More bad news for the ATVers...

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
17,800
Location
Laramie, WY
Some hunters push state to restrict ATVs


Local News Links World News Links
Reno / Sparks


/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Hunter Nick Berry, 12, stands in front of his all-terrain vehicle holding a chukar he shot in January. A group of hunting purists is behind a push to get the Nevada Wildlife Commission to impose restrictions on hunters’ use of ATV's.



ASSOCIATED PRESS
3/28/2004 09:55 pm
Leonard Mackedon yearns for a simpler time when a hunter took to the field with only a rifle and his skill.

Mackedon is among a growing number of hunters who think the sport and land are being harmed by relative newcomers to the backcountry: those who go off road to hunt using all-terrain vehicles.

The group of hunting purists is behind a push to get the Nevada Wildlife Commission to restrict hunter use of ATVs — a move the board acknowledges might be necessary to protect wildlife and public lands.

Traditional sportsmen accuse the mechanized hunters of disturbing their hunts, engaging in unfair chases for game and carving out more and more new roads in the remote regions of Nevada every year.

“Everywhere we went (on hunts), we saw tracks. … It’s tearing up the country I love,” said Mackedon, a Reno bird hunter.

Those who hunt on foot and horseback in Nevada aren’t alone in their anger over off-road vehicles, said Stan Rauch, hunter outreach coordinator of the Washington, D.C.-based Natural Trails and Waters Coalition, which seeks better management of off-road vehicles on public land.

In Wyoming, elk hunters complained to the state Game and Fish Commission that hunters using ATVs and snowmobiles were spoiling their hunting chances.

Last year, traditional hunters in Idaho successfully prodded their state game commission to restrict hunters’ off-road vehicles to established, major roads in portions of southern Idaho.

“It’s the start of a new movement in the West,” said Rauch, a big-game hunter from Victor, Mont., and life member of the National Rifle Association.

“It’s a sign of the ever-increasing number of ATV users, and hunters saying ‘we can’t take it anymore.’ I’m sure we’ll see additional states come out and restrict off-road vehicles,” he said.

Responding to opposition by ATV riders and others, the Nevada Wildlife Commission shelved a proposal in February to prohibit hunters from driving ATVs more than 25 yards off established roads on public land.

But commissioners plan to consider other options after hearing from federal land managers about efforts to keep hunters and others to established roads.

With off-road vehicle use soaring and continual improvements in technology, more land will be scarred by ATVs unless they act, commissioners warned.

“ATVs will crash brush and go places where other (off-road vehicles) couldn’t,” said Commissioner Eric Olsen, himself an ATV owner. “I see it as a real problem that we need to address.”

Angry machine hunters went before the commission in December to voice opposition to the proposed ATV restrictions. They say the plan unfairly singles them out while shielding other users of public lands from any blame for new roads.

Mark Cooper of Sparks said the proposal also infringes on hunters’ Second Amendment right to bear arms.

No statewide study has been conducted, but a BLM study found off-road vehicles have created 15 to 20 miles of new road annually in recent years in Duck Creek Basin near Ely.

Traditional hunter Dan Heinz said off-road vehicles have cut enough new tracks in the backcountry and he fears what the future holds in the nation’s fastest growing state.

“They’re trying to substitute technology for skill,” said Heinz, a Sparks-area retiree. “I’m heartbroken with the trend.”

Some sportsmen have been accused of using off-road vehicles to herd game to improve their chances for a successful hunt.

Mackedon questions whether hunters on ATVs are compromising one of hunting’s most important principles: a fair chase for game.

“Machines take the challenge out of hunting and put more pressure on wildlife,” Mackedon said. “I don’t know when the sport changed, but it has. I think we’re at an important juncture.”

State wildlife commissioners said most Nevada hunters acknowledge a problem with off-road vehicles and want it addressed. The dispute centers on what approach to use, they said.

Federal land managers said they also are aware of the threat and are trying to deal with it.

Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth has identified unmanaged recreation as one of the four biggest threats to national forests and has formed two teams to tackle off-road use.

Plans call for each national forest to use a community-based process to determine which roads to close and keep open, spokeswoman Christie Kalkowski said.

Using information from diverse groups, the BLM is taking steps to address specific problem areas in Nevada, such as Duck Creek Basin and Sand Mountain near Fallon and Wilson Canyon near Yerington.
 
