you hiked for nine days in Wyoming and didnt see a good buck, you're not hunting in the correct areas or you dont have a clue what you're doing.
Oh, and way to stretch your deer to more than it is...its an average buck, and I'd pass it up.I consider bucks like that very average for people who are serious about mule deer hunting...very average. It is a decent roadie and a buck any fat-assed ATVer would be proud of. Are you sure its a 7x8? I right clicked on your photo and you've saved it under the file name "5x8...." Which is it?
You never answered the question either, do you think your odds of killing another average buck will be better or worse now that the road is open?
Erik in AK
New member
I'm adding my voice to Buzz and Gunner on this one--Sage, respectfully, besides motorized access, how do ATV's help hunters as a group?
I have always contended that the "quality" of an area is inversely proportional to the ease of access to that area. It seems there is peer-reviewed science backing my position in this case.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in and support reasonable access. Tear-assing across the flats on a machine that scars the land is not reasonable access.
enjoy
From the AK DF&G's website
Wildlife and Roads
The consequences of road construction to wildlife are generally negative. Roads result in increased human access, habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and in some cases direct mortality due to vehicle collisions.
The construction of roads into roadless brown bear habitat has been demonstrated by many investigators to have a significant adverse impact on bear populations by fragmenting the habitat and increasing human access. Increased human access results in direct mortality of bears through legal hunting, killing in defense of life and property, and illegal killing1,2,3,4,5,6,7.
In Yellowstone National Park, grizzly bears avoided areas within 500 m of roads8.
Research has documented an 80% decline in grizzly bear habitat use within 1 km of open roads used by motorized vehicles in Montana9. This has been ascribed either to bears avoiding humans or to the selective over-harvest of bears habituated to humans that would otherwise more fully use areas heavily influenced by people.
On Chichagof Island in southeastern Alaska, there was increased bear mortality associated with road construction. This happened even after closure of hunting seasons due to defense of life and property kills and unknown illegal kills7,10. The decline in kill in 1989 represents a major change in the hunting season.
Big game have been shown to avoid habitat adjacent to roads for up to ½ mile11. The impact was greatest on main roads through open habitat and diminished with reduced road quality and increasing vegetation density.
Selected References
1Knight, R. 1980. Biological considerations in the delineation of critical habitat. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:1-3.
2Peek, J., M. Pelton, H. Picton, J. Schoen, and P. Zager. 1987. Grizzly bear conservation and management: a review. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 15:160-169.
3Rogers, L. and A. Allen. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: black bear, upper Great Lakes Region. US Fish & Wildlife Serv Biol Rep. 82.
4McLellan, B. and D. M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industires: effects of roads on behavior, habitat use and demography. J. Appl. Eco. 25:451-460.
5 Mattson, D. 1990. Human impacts on bear habitat use. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:33-56.
6Schoen, J. Bear habitat management: a review and future perspective. Int. Conf. Bear Res and Manage. 8:143-154.
7Titus, K. and L Beier. 1991. Population and habitat ecology of brown bears on Admiralty and Chichagof Islands. Alaska Fish and Game Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest. Res. Proj. Rep. 4.22. 32pp.
8Mattson, D., R. Knight, and B. Blanchard. 1987. The effects of development and primary roads on grizzly bear habitat use in the Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 7:259-273.
9Kasworm, W. and T. Manley. 1990. Road and trail influences on grizzly bear and black bears in northwest Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:79-84.
10 Schoen, J. R. Flynn, K. Titus, and L Beier. 1994. Habitat-capability model for brown bear in Southeast Alaska. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9:327-337.
11Perry, C. and R. Overly. 1976. Impact of roads on big game distribution in portions of the Blue Mountains of Washington. Pages 62-72, in S. R. Hieb, ed. Elk-logging-roads symposium proceedings. Forest, Wildl. And Range Exp. Stn. Univ. of Idaho.
Here's an excerpt from a 1977 Forest Service study in Montana on how roads and access impact Elk
Effects of Roads on Elk in Forested Ecosystems – What do we Know?
