Idaho and A.T.V'S

[Ten Bears]

I didn't say it would:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> pit hunters against recreational ATV riders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I asked the question:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> How are you going to address it to the ATV riding nonhunting public without turning them against hunting in general? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you go to the general public and say "You can't ride your ATV here because hunters are complaining that your scaring the animals their trying to kill". How do you think that is going to be received? I think you could even drum up some ATV purchases by PETA (you know, "give us the really loud ones"). I don't think you can sell the closure for hunters, to non or anti hunters that want to recreate in the fall.

Our hunting seasons run from mid AUG - DEC (seasons are open for at least 4 of the 5 months of it anyways). Where do you get open 10 months out of the year. ATV's aren't allowed on snowmobile trails either, so around here you can knock off another 3 - 3 1/2 months for JAN - APR. So your saying it's OK to limit all the ATV riders to riding mid APR - mid AUG, and call it 10 months (I don't count the same way you do I guess). Oh, and don't forget the environmental concerns of riding during the run off seasons APR - JUNE. So, yah, we'll close it during the fall so the hunters can hunt. They'll understand, wont they?

Look at the bigger picture BUZZ. Don't the feds have an eye plan in their benefits package?

 

[Washington Hunter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In certain units, their use would be restricted to “established roadways open to motorized vehicle traffic capable of travel by full-sized automobiles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems that if this is how they are defining where ATV's are allowed, that they will still have plenty of places to ride. So basically if a Jeep is capable of driving that road, the ATV's can go there too. I'm sure there are lots and lots of roads that would be questionable for your average full size pickup, but a piece of cake for the ATV's. So they can still have their fun, what's the problem? And hunters who want to hike, and get away from the roads, can start walking in on a trail 2 hours before sunrise knowing that they won't be passed up by some ATV riding jerk. Ten Bears, I'm sure most ATV riders who are out during hunting season just to ride don't feel it necessary to go off established roads and tear up the countryside everywhere they go. If they do get their jollies tearing up the ground, then too bad, they don't need to be out there. If their feelings are hurt, I'm sure they'll get over it. This regulation is basically just common sense anyway. It probably wouldn't be necessary if this world wasn't full of idiots.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-21-2003 12:12: Message edited by: Washington Hunter ]</font>

 

[Michaelr]

I think ten is right, somebody will be unhappy somewhere. And prolly start chit with lawsuits.

 

[Ten Bears]

What is the definition of a "full size vehicle?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In certain units, their use would be restricted to “established roadways open to motorized vehicle traffic capable of travel by full-sized automobiles <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is going to post those that are or aren't open. I know of a lot of jeep trails in some of that country.

 

[MarlandS]

"What is the definition of a "full size vehicle?"

Good question, my ATV is less than 18 inches narrower than my S-10. But it is less than half the length so it will turn in places the S-10 won't.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Ten Bears, I'm sure by "full size vehicle" they just mean anything that is street legal and has 4 wheels. That's why I said an ATV would still be able to go anywhere a Jeep can go. As far as who is going to post what is open and what's not, doesn't the Forest Service and/or BLM already have some kind of map that shows open roads? It seems like generally it would be any road that is official enough to have a road number assigned to it. Many old roads on Forest Service land that I know of are gated or dug out. These would obviously be off limits to ATV's. I see no reason for everything to be posted. Anybody with common sense should be able to figure it out. And those with no common sense...give 'em a ticket!

 

[Ten Bears]

WH, there are "roads" now in these areas that are not on the maps, not blocked, essenitally known only to those that used them. Jeeps can and do drive on them. I want to know how it's gonna work before the IFG gets sued over something simple. If you leave it as open to roads that jeeps can travel, you haven't accomplished much.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Well, it would be roads that jeeps can LEGALLY travel. I'm sure roads that aren't on the maps and are "known only to those who used them" are not going to be considered an "established roadway."

I just got this off the Idaho Fish and Game website:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Proposal:
Motor vehicle use for hunting is restricted to established roadways open to motorized vehicle traffic capable of travel by full-sized automobiles. A full-sized automobile shall be defined as any motorized vehicle with a gross vehicle weight in excess of 1500 pounds. Retrieval of legally taken game shall be governed by existing land management travel restrictions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[BuzzH]

Ten, the bottom line is ATV abuse is running rampant, and the various agencies are going to take action, they have to.