U.S. Justices debate their role in land-use issue



By Christopher Smith
The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't want to see a judge in the driver's seat of the Bureau of Land Management's off-road-vehicle program in Utah.
But, several justices wondered during oral arguments Monday, at what point does the agency's approach to protecting potential wilderness areas from damage caused by motorized recreation require judicial intervention?
"I'm not willing to accept it's the role of the courts to make sure agencies toe the line," Justice Antonin Scalia told an attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), which asked the court to uphold a 10th Circuit ruling compelling BLM to consider prohibiting all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) use on public lands being studied for possible wilderness designation.
A decision in the case, not expected for several months, could dramatically affect the amount of undeveloped backcountry across the West available for Congress to consider for wilderness protection. It could allow BLM to defer aggressive restrictions on ATVs while the continued creation of dirt roads across those lands by the vehicles eventually disqualify them from consideration.
The government appealed the 10th Circuit ruling because of a broader concern, arguing that if the court can direct BLM's ongoing management of the wilderness study program, a tide of lawsuits could hit all federal agencies over the fulfillment of broad statutory duties traditionally left to administrators' discretion.
Although BLM's own management plans had set a 1992 deadline to address ATV use inside southern Utah wilderness study areas, Solicitor Edwin Kneedler told the court "those plans do not impose legal obligations that are owed to the public." Therefore, he said, courts have no authority to compel BLM to follow its own management plans.
"So the plans are largely aspirational -- they are wish lists?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
"That's basically our position," responded Kneedler.


SUWA attorney Paul Smith called that "implausible," saying BLM's failure to address skyrocketing ATV use was sufficiently harmful to prompt judicial relief.
Justice John Paul Stevens echoed a SUWA argument that BLM's decision to only monitor ATVs in the study areas may be a "final agency action" subject to court review.
"So if the world convention of off-road-vehicles is on and 100,000 people are there, the agency . . . just goes out and watches the race?" Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the solicitor.
In such a situation, said Kneedler, groups could sue if a special use permit was issued by the BLM.
If the high court affirms the 10th Circuit decision, justices said it could open the door to broad-based legal challenges of agency operations, putting judges in the role of public land managers.
"What they are worried about is you are turning over to a district judge the generalized job of running the BLM's off-road-vehicle program," Justice Stephen Breyer told Smith.
[email protected]
 
Wapiti Slayer,

Thanks for the article.

While I dont believe that a judge should act as a land manager...if the land managers wont do their jobs, what choice does one have?

All I know is that the judges tend to be more sympathetic to the enviro's than the atvers...this could be disastrous for the fat assed atvers.

Got hiking boots???
 
So, you guys have decided to cut others from their form of outdoor recreation? You've decided that ATVers don't need areas to ride in? You've deecided that there is no need to designate riding areas/trails/roads? If so, say it, but don't complain though, if through referendumn we (through you) lose more hunting opportunity.

I know BUZZ is willing to sell out anybody else that doesn't agree with him. He can't accept others may have a different opinion (probably part of that insecurity thing). :D
 
No, I was just posting a story I found. I have two 4 wheelers and a Motorcycle and ride them all over. I do agree there needs to be something done about the assholes who can't stay on trails and ruin it for others.
 
I do agree there needs to be something done about the assholes who can't stay on trails and ruin it for others.
So do I. I think the courts that need to be involved are the criminal courts at the local level. A big problem I see is that the local magistrate is elected, and the ATV/poacher/drunk drivers are also the largest portion of the voters in small districts.
 
Ten beer,

Read the article, you arent reading it, you're just spouting your typical BS.

The BLM is mandated by FEDERAL law to manage/study WSA's.

The point of the article is whether or not a judge has to intervene to force the BLM to comply with the law.

Thats not selling out anyones form of recreation, its demanding accountability for a required course of action that the agency is responsible for.
 
BUZZ, they are not however, "mandated" to restrict ATV's.
If the high court affirms the 10th Circuit decision, justices said it could open the door to broad-based legal challenges of agency operations, putting judges in the role of public land managers.
The issue seems to be if someone doesn't like the current management plan they just sue for a change.....
 
they are not however, "mandated" to restrict ATV's
They are in WSAs. Easter weekend and the opening weekend of the deer hunt keep the LEOs and Rec staff in this office busy policing the WSAs.
 
Ten beer,

You're wrong.

They are ABSOLUTELY mandated to protect the integrity of WSA's which are being considered for wilderness designation. That includes restricting ATV's until they decide whether or not the WSA's will be designated, the 9th & 10th circuitcourts agreed.

The issue isnt about suing to change management plans, but rather suing agencies to adhere to the management plans they are bound to and AGREED to.

Big difference.