Effects of roads on elk can be divided into two broad categories: indirect effects on habitats occupied by elk, and direct effects on individual elk and their populations. Effects of roads in forested ecosystems in general have been well summarized (Gucinski et al. 2001, Gaines et al. 2003). With regard to elk habitat, the primary effect of roads may be habitat fragmentation; heavily roaded areas may contain few patches of forest cover large enough to function effectively as habitat for elk, especially where elk are hunted (Leege 1984, Rowland et al. 2000). The total loss of elk habitat from road construction is unknown; a rough estimate of 5 acres per linear mile (1.4 ha/km) of road is often applied (Forman et al. 2003). Across the United States, the area occupied by public roads and associated corridors is estimated to be 27 million acres (10.9 million ha); these numbers do not include private roads or “unofficial” roads on public lands (Forman et al. 2003). Roads may also exert more subtle influences on habitat, for example by facilitating the spread of exotic vegetation (Gelbard and Belnap 2003) and the subsequent decline in quality and abundance of forage available to elk. Gaines et al. (2003) listed five road-associated factors in relation to elk: hunting, poaching, collisions, displacement or avoidance, and disturbance at a specific site.
The direct impacts of roads and associated traffic on elk, in addition to outright mortality from collisions with motorized vehicles, can be summarized as follows:
1. Elk avoid areas near open roads. A plethora of studies have demonstrated an increasing frequency of elk occurrence or indices of elk use, such as pellet groups, at greater distances from open roads (defined here as any road where motorized vehicles are allowed). This response varies in relation to traffic rates (Wisdom 1998, Johnson et al. 2000, Ager et al. 2003), the extent of forest canopy cover adjacent to roads (Perry and Overly 1977, Lyon 1979, Wisdom 1998, Wisdom et al. 2004b), topography (Perry and Overly 1977, Edge and Marcum 1991), and type of road (e.g., improved versus primitive; Perry and Overly 1977, Lyon 1979, Witmer and deCalesta 1985, Marcum and Edge 1991, Rowland et al. 2000, Lyon and Christensen 2002), which also correlates with traffic rates. Responses may also differ between sexes, with bull elk demonstrating a stronger avoidance of areas close to roads than do cow elk (Marcum and Edge 1991). Shifts in distribution of elk away from roads may occur across a range of temporal and spatial scales. For example, elk at Starkey were generally farther from open roads during daytime, but moved closer to roads during nighttime (Wisdom 1998, Ager et al. 2003). (See Rowland et al. [1997] for a general description of the Starkey Project and the Starkey environment.) This pattern was also observed in South Dakota (Millspaugh 1999). In addition, both daily movements and size of home ranges of elk may decrease when open road density decreases. These reductions could lead to energetic benefits that translate into increased fat reserves or productivity (Cole et al. 1997). On a larger scale, entire ranges can be abandoned if disturbance from traffic on roads and the associated habitat loss and fragmentation exceed some threshold level. The ultimate effect of displacement of elk, by motorized traffic as well as other disturbances, is a temporary or permanent reduction in effective habitat for elk. Concomitant with loss of effective habitat are reduced local and regional populations (Forman et al. 2003).
2. Elk vulnerability to mortality from hunter harvest, both legal and illegal, increases as open road density increases. Many factors affect elk vulnerability to hunter harvest, but the evidence is compelling that survival rates of elk are reduced in areas with higher road density (Leege 1984, Leptich and Zager 1991, Unsworth et al. 1993, Gratson and Whitman 2000a, Weber et al. 2000, Hayes et al. 2002, McCorquodale et al. 2003). Closing roads offers more security to elk and may
Rowland et al. 4 decrease hunter densities (fewer hunters may be willing to hunt without vehicle access). Also, poaching losses may decrease when roads are closed (Cole et al. 1997).
3. In areas of higher road density, elk exhibit higher levels of stress and increased movement rates. Higher levels of physiological indicators of stress, such as fecal glucocorticoids, have been observed in elk exposed to increased road density and traffic on roads (Millspaugh et al. 2001). In addition, the energetic costs of moving away from disturbance associated with roads may be substantial (Cole et al. 1997). Research to estimate such costs to elk in relation to recreational use on roads is underway at Starkey (Wisdom et al. 2004a). Conversely, elk may conserve energy by traveling on closed roads to avoid woody debris and downfall (Lyon and Christensen 2002).