The ONLY people the recreational ATV riders should be mad at are the "hunters" who abuse ATV's during hunting seasons. They are solely responsible for the increased restrictions that are going to happen.

As far as a lawsuit, good luck, because they (recreational riders) wont get through the front doors of a kangaroo court. When the BLM and FS designate areas off limits, thats about all she wrote...the Blue Ribbon Coalition wont have a prayer at changing that policy once its enacted. That will be where the rubber hits the road anyway, when the feds change their ATV policy. You'll be lucky to get them off blacktop, anytime of the year.

They may fare a bit better with the state agencies, (game and fish), but not much. Honestly, I dont really care if recreational riders do their thing during a hunting season, but they better keep it on the roads designated as drivable by a passenger vehicle over 1500 GVW, etc. I'd also like to see it mandatory to have all firearms or bows locked and in hard cases while on ATV's too. Absolutely no off-road use for any reason, game retrieval included.

Heres my bottom line, ATV's belong on roads just like a passenger vehicle. Any use beyond that should be ended, IMO.

 

[Ithaca 37]

As soon as the ATV restrictions are enacted we'll be hearing all kinds of excuses from the ATV crowd about why they thought the deer path they were on was an established road!

The restriction will be clear enough and everyone knows the intent. Now watch the ATV riders try to find a loophole to slither thru so they don't have to walk!

 

[Ten Bears]

BUZZ, what a joke. Do you really think this reasoning makes any sense?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The ONLY people the recreational ATV riders should be mad at are the "hunters" who abuse ATV's during hunting seasons. They are solely responsible for the increased restrictions that are going to happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't forsee the recreational riders saying, it was those @#$$% ATV riding hunters that got our riding closed down. I think their going to say it was the "hunters" (all of us in general) that got these closures passed, so that we (hunters in general) could hunt.
I don't expect them to draw any differences between hunters that hike, and hunters that ride, with the possible exception of not understanding why hunters that ride would work toward these closures.

Maybe they'll retaliate with supporting some kind of loss of sport for us. Maybe support the closure of hunting bears & cougar with dogs, bear baiting, or trapping with leg hold traps?

I think you're wrong again (topic out of contesxt).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As far as a lawsuit, good luck, because they (recreational riders) wont get through the front doors of a kangaroo court. When the BLM and FS designate areas off limits, thats about all she wrote... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is about whether the IF&G has the authority to say that you can't have an ATV and hunt in certain areas, and they can't regulate the nonhunters in those areas.

This has nothing to do with designations by the BLM or USFS for road/trail use restrictions. Some here seem to be using this discussion for launching their own agendas by taking the discussion out of context.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Heres my bottom line, ATV's belong on roads just like a passenger vehicle. Any use beyond that should be ended <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's like saying you have to keep your apples and oranges in the same box (they are both fruit - Moosie). Saying: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ATV's belong on roads just like a passenger vehicle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> makes no sense. The commonality the two share is that they are both motorized. ATV's are not designed for travel on paved surfaces, and most "passenger" vehicles are not designed for travel on surfaces "other than paved".

Here's my bottom line BUZZ (ITHACA you listening?), I think there should be routes that are open for cars/trucks/jeeps, routes open(roads/trail) for horses/ATVs/dirt bikes/Mt bikes, and then routes open only for foot travel. I don't support the outfitting of raft trips through the wilderness areas (Ive been to their "established" camp sites along the river), nor the maintneance of horse trails & bridges in the wilderness areas (I know we've been over this all before).

ITHACA, nobody has defined what an "established" road is, or how the IF&G is going to address the ATV riding nonhunters.

ESTABLISH: vb 1: to make firm or stable, 2: ORDAIN, 3: FOUND (~a settlement); also: EFFECT, 4: put on a firm basis: set up (~a son in business)5: to gain acceptance or recognition of (as a claim or fact)[~ed his right to help]; also: PROVE. (Merriam~Webster Dictionary, page 246)
ESTABLISH: v 1. To settle securely into position. 2. To found or create. 3. To cause to be recognized or accepted. 4. To prove the truth of. [<Lat. stabilire, to make firm].
(The American Heritage Dictionary, page 241.)