Heres the rules:

Visit and enjoy the wilderness study areas but follow the rules:

Recreation activities such as hiking, backpacking, cross-country skiing, river running and horseback riding are allowed.
Hunting, fishing, and noncommercial trapping are allowed under state laws.
River running is allowed. Currently in Colorado, only commercial use requires a permit.
BLM permits are required for all commerial outfitters operating within a WSA.
Hobby rock collecting is allowed by nonmechanical means.
Plant collecting is not allowed.
Bicycles, hang gliders, two and four wheeled vehicles, mechanized equipment, and aircraft are not allowed.
Wheelchairs are allowed.
Cutting of standing trees, living or dead, is not allowed.
Public land within WSAs cannot be sold, exchanged, or patented.
The remains of our past are protected on public lands. Do not deface or remove anything of a historical, archaeological or paleontological nature.

Heres more:

An area designated by a Federal land-management agency (the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, National Park Service, or the Fish and Wildlife Service) as having wilderness characteristics, thus making it worthy of consideration by Congress for wilderness designation. While Congress considers whether to designate a Wilderness Study Area (WSA) as permanent wilderness, the Federal agency managing the WSA does so in a manner as to prevent impairment of the area's suitability for wilderness designation. The BLM manages 604 WSAs encompassing 17.2 million acres.
 
Wapiti Slayer,good posts.

"I do agree there needs to be something done about the assholes who can't stay on trails and ruin it for others."


I also agree with your statment.
For most of us it's about what approach to take .
For Ithaca and a few other's it's all about banning ATV's and placing more public lands into wilderness.
Those people that are calling for a total ban are pissing in the wind ,there is too much money backing ATV's ,motorcycle's & snowmachine's.

Supporting ATV , Motorcycle & Snowmachine club's goes along way's in helping find the best approach.
 
Those people that are calling for a total ban are pissing in the wind ,there is too much money backing ATV's ,motorcycle's & snowmachine's.
True, we will never see a total ban on ATV's, snowmobiles, etc on all public lands. But I guarantee that there will eventually be total bans in certain areas. As Buzz stated above, Federal agencies are mandated to manage their lands a certain way, and no agency lists the first priority to be providing access to ATV users. As agencies waffle and drag their feet on addressing the issue of damage caused by ATV's, we'll see more and more of these cases in Federal court (just like what's happening in Yellowstone now). When it comes time for the judge to decide whether to side with ATV money or agencies' environmental regulations, I'm confident (naively?) he'll make the right decision. Maybe the money backing the ATV/motorcycle/snowmobile groups should start investing in some nice private properties they can destroy to their hearts' content.

Oak
 
I think MD4ME may be right, there wont be a total ban. That said, the way things are headed, there wont be many places you take your ATV that you cant take a full-sized vehicle.

Also, with increased road closures, and the strong support for more wilderness designation, there will be less and less areas that are open to ATV's.

Plus, more and more states are gearing up to severly limit ATV use during hunting seasons, its the number one complaint the various G&F departments receive each year (atv abuse).

All in all, I'd say a better investment would be hiking boots and a full sized vehicle....
 
Just like with hunting, when demand outstripps supply of a resource additional and more stringent laws must be applied and enforced. So, ATV riders will just have to accept that some areas that are or once were open, won't be in the future. Just like I have to accept that one used to be able to buy Mtn Goat tags OTC in ID, but now can't.
 
They are ABSOLUTELY mandated to protect the integrity of WSA's which are being considered for wilderness designation. That includes restricting ATV's until they decide whether or not the WSA's will be designated, the 9th & 10th circuitcourts agreed.
Even if it's the equivalent of putting square pegs in round holes. :D :D
 
Oak,most of us have no problem with restriction,and even supported the hunting restriction on ATV's.
We also understand that there needs to be some closure's in other area's.
On the other hand we support keeping other trails and roads open for use .


Ithaca's quote on ATV club's and org.
"Looks to me like they're totally ineffective so far and nothing but a waste of money!"

I sure don't feel like my money spent in support of mulitple use group's have been ineffective or a waist of money.
Take a look at the proposed challis loop trail.
Take a look in your own back yard at the work our local club is doing.
Sure we have and will loose some area's but we also will get better trail system's along with better inforcment & education,and that's what it's all about .

So while a few of you jump up and down and pat yourself on the back about what you think we are loosing ,those of us that ride will keep on pushing for more inforcment,better trail system's.
 
Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,590
Messages
2,026,230
Members
36,240
Latest member
Mscarl (she/they)
Back
Top