Knowledge has been gained not only about elk response to roads, but also about models of this relationship. Results from research at Starkey suggested that a road-effects model based on distance bands provides a more spatially explicit and biologically meaningful tool than a traditional model based on road density (Rowland et al. 2000). This analysis, based on more than 100,000 radiolocations of cow elk during spring and summer, found no relation between numbers of elk locations and HE scores based on open road density in 15 elk “analysis units.” (We define habitat effectiveness as the “percentage of available habitat that is usable by elk outside the hunting season” [Lyon and Christensen 1992:4].) However, elk preference increased strongly (as measured by selection ratios) as distance to open roads increased. Such distance-to-roads analyses are readily accomplished using widely available spatial data layers in a GIS.
I put this into Google "impact of roads on big game" and got 23 items on this subject.
My bottom line: ATV's correlate to an increase of illegal off road use because they make off road travel EASY. EASY is attractive to the lazy. Increasing access for the LAZY to quality areas equals degredation of that area's quality
I have always contended that the "quality" of an area is inversely proportional to the ease of access to that area. It seems there is peer-reviewed science backing my position in this case.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in and support reasonable access. Tear-assing across the flats on a machine that scars the land is not reasonable access.
enjoy
From the AK DF&G's website
Wildlife and Roads
The consequences of road construction to wildlife are generally negative. Roads result in increased human access, habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and in some cases direct mortality due to vehicle collisions.
The construction of roads into roadless brown bear habitat has been demonstrated by many investigators to have a significant adverse impact on bear populations by fragmenting the habitat and increasing human access. Increased human access results in direct mortality of bears through legal hunting, killing in defense of life and property, and illegal killing1,2,3,4,5,6,7.
In Yellowstone National Park, grizzly bears avoided areas within 500 m of roads8.
Research has documented an 80% decline in grizzly bear habitat use within 1 km of open roads used by motorized vehicles in Montana9. This has been ascribed either to bears avoiding humans or to the selective over-harvest of bears habituated to humans that would otherwise more fully use areas heavily influenced by people.
On Chichagof Island in southeastern Alaska, there was increased bear mortality associated with road construction. This happened even after closure of hunting seasons due to defense of life and property kills and unknown illegal kills7,10. The decline in kill in 1989 represents a major change in the hunting season.
Big game have been shown to avoid habitat adjacent to roads for up to ½ mile11. The impact was greatest on main roads through open habitat and diminished with reduced road quality and increasing vegetation density.
Selected References
1Knight, R. 1980. Biological considerations in the delineation of critical habitat. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:1-3.
2Peek, J., M. Pelton, H. Picton, J. Schoen, and P. Zager. 1987. Grizzly bear conservation and management: a review. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 15:160-169.
3Rogers, L. and A. Allen. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: black bear, upper Great Lakes Region. US Fish & Wildlife Serv Biol Rep. 82.
4McLellan, B. and D. M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industires: effects of roads on behavior, habitat use and demography. J. Appl. Eco. 25:451-460.
5 Mattson, D. 1990. Human impacts on bear habitat use. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:33-56.
6Schoen, J. Bear habitat management: a review and future perspective. Int. Conf. Bear Res and Manage. 8:143-154.
7Titus, K. and L Beier. 1991. Population and habitat ecology of brown bears on Admiralty and Chichagof Islands. Alaska Fish and Game Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest. Res. Proj. Rep. 4.22. 32pp.
8Mattson, D., R. Knight, and B. Blanchard. 1987. The effects of development and primary roads on grizzly bear habitat use in the Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 7:259-273.
9Kasworm, W. and T. Manley. 1990. Road and trail influences on grizzly bear and black bears in northwest Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:79-84.
10 Schoen, J. R. Flynn, K. Titus, and L Beier. 1994. Habitat-capability model for brown bear in Southeast Alaska. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9:327-337.
11Perry, C. and R. Overly. 1976. Impact of roads on big game distribution in portions of the Blue Mountains of Washington. Pages 62-72, in S. R. Hieb, ed. Elk-logging-roads symposium proceedings. Forest, Wildl. And Range Exp. Stn. Univ. of Idaho.
Here's an excerpt from a 1977 Forest Service study in Montana on how roads and access impact Elk
Effects of Roads on Elk in Forested Ecosystems – What do we Know?