Using those definitions, and looking at the only other guideline I've been given of: roadways open to motorized vehicle traffic capable of travel by full-sized automobiles. A full-sized automobile shall be defined as any motorized vehicle with a gross vehicle weight in excess of 1500 pounds.

BUZZ your already adding restrictions, you said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> but they better keep it on the roads designated as drivable by a passenger vehicle over 1500 GVW, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Absolutely no off-road use for any reason, game retrieval included. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But the proposal says.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Retrieval of legally taken game shall be governed by existing land management travel restrictions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This statement alone says that there will be other users allowed to "ride" in the area that the hunters are in. Should we revisit my discussion earlier about what is or isn't hunting? Nobody seems to have answered that yet, rather, just changed the direction of the topic (out of context(?)).

Thanks for the info WH.

I do agree with BUZZ on firearms or bows to be carried in hard cases while on ATV's, but I would have an exception on pistols (must be holstered), and you need to define "locked" better before you get my support for it. I have hard cases for my rifle and my bow, and they have locking pins (not paddle locks). Would that suffice for you, or do you want paddle locks or combination case locks?

Bottom line, the Proposal Says:
ATV riders will still be able to ride in the area, as permitted by the existing restrictions.
Hunters will not be allowed to "hunt" and have their ATV in the area (outside of "established roads", except when retreiving game - as allowed by existing area restrictions).

If you already can't hunt from a motor vehicle (through out the state), why make areas extra closed?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-23-2003 16:20: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Yup, There's a lot of work to be done to get the whole ATV problem under control. I don't see the ATV crowd doing anything about it, so I'm just gonna be saying, "Ban them all." Just pretend they were never invented. Hunt like we did forty years ago. If you can't do that take up knitting.

The ATV riders have had enough of a chance to do something about the problem and they did zero. Now others are gonna solve the problem for them. Tough.

 

[Ten Bears]

Oh that was relevant, wasn't it? Not.

Can you say agenda?

 

[BuzzH]

Ten, actually it is relevant.

When a group of people (atv riders) dont have the backbone to limit themselves, others will.

They've had their chance for the last 15 years to get this train wreck back on track.

I think lots of people are just tired of waiting.

No matter what, I'll guarnatee there will be more and more restrictions coming from all agencies, including the BLM, FS, and the various state agencies.

 

[Ten Bears]

Please answer my questions, or post responses relevant to the topic at hand.

I never said ATV's don't need restrictions. I have called for areas "designated" for ATV use.

Please answer my questions, or post responses relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Washington Hunter]

There is no reason why ATV's can't be required to stay on established roads that are open for passenger vehicles. That should be common sense anyway. People should know better than to ride their ATV's off of established roads. A law or regulation shouldn't be necessary, but it is, because many people refuse to use their brains. And basically, it's very obvious that some people just don't care about the environment and/or the fact that they are ruining other people's hunting experience. I think riding an ATV on established roads is a legitimate use. Other people will drive jeeps, pickups, 4 wheel drive suv's, etc. Just keep them on the roads with all the other vehicles and there will be no problems.

 

[Ten Bears]

The problem remains. What is an establised road? There are environmental abuses of all motor vehicles. There are also others (hunters) that refuse to have respect for the hunting choices of other hunters, or the recreational preferences of nonhunters.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Just keep them on the roads with all the other vehicles and there will be no problems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Easily said of shod livestock as well.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, I'm not bothering to answer all your questions because it's a lot easier to throw out a lot of questions than it is to research and answer them and I don't have time. I'm not concerned about all your questions anyway. More and more ATV restrictions are coming and, for all I care, the ATV riders can battle it out with the F&G, BLM and FS over what constitutes an established road. If I had my way they'd be restricted to Interstate Highways.

 

[Ten Bears]

It is easier to through out alot of question isn't it?

But my questions haven't changed from the begining of this post. I have asked for the same clarifications all along, yet you and others have continually tried to skirt around the topic.

Why not ask your freinds in Boise for some clarifications?

I'm sure you can get the answer there. Honestly though, I don't think the answers match the agenda you preach, and you know there is a fair measure of truth in what I'm saying.

Answer my question, or don't, it really doesn't matter. If you answer my questions you face the truth, and by dismissing me out of hand, you show your indiffernce toward others. Oh well.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Thanks, Wash. Good answer. I hope it satisfies Ten.