Atver,s, How'd you do in the belts?

[BuzzH]

Apparently not real well...

Looks like the good guys are chipping away and winning the battle against the fat-assed ATV crowd...YEAH BABY, YEAH!

Travel plan reduces roads in Big Belts mountains
Associated Press

HELENA -- National forest officials here have released their final travel plan for some 230,000 acres in the North Big Belt Mountains, calling for closing nearly 100 miles of old logging roads and illegally created roads.

The plan is the culmination of nearly a decade of analysis and is very similar to a draft travel plan first released in July 2003.

The plan would leave about 285 miles of existing roads and trails open to motorized vehicles and would create about four miles of new roads to connect existing routes. Some 100 miles of old and illegally created roads would be closed to motor vehicles.


During the winter, snowmobile use would only be allowed on 63,686 acres, instead of the current 113,400 acres.

The Helena National Forest will take public comment on the final plan for 30 days.

Beth Ihle, the forest's travel plan leader, said the Forest Service expects the plan won't please everyone, but it was designed take into account the needs and desires of a wide range of users.

"We are trying to be reasonable," Ihle said Wednesday. "We feel like this is responsive and balanced, and retains the flavor of the North Belts in the way people have traditionally used it."

The general area included in the travel plan runs south from the Gates of the Mountains Wilderness to Boulder/Baldy Mountain near Confederate Gulch, in Lewis and Clark, Broadwater and Meagher counties.

John Gatchell, conservation director for the Montana Wilderness Association, called the long-awaited travel plan a "disappointing decision." While his group isn't opposed to all motorized traffic, it had proposed an alternative with more vehicle restrictions than what is in the final plan.

Work began on the North Belts travel plan in 1996, but was derailed after the 29,000-acre Cave Gulch wildfire in 2000, which burned through much of the study area. The wildfire and ensuing floods changed not only vegetation, including big game cover, but also wiped out some roads in the area, creating the need for a new look at the landscape.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Where is that "sharetrails" organization??? I thought they were protecting areas like this for "hunters". How can anybody hunt this area if there are not roads to roadhunt from??? Do they actually think people will want to use their boots to hunt???

 

[guppie9]

Beth Ihle, the forest's travel plan leader, said the Forest Service expects the plan won't please everyone, but it was designed take into account the needs and desires of a wide range of users.

So, unlike you, Buzz, the Forest Service is willing to think about and plan for the needs of ALL users of OUR public lands...imagine that!!! This sounds like a victory for ALL LEGAL USERS of our public lands. Considering that they are closing illegally made roads, I would think that most people do not have a problem with this. Although, I'm sure those large-buttocked people who drive their cars and trucks on those roads are probably upset.

 

[BuzzH]

As long as more roads are shut down and less motorized travel happens on MY PUBLIC lands, I'm happy.

I'd also have to guess, from spending time in the belts, a vast majority of the illegal roads were probably the result of fat-assed atvers. They've done a first class job of cutting their own throats...with their finger glued to throttle...

 

[huntinfool]

I'm with Buzz H. on this one!! There is nothing like hiking 3 miles up a gated road only to come around a cornerand finding another hunter sitting on his ATV, Drinking a cup of coffee and smiling. Thats enough to @iss anyone off. The people one the ATV's simply don't care. They figure if they can get it there its ok!!! It does not matter if they are breaking a few laws or not!!!!!

 

[guppie9]

I'm curious, Buzz...what amount of roads on OUR public lands would be acceptable to you??? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I am truly curious.

 

[BuzzH]

Less than the current 380,000 miles of National Forests open to public travel.

In my opinion, enough to allow access to major drainages, with a majority of spur roads closed to all but administrative uses. Close enough to make it really difficult for the fat-asses to shoot big-game from a vehicle...close enough to force a decline in ATV sales...and increase in the sale of hiking boots.

There is compromise, but I dont think 380,000 miles of open FS roads is "balanced"...and I sure as hell dont think there needs to be MORE roads or MORE access...enough is enough.

 

[guppie9]

So thats roughly 1 mile of road for every 507 acres of land (193 million acres of FS land divided by 380,000 miles)...what would you propose as a more reasonable ratio? The numbers you gave in regards to the belt comes out to around 1 mile per 597 acres and under the proposal would change that ratio to 1 mile per 795 acres. Do we double the current ratio to 1:1000 and halve all the roads on FS land?? At what point will the USFS satisfy you? O miles of road?? 1,000?? 100,000?? You come across as someone who feels that access by roads is bad in almost all instances. I may be wrong, but that is MY perception. I must admit, Buzz, I really don't understand you sometimes. You are obviously very passionate in your beliefs and I applaud that. But, at some point, you are going to have to admit, that in order for everyone to be able to enjoy OUR public lands, there is going to have to be road access. It is wrong and unfair for you to want to deny people the right to access their public lands because you don't like the way they access it. It is just as much their land as it is yours. It seems to me that this is a (to use a non-pc term) mexican stand off. You refuse to back down because you believe that your rights are being trampled upon, but people on the other side believe the same about you. They believe that you are trampling on their rights and so they won't back down either. There has to be some middle ground here and I just don't think that you are willing to compromise.

 

[BuzzH]

Guppie,

Look at what you just posted...on average every single section (640 acres) of land has a road through it on FS lands. Of course, you have to disregard the wilderness lands, as no roads exist in them.

This means your 1 mile of road for every section would actually be more like 1 mile of road for every 1/2 section.

If you dont believe that there is enough roads, and in some cases TOO many roads on FS lands, you're living in lala land.

I dont disagree that there needs to be REASONABLE access to public lands, but in the roaded FS lands...most have way too much access/roads. Roads cause a whole host of problems, which I'll list if you want.

Because we've COMPROMISED for the last 50-60 years, theres been 380,000 miles of roads punched into FS lands and who knows how many miles of illegal roads. Untold amounts of roads on private, state, and BLM lands have been punched in.

Sorry if I dont agree that we need any more roads/access...the fact is, we have all the access needed to satisfy every potential national forest user.

I've already compromised enough...time for someone else to compromise.

 

[JoseCuervo]

But, at some point, you are going to have to admit, that in order for everyone to be able to enjoy OUR public lands, there is going to have to be road access. It is wrong and unfair for you to want to deny people the right to access their public lands because you don't like the way they access it. It is just as much their land as it is yours. It seems to me that this is a (to use a non-pc term) mexican stand off. .

Gusieppe,
If we remove the roads and protect the Wilderness values of many areas AND we are wrong, future generations can fix the damage and build roads everywhere they need.

If we were to make the other decision, and build roads everywhere, eliminated the Wilderness values of many areas, what option do we leave future generations to manage THEIR public lands.

We obviously have enough access now, perhaps too much. Let's err on the side of giving future generations the right to decide if they want to hunt wild animals in wild places.

 

[SageGhost]

where the jarbridge shovel brigade when you need them,..LMFAO









look at me treading lightly....!!!!

 

[guppie9]

Buzz/Gunner...I think you are misunderstanding me here. I never have advocated making more roads on FS land. This thread was about eliminating current roads. While I agree that some areas may have too many roads, I don't think you can say that about all FS land. Buzz, you are right about my statistics, I didn't take the wilderness area out of the equation because there are no roads there. That was my oversight. I wasn't posting those statistics to try to sway you, or anyone for that matter. I was trying to get your input on how much would be acceptable. There has to be some point at which you/Gunner would say that access has been reduced enough. I am just curious as to what that point that is.

My other big question is this...if we close these roads down, how long will it take for those areas to go back to their "natural" state?? Do you think that people (not just gluteal width-challenged people) will actually stop using those roads? Are we going to have to put up gates everywhere? I think that it would be horrible to have all these gates all over the place. Once again, I don't want anyone to fly off the handle here. I am actually looking for some information. I have said it before and I'll say it again. I have been swayed by other people's arguments on this board before. I am man enough to admit that I don't know everything. I am curious to know how the FS plans on enforcing these road closures. It seems to me that there have been discussions on this board about the lack of enforcement that is currently in place (mostly due to budget constraints, I believe). So how are they going to enforce these and any other closures that are planned? Thanks for answering my previous questions with a reasonable amount of civility.

P.S. I'm usually a really nice guy here...but SageGhost, please don't help me anymore.

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

Sage ,
A Walmart rifle and a flatbed truck , essential equipment for the modern day slob hunter , you must be so proud !

 

[Erik in AK]

For those who've never visited here, the mountains that butt up against Anchorage are the Chugach Range. Anchorage is Alaska's principle city, about 275,000 people.

Dall rams, some of the biggest anywhere, live on the slopes above town. 36inch class and bigger rams, in open hunting units(lottery tags) living within 6 or 7 miles of 1/4 million people. Me and a buddy used to sit on his back deck and watch rams through his telescope. The ram/ewe ratio is about 3/5 with 1 in 5 rams being 8 years or older.
If you draw a tag you and are in shape enough to hunt hard, you have outstanding odds of taking a representative full curl ram and excellent odds of making the book.

Oh yeah...the Chugach has virtually no roads and is off limits to ATV's.

The Chugach's little brother just to the north, the Talkeetna's have been open to ATV's for years. If you find a full curl ram there you're lucky if he's 34".

Yes, people have a "right" to access public lands but they also have a responsibility to exercise restraint in their methods of access. No one has the "right" go wherever they
damn well please HOWEVER they damn well please.

 

[1_pointer]

guppie- I'm thinking Buzz answered you question with this comment:

In my opinion, enough to allow access to major drainages, with a majority of spur roads closed to all but administrative uses.

Unless you were looking for a hard number to put there. I agree with this amount of access to major drainages with most of the spur roads closed. Not every drainage needs a road along the bottom nor every ridge with a road along the top.

SG- You may want to do a bit more work in your home state as the ID F&G are showing most all other states how to limit ATV traffic during hunting season. Keep up the good work!!! Do what you want on your own land. But you must remember that when it comes to public land there are more people in one city east of the Mississippi River than in the whole state of ID that 'own' just as much of that land as you do, even if they may never see it.

 

[SageGhost]

Sage ,
A Walmart rifle and a flatbed truck , essential equipment for the modern day slob hunter , you must be so proud !

walmart rifle..... thats a remington model 7 in .243 with an 18.5 inch barrel they dont even make that configuration of the model 7, it was a special order...... when i bought it was 700.oo from the remington custom shop....!!!
your first mistake is living in nevada !!!
as for the using the truck.. i dragged that deer almost a mile to the truck !!

 

[1_pointer]

If you are able to buy rifles from custom shops, dirt bikes, and ATVs why do you worry about a few extra bucks to put in for bonus points?

 

[SageGhost]

reply

i am not , just looking out for other hunters..i hike alot during season , infact that is my favored way to hunt but there are times where i need my dirt bike to get me up higher on a mountain to start hunting...wind direction and time of day determine what i do... whether i ride or not..

 

[Horn Seeker]

I like to see some "major" drainages with no road access too. Which, we do have, especially in wilderness areas. There's nothing better than looking up the head of a huge canyon that goes for 20-40 miles back with not a road ANYWHERE near it!

An old district ranger friend of mine (you may know him Buzz, Greg Munther from the 9 mile) used to recontour the first 100-200 yards of a road to shut it down. Worked awesome. Then, if it needed to be open for fire fightiing or whatever...maybe a salvage harvest, they would just push through that 1st couple hundred yards with an excavator or D-8 and be done with it. I think that is a perfect method for closing roads.

I grew up hound hunting and hound hunters are notoriously FOR roads, to make chasing the critters, keeping up with the hounds easier....or possible. We've broached our fair share of gates in the day, but that is a thing of the past as we have learned the value of those non motorized areas, and the value of a good hard walk!! I think the statement quoted by Buzz and again later was about right....some reasonable access to most major drainages. When you start getting 1-3 miles of road per section....too much!

In REALLY brushy areas, like the ID panhandle, there many places with super high road densities and the game does pretty dang good. Lots of security cover, but if you get into these open timber stands, broken with meadows and parks, you can pretty much eliminate game use during the day if there are high road densities.

Fishery concerns are a whole nuther can of worms....and yeah Sage Ghost, not sure where the Wal-Mart idea came from?

 

[cjcj]

Nice Buck Sage... If you got him legal thats whats counts.. I don`t see what your gun or your truck has anything to do with it? Congrats on your buck.