The curbing of offroad travel

[Ten Bears]

By Martin Griffith
The Associated Press
Updated: 2:42 p.m. ET May 19, 2005RENO, Nev. - For decades, off-road vehicle enthusiasts have been mostly free to roam federal forests and rangelands. Those freewheeling days could be numbered, though.


Two government agencies, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, are developing plans to restrict the vehicles to designated routes as part of an effort to curb environmental damage and ease conflict among users of public lands.

“The days of blazing new trails are coming to an end,” said Leo Drumm, off-highway vehicle coordinator for the Nevada BLM. “There has to be some controls.”

While efforts to address off-road travel are under way across the West, any changes probably would have the biggest impact on Nevada and its wide-open spaces — including the 6.3-million-acre Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, the largest national forest outside Alaska.

The federal government controls 87 percent of the state’s land, and the vast majority of the backcountry is unrestricted to off-roaders.

Year in the making
Although the Forest Service’s national policy on off-roading awaits final action nearly a year after it was unveiled, individual national forests such as Humboldt-Toiyabe are being encouraged to address the issue because of soaring off-road vehicle use.

“We’re all recognizing at the same time the need to work on this issue,” said Bob Vaught, supervisor of Humboldt-Toiyabe. “There’s widespread agreement that we need to do a better job of managing off-highway vehicle use.”

Between 1972 and 2000, the number of off-road vehicle users increased from about 5 million to 36 million, causing conflicts with other users such as horseback riders as well as with the growing number of homeowners who live near national forests.

The Blue Ribbon Coalition, a motorized recreation advocacy group, said it wants to keep as many roads and trails open as possible.

“(Environmentalists) are spending millions of dollars to close public land to public uses,” said Brian Hawthorne, the Idaho-based group’s public lands director. “That’s where the controversy is generated. What we want are managed off-highway trail systems and areas that are sustainable and that we can enjoy for generations to come.”

Gerald Lent of the Nevada Hunters Association said most off-roaders are responsible and are being unfairly singled out.

“Out in the middle of the desert, what damage are you doing with an ATV?” Lent asked. “It doesn’t hurt anything. There’s so much land out there I don’t know how they would harm it.”

Backed by Forest Service chief
But federal land managers are taking a cue from Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth, who said unmanaged recreation is one of the four biggest threats to national forests. And conservationists are concerned that not enough roads will be closed to protect wildlife and habitat.

“We need to encourage them to act in a way that will result in real on-the-ground protection,” said Jeremy Garncarz of the Wilderness Society in Denver. “We’re losing wildlife habitat on a daily basis because of these problems.”

Most hunters welcome the push to keep off-road vehicles to designated areas, said Stan Rauch, hunter outreach coordinator of the Washington-based National Trails and Waters Coalition, which seeks better management of the vehicles on public land.

Traditional sportsmen have accused those who go off road to hunt using all-terrain vehicles of disturbing their hunts and punching out more new roads in remote regions across the West.

“It’s a good positive development for the land and users looking for a quality experience on public land,” said Rauch, a big-game hunter from Victor, Mont.

First changes in 2007
Federal land managers said they will work with various groups to identify routes, trails and other areas suitable for off-road vehicles. Implementation will vary, but some districts are shooting for as early as 2007.

While federal land managers said it’s premature to discuss road closures, they won’t rule them out.

“We’re growing up as a state and we can’t handle the unrestricted cross-country travel like we did in the past,” said Drumm of the Nevada BLM. “Every time you go out you find more new trails.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7910529/

 

[Hangar18]

Already covered TB

http://www.hunttalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22322&page=1&pp=25

 

[Washington Hunter]

That's why it felt like deja vu....thought I'd read that same article somewhere.

 

[Ten Bears]

I thought I'd read it here, but then it just came out in the local press on Monday.....

 

[NevadaChukar]

Can I just say for the record, both old and new, that Gerald Lent, DOES NOT speak for Nevada sportsmen. I had to go back and read that thing twice to make sure I was "hearing" him right. It is guys like him that give hunters a bad name. Especially in Nevada.

 

[Ten Bears]

Brian Hawthorne, the Idaho-based group’s public lands director. “.... What we want are managed off-highway trail systems and areas that are sustainable and that we can enjoy for generations to come.”

"We" want these areas inforced too.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Yeah, that Gerald Lent is truly an idiot!

Gerald Lent of the Nevada Hunters Association said most off-roaders are responsible and are being unfairly singled out.

“Out in the middle of the desert, what damage are you doing with an ATV?” Lent asked. “It doesn’t hurt anything. There’s so much land out there I don’t know how they would harm it.”

I agree that the BLM and the Forest Service need stricter regulations in many areas, and once the new rules are in place, I think peer pressure will be enough to keep the majority of hunters out of the areas that are off limits. How many guys are going to be so rude as to ride an ATV past other hunters in an area that is designated no motor vehicles? I think there will be more of a problem at other times of the year when hunting season isn't open, and there are people out there riding who are simply "recreational riders" out there to see how fast they can go and how much ground they can tear up.

 

[Hangar18]

How many guys are going to be so rude as to ride an ATV past other hunters in an area that is designated no motor vehicles?

I think this is one of the big problems that have people pissed off. It already happens. I think the only way to get this problem turned around is to take Buzz's advice; write the registration numbers down and turn them in. When these violations hit the media combined with stiffer penalties, and idiots start reading about them, maybe then it will have some affect.

 

[Curly]

I think the only way to get this problem turned around is to take Buzz's advice; write the registration numbers down and turn them in.

The registration numbers need to be larger. How can anyone read the numbers at any kind of distance?

 

[WH's OutdoorsChick]

WH accidently posted as ME ...Sorry!

 

[Washington Hunter]

Even if you do get a number and write it down, and report it to law enforcement, how does that prove that the ATV with that number was actually breaking the law? I don't see how they can write a ticket with no evidence.

 

[BuzzH]

WH,

Thats really a slam dunk if the person who witnessed the crime will testify in court.

A couple years ago a buddy of mine from AZ (who is a warden) and myself saw a couple clowns running ATV's all over the National Forest in an area closed to ATV travel.

My buddy and I both agreed to testify in court as well as write out witness reports (which we did).

That case never saw a courtroom but it did find two unhappy fatasses with wallets that were $300 lighter...

If an offender knows they've been seen and that the people who witnessed the crime will testify...its a slam dunk 99% of the time. Most would rather pay the fine and admit guilt than take several days off work, hire an attorney, and risk having to pay court costs on top of everything else.

 

[Ten Bears]

I would hope if the case is a slam dunk, that they'd get more then $300 outta the idiots. I know that in a cases that I have reported ATV's in closed areas the fines have run from $100 (weak, very weak) to $500.

 

[Washington Hunter]

I just hate to see "justice" done with only the word of one witness. Who's to say that "witness" isn't making up a story because he's mad at some ATV rider who was doing everything legal? I would hope they would need a little more proof than that. Yeah, sