Blue Ribbon Coalition attacks hunters!

[Ithaca 37]

Aren't we always being warned in SI about organizations that make disparaging remarks about hunters!?

"The ATV users primarily responsible for these problems are hunters, say Clark Collin, executive director of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, and Russ Enis, executive director of the Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, both organizations representing motorized recreation. But Joslin disagrees, saying that most hunters are not happy with ATVs in the backcountry."

http://www.emagazine.com/may-june_2000/0500curr_atv.html

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-18-2003 22:38: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Bambistew]

"Other people close to the ATV issue feel that a lack of decisive land management guidelines is at the heart of the problem. "The FS and BLM have done a poor job of designating, mapping and publicizing what trails are open and closed to ATV use," says Don Amador, western regional representative of the Blue Ribbon Coalition"

What! you can clearly see open/closed trails on forest service maps... The trials that are not clearly identified are more than likely rouge trails not designated by the FS! I think the FS could do a better job patroling, but with their limited resources and man power I think they are trying to do the best they can!

It pretty hard to keep ATV's off of trails when they habitually destroy signs designating tail closures and markers. The conclusion that I make about ATV users it that about 90% could give a chit about the environment, and the laws. To bad for the 10% that follow the rules and abide by the law.

I think they should put up a big sign at every entrance of the national forest that says. Stay on DESIGNATED trails and roads, failure to comply will result in confiscation of your ATV and vehicle and a $$$$$$ fine.

Ivan

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Aren't we always being warned in SI about organizations that make disparaging remarks about hunters!?"

Correction Ithaca----------warned about making untrue across the board disparaging remarks.

Stating that hunter's and or ATV's can cause problems has never been something any of us have denied. ATV owner's or not.
The fact is we all have agreed , that some ATV rider's/hunter's are riding in an illegal manner and should have there butt nailed to the wall.
But here you have The Blue Ribbon Coalition that is trying to get the word out to rider's and hunter's alike, yet we see the same old person trying to drag them down.

Just like many of the greenie org. that Ithaca supports .
Getting down to a workable solution isn't what they want.
It's the end to the public land's access we now have .
(unless you happen to one of those elite bird hunter's with the nature conservancy)LOL
If there main thrust were to help find a workable solution the greenie group's and Ithaca would be happy to accept some of the restriction's that were put on the table ,and at least have a starting point that doesn't include a large shut out of public lands to people that ARE trying to HELP.
Quote from that link,
("In one widespread attempt to tame the four-wheeled ruckus, the FS and BLM, in October 1999, jointly proposed limiting the use of ATVs and other ORVs to existing roads and trails on 16 million acres of public land in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. But a number of environmental groups say the proposed plan does not go far enough, since it would allow travel on thousands of miles of trails that ATVers have created themselves by repeated use. These "illegal" trails were not sanctioned by the FS or BLM and they are not included in their management plans. They should be closed down, says Bill Meadows of The Wilderness Society.

Dick Kramer, FS co-leader on the Montana/Dakotas proposal, says, "It's a stopgap measure to prevent things from getting worse until we have time to do site-specific travel planning on the local level."")

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-19-2003 10:45: Message edited by: Muledeer4me ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

The thing I always have to laugh at is MD4ME's "locking people out of public lands" comments.

Just because a person cant cart their fat ass in to some area doesnt mean the public is "locked out". It means get your hiking boots on and enjoy your public lands.

Some peoples concept of "locked out" is really skewed...

 

[Muledeer4me]

Lucky for the two of Buzz we can both still bend over an get our fat asses into a pair of boot's and hike into any place we want to.
Not everyone is that lucky, Fat asses aside there are many others reason people might not be able to hike into areas that the greenies want to limited access to .
If the road is already there and people have been using them ,I see no reason (in most account's) to block access for motorized use.
If the idea is to stop illegal use (and that's one of the things the Blue Ribbon Coalition is trying to do)then we need to be on the same page and stop illegal use ,something all of us on here have been striving for.



However the real agenda is to stop all except the most able bodied elitest from using public lands .

Something I find funny is that even a fat assed old grandma like myself can still hike back far enough to get away from other hunter's, yet some of you younger outdoorsmen post all the time about how you can't seem to hike far enough into the back country to get away from all the fat assed ATV rider's ?
Something is wrong with this picture!!!!!

I support The Blue Ribbon Coalition in there fight to keep our public lands opened and usable to as wide a range of the public as we can.

Hunter's and non hunters alike.

 

[BuzzH]

This is too funny: "However the real agenda is to stop all except the most able bodied elitest from using public lands ."

HAHAHA

Paranoia at its finest!

ATVers have made their own bed, they're getting locked out of more and more areas. You gotta love it!

Admit it, you're just a sore loser MD4ME. If I was you, I'd really think about selling that bucket of bolts and invest in a fitness program and good hiking gear...join the elitist club!

Welcome to reality.

 

[Oak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"The ATV users primarily responsible for these problems are hunters, say Clark Collin, executive director of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, and Russ Enis, executive director of the Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, both organizations representing motorized recreation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That quote really sounds to me like the BRC is trying to distance themselves from hunters. I don't think it's any different than some of us trying to distance ourselves as hunters from canned hunts. I'd watch out for your beloved BRC, MD4M. Make sure they have your hunting interests in mind before you write that next check.

Oak

 

[Ithaca 37]

MD4M, "I support The Blue Ribbon Coalition in there fight to keep our public lands opened and usable to as wide a range of the public as we can."

Sounds like your agenda is to be able to ride that ATV anywhere you want. Maybe you should clarify that. Do you want some areas closed to motorized travel or not?

 

[Ten Bears]

Be careful of the bed you make IT, BUZZ,.... Seems that some of the ATV groups may be trying to distance themselves from hunters as much as you would like to distance yourselves from them.... Divide and conquer. I know several ATV riders that will not be buying deer and/or elk tags next year to protest some of the f&g's newest ATV rules. What would happen in Idaho if the BRC convinced half the resident ATV riders/hunters to boycott even just elk tags???? That would be a loss of $28.50, about 35,000+ times.....

 

[MarlandS]

If an ATV riding hunter opts to not hunt to protest road closures then is he still a hunter? Or is he merely a rider? And if he's merely a rider how much does he contribute to the upkeep (F&G, habitat, etc)of public lands?

Do ATVers pay for the privelege (or right depending on POV) of access to public lands through licencing the ATVs or do they ride on the backs of hunters who are contributing to the management with their tag fees?

Sounds to me that by boycotting buying tags they are hurting the F&G budget thereby reducing the chance for more officers all the while complaining that if there were more officers the bad apples could be apprehended and the ethical ATver could end up with more opportunities for access.

Is that correct? Are they really cutting off their nose to spite their face?

And ,why, would a mere motorized conveyance be more important to them than the tradition and experiences of hunting?

 

[Michaelr]

MARS>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[Ten Bears]

MARS, let me try to explain this from their view point. The f&g has taken the position that ATV's are now a method of take. However, nowhere are they listed as a LEGAL method of take, but as a method of take they are regulating the use of ATV's during hunting. IE, remember the issues this last spring, in some areas you can't ride an ATV, and have a hunting licenses and firearm. The f&g does not have the authority to go after the nonhunting ATV's as a method of take. Therefore, the number of areas that are open to nonhunter ATV riders, but closed to hunter ATV riders are growing.

The way that many of these riders see it is, the f&g has taken an anti ATV position, and as hunters/riders they currently pay a fee to create and maintain riding opportunities (ATV registration), aswell as pay for game management (license & tags). They are now left with a choice, and many are talking about trimming their license and tag expenses.

We have heard it here, the idea that if they don't like it, go away. It may be coming down to a choice to ride, or hunt, both are nothing more then an excuse to get out and recreate. I, myself will be buying fewer tags next year. I wont quit hunting over the issue, but I will contribute less money.

BUZZ and others here have said they would gladly pay the increased costs. How much of the $60 million/year are you willing to contribute BUZZ?

From what I've heard this fall, I doubt the f&g here could afford to lose even 1/4 of number of the registered ATV rider/hunters in elk tag sales. That would be 17,500+ elk tags @ 28.50 each (let alone the potential for losing 35,000+). How many nonresident hunters come to Idaho to hunt, and bring their ATV???? Do you think that Idaho can afford to lose very much of their business as well???? After all nonresidents make up 60% of the f&g budget last I heard.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If an ATV riding hunter opts to not hunt to protest road closures then is he still a hunter? Or is he merely a rider? And if he's merely a rider how much does he contribute to the upkeep (F&G, habitat, etc)of public lands?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nobody said they weren't going to hunt.... They just said they would forgoe a level of opportunity. F&G here contributes very little to local lands.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do ATVers pay for the privelege (or right depending on POV) of access to public lands through licencing the ATVs or do they ride on the backs of hunters who are contributing to the management with their tag fees? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
WHAT???? Hunters aren't paying for the management of these lands. It is more the reverse issue. Hunters are riding on the backs of the taxpaying public (of which they are a portion) for the management of these lands. BTW, ATV hunters are paying the same priviledge fees as nonATV hunters, plus an ATV registration fee (to be used for ATV access/interests).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Sounds to me that by boycotting buying tags they are hurting the F&G budget thereby reducing the chance for more officers all the while complaining that if there were more officers the bad apples could be apprehended and the ethical ATver could end up with more opportunities for access.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds to me like the f&g was the first one to jump ship here by listing ATV's as an unlawful method of take in certain areas.

The only people that cry the ATVers want to ride everywhere are those that oppose ATV riding.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And ,why, would a mere motorized conveyance be more important to them than the tradition and experiences of hunting? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> People that use modern centerfire rifles with scopes are not in it for the tradtion. ATV ridding is a form of recreation, just like hunting. Most ATV riders I know ride for fun, and kill animals by opportunity. Few of the are serious hunters anymore, and their kids don't hunt, but enjoy the ride.

 

[1_pointer]

TB- You're previous post just reinforces my stance. An ATV owner contributes the same to land management as any other vehichle owner, thus I feel they should be held to the same standards. Where ATVs are allowed, passenger vehichles should be also and vice versa.

BTW, Hunter's do pay for the management of the game herds and many other wildlife species, as management of game is up to the state. The fed. agencies manage the land, ie habitat. They cannot increase or decrease the number of permits, that is the state's call. Hunter's don't 'milk' the public trough (fed. monies) any more than any other user of fed. lands. Does the ATV registration money go to the federal gov. whose in charge of managing most of the land where they are ridden or to the state?

 

[Ten Bears]

1-P, I'm not going to attack your position on the band wagon, we've been there before. With one exception. Do you now propose that passenger vehicles be allowed to go everywhere they want?????

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> An ATV owner contributes the same to land management as any other vehichle owner.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In IDHAO, the ATV registration money is collected by the state and distributed for projects (state, fed, county,....) which benefit ATV use, ie road/trail projects for ATV riding, gates for land owners, motorcycles for enforcement patrols, land use leases, remote outhouse facilities for everyone, bridges,...... what ever projects apply.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Hunter's don't 'milk' the public trough (fed. monies) any more than any other user of fed. lands. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What are you referring to? I said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Hunters are riding on the backs of the taxpaying public (of which they are a portion) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But then again so are the ATV hunters and non hunters. I don't know what you're refering to, but I was trying to say is that ATV riding hunter pay the same fees for management as nonATV hunters, and more.... Can you show me where horseback, moutain bike, or foot traffic hunters contribute equal or more?

 

[1_pointer]

TB- First off, I'm on no bandwagon. This is a point of view that I've held and expressed for some time. My experience here it UT has probably been the most reinforcing factor.

No, I do not propose that passenger vehichles be allowed to go anywhere they want, but it is legal for them and ATVs to do just that on alot of BLM land. My point, was that I put ATVs and Passenger Vehichles in the same boat and thus feel they should have to abide by the same laws.

Though you stated that hunters are a portion of the tax paying public, you also stated that they are riding on their backs. My point was that they do, but no more than any other user of fed. lands. More than likely less, due to P-R taxation. I never said that horseback, mtn bike, or foot hunters contribute more. But, I will say that each use you wanted for comparison causes less damage per user than an ATV rider. Easy to follow summary
Full Story So, in that vein, maybe they shouldn't have to contribute as much.

 

[Ten Bears]

1-P, bad nerve ay. Yet, based on the very research your referenced, it is obvious why passenger vehicles shouldn't be allowed everywhere ATV's should be allowed to go.

BTW, horses and mules are more errovisely destructive to packed trail surfaces then ATV's. It has to do with the pounds per square inch contact to the trail surface, and the hardness of the materials transferring that force. Shod hooves are more errosive then unshod, and low pressure rubber tires are less errosive then either.

 

[1_pointer]

TB- You have my idea backwards. I think ATVs should only be allowed where passenger vehichles are NOW allowed. That is a workable solution by me. What you say about packed trails may be true, if the ATVs are not driving fast. However, what about cross country travel? Or width of the disturbance? It would take one big ass horse to have tracks as wide as the wheel base of a Polarias 700! You take some pictures of some areas tore up by mules/horses and I'll start gathering some tore up by ATVs. Wanna bet who can come up with more?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

You ought to just give up on this topic/thread. You made a fool of your self when you said 35,000 ATV riders will not buy Elk Tags....And your posts have been downhill ever since.

Do you really want people to start taking pictures of damage from ATV's? Let me know, and I will take them every time I see them, and I will also forward them to Fish and Game, with MORE comments calling for the Banning of Fat-Assed ATV Riders during Hunting season... Be careful what you ask for....

1-Pointer.... I wish you and I could disagree more often, so that we could each have a worthy adversary. You are making Ten Bears look even more foolish than I normally make him look...

 

[cjcj]

Sometimes a "picture" is worth a thousand words. [see Muskrats post illegals]

 

[Ten Bears]

1-P, I have never supported ATV cross country riding, or trail pioneering. I oppose cross country / trail pioneering riding. I am opposed to "mudding", or any other "unauthorized" water crossings. Width disturbance is reduced when ATV's are allowed to use "former" roads as trails. Width disturbance is also subject, if you consider depth of erosion on pack trails. I could try to get some pictures next year if you'd like, most of the "packer" country around is snowed in right now. BTW the forest circus hires crew to repair these trails every year also.

EG, you are really some kind of insecure, aren't you?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You made a fool of your self when you said 35,000 ATV riders will not buy Elk Tags.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never said they will not buy Elk Tags.... I used that as a "hypothetical" scenerio, as in "what if".... I used 17,500 as a hypothetical number once also remember??? Remember, these are "hypothetical" NOT HYPOCRITICAL, something IT may be more familiar with, and you accustomed too. BTW, take some pictures, it'll do you good, maybe you'll find that there could be more land unspoiled by ATV's then there is spoiled. Here's a clue, take an area (randomly selected to be scientific), say 640 acres of public land. measure the width and length each ATV trail (ATV use only), calculate the total area (acres please) disturbed, and subtract from the total 640 acres. And then report back to us please.