Effects of roads on elk can be divided into two broad categories: indirect effects on habitats occupied by elk, and direct effects on individual elk and their populations. Effects of roads in forested ecosystems in general have been well summarized (Gucinski et al. 2001, Gaines et al. 2003). With regard to elk habitat, the primary effect of roads may be habitat fragmentation; heavily roaded areas may contain few patches of forest cover large enough to function effectively as habitat for elk, especially where elk are hunted (Leege 1984, Rowland et al. 2000). The total loss of elk habitat from road construction is unknown; a rough estimate of 5 acres per linear mile (1.4 ha/km) of road is often applied (Forman et al. 2003). Across the United States, the area occupied by public roads and associated corridors is estimated to be 27 million acres (10.9 million ha); these numbers do not include private roads or “unofficial” roads on public lands (Forman et al. 2003). Roads may also exert more subtle influences on habitat, for example by facilitating the spread of exotic vegetation (Gelbard and Belnap 2003) and the subsequent decline in quality and abundance of forage available to elk. Gaines et al. (2003) listed five road-associated factors in relation to elk: hunting, poaching, collisions, displacement or avoidance, and disturbance at a specific site.
The direct impacts of roads and associated traffic on elk, in addition to outright mortality from collisions with motorized vehicles, can be summarized as follows:
1. Elk avoid areas near open roads. A plethora of studies have demonstrated an increasing frequency of elk occurrence or indices of elk use, such as pellet groups, at greater distances from open roads (defined here as any road where motorized vehicles are allowed). This response varies in relation to traffic rates (Wisdom 1998, Johnson et al. 2000, Ager et al. 2003), the extent of forest canopy cover adjacent to roads (Perry and Overly 1977, Lyon 1979, Wisdom 1998, Wisdom et al. 2004b), topography (Perry and Overly 1977, Edge and Marcum 1991), and type of road (e.g., improved versus primitive; Perry and Overly 1977, Lyon 1979, Witmer and deCalesta 1985, Marcum and Edge 1991, Rowland et al. 2000, Lyon and Christensen 2002), which also correlates with traffic rates. Responses may also differ between sexes, with bull elk demonstrating a stronger avoidance of areas close to roads than do cow elk (Marcum and Edge 1991). Shifts in distribution of elk away from roads may occur across a range of temporal and spatial scales. For example, elk at Starkey were generally farther from open roads during daytime, but moved closer to roads during nighttime (Wisdom 1998, Ager et al. 2003). (See Rowland et al. [1997] for a general description of the Starkey Project and the Starkey environment.) This pattern was also observed in South Dakota (Millspaugh 1999). In addition, both daily movements and size of home ranges of elk may decrease when open road density decreases. These reductions could lead to energetic benefits that translate into increased fat reserves or productivity (Cole et al. 1997). On a larger scale, entire ranges can be abandoned if disturbance from traffic on roads and the associated habitat loss and fragmentation exceed some threshold level. The ultimate effect of displacement of elk, by motorized traffic as well as other disturbances, is a temporary or permanent reduction in effective habitat for elk. Concomitant with loss of effective habitat are reduced local and regional populations (Forman et al. 2003).
2. Elk vulnerability to mortality from hunter harvest, both legal and illegal, increases as open road density increases. Many factors affect elk vulnerability to hunter harvest, but the evidence is compelling that survival rates of elk are reduced in areas with higher road density (Leege 1984, Leptich and Zager 1991, Unsworth et al. 1993, Gratson and Whitman 2000a, Weber et al. 2000, Hayes et al. 2002, McCorquodale et al. 2003). Closing roads offers more security to elk and may
Rowland et al. 4 decrease hunter densities (fewer hunters may be willing to hunt without vehicle access). Also, poaching losses may decrease when roads are closed (Cole et al. 1997).
3. In areas of higher road density, elk exhibit higher levels of stress and increased movement rates. Higher levels of physiological indicators of stress, such as fecal glucocorticoids, have been observed in elk exposed to increased road density and traffic on roads (Millspaugh et al. 2001). In addition, the energetic costs of moving away from disturbance associated with roads may be substantial (Cole et al. 1997). Research to estimate such costs to elk in relation to recreational use on roads is underway at Starkey (Wisdom et al. 2004a). Conversely, elk may conserve energy by traveling on closed roads to avoid woody debris and downfall (Lyon and Christensen 2002).
Knowledge has been gained not only about elk response to roads, but also about models of this relationship. Results from research at Starkey suggested that a road-effects model based on distance bands provides a more spatially explicit and biologically meaningful tool than a traditional model based on road density (Rowland et al. 2000). This analysis, based on more than 100,000 radiolocations of cow elk during spring and summer, found no relation between numbers of elk locations and HE scores based on open road density in 15 elk “analysis units.” (We define habitat effectiveness as the “percentage of available habitat that is usable by elk outside the hunting season” [Lyon and Christensen 1992:4].) However, elk preference increased strongly (as measured by selection ratios) as distance to open roads increased. Such distance-to-roads analyses are readily accomplished using widely available spatial data layers in a GIS.
I put this into Google "impact of roads on big game" and got 23 items on this subject.
My bottom line: ATV's correlate to an increase of illegal off road use because they make off road travel EASY. EASY is attractive to the lazy. Increasing access for the LAZY to quality areas equals degredation of that area's quality
cjcj
New member
The only "data" in your post Erik that i don`t agree with is... Grizzly bears avoiding roads...at least in yellowstone when i was there in the 70`s and 80`s there were grizz everywhere along the roads especially in the springtime... maybe the park rangers "changed" their habits.... But if the grizz were left to get handouts from ignorant dumbass tourists... well they would.
JoseCuervo
New member
CJ,
You breaking out your "street biology degree" again??? I love it that you disagree with the data. If you knew anything about biology, you wouldn't disagree with the "data". You might disaggree with the "hypothesis" or the "conclusion", or possibly the method of experiment that generated the data.
Sage,
Still waiting for you to show some benefit of the Blue Ribbers for hunters. Despite your riveting dissertation on soil, you are starting to lose a bit of credibility.....
You breaking out your "street biology degree" again??? I love it that you disagree with the data. If you knew anything about biology, you wouldn't disagree with the "data". You might disaggree with the "hypothesis" or the "conclusion", or possibly the method of experiment that generated the data.
Sage,
Still waiting for you to show some benefit of the Blue Ribbers for hunters. Despite your riveting dissertation on soil, you are starting to lose a bit of credibility.....
FAIRCHASEBEN
New member
I think he lost his credibility when he proudly proclaimed to hunt with just scope mounts on his gun , no scope , just the mounts .
That just screams banjo pickin inbred !
That just screams banjo pickin inbred !
Erik in AK
New member
CJ
I cut and pasted directly from the AK F&G. You must bear in mind (NPI) that in AK we have real bears. Bears that don't stick their noses against your car window looking for some marshmallows. Yellowstone is what it is but its not wild.
Roads equal lower game populations...period. ATV's create what I call a road access dynamic where there aren't any formal roads and are therefore bad for hunting.
I cut and pasted directly from the AK F&G. You must bear in mind (NPI) that in AK we have real bears. Bears that don't stick their noses against your car window looking for some marshmallows. Yellowstone is what it is but its not wild.
Roads equal lower game populations...period. ATV's create what I call a road access dynamic where there aren't any formal roads and are therefore bad for hunting.
SageGhost
New member
any dirt bikers in boise area want to go riding.. hump
SageGhost
New member
thanks oak..
any dirt bikers in boise area want to go riding..
any dirt bikers in boise area want to go riding..
BuzzH
Well-known member
Sageghost,
For some reason I dont think I'd be too jealous of what you've killed in the last ten years...for a couple reasons:
1. I'm happy when other hunters are successful in taking a good animal, in particular on their own, on public lands, and through hard work.
2. I manage to bag a critter myself every once in a while.
3. I'm sure not jealous of other people killing average mule deer bucks...to each their own.
Oh, and one last piece of advice...pull out of yourself.
For some reason I dont think I'd be too jealous of what you've killed in the last ten years...for a couple reasons:
1. I'm happy when other hunters are successful in taking a good animal, in particular on their own, on public lands, and through hard work.
2. I manage to bag a critter myself every once in a while.
3. I'm sure not jealous of other people killing average mule deer bucks...to each their own.
Oh, and one last piece of advice...pull out of yourself.
SageGhost
New member
i hope 2005 is bountiful for all no matter how and where you hunt..!!!
cant wait to see some more pics..
cant wait to see some more pics..
BuzzH
Well-known member
I hope 2005 sees more road closures on public lands and more ATV restrictions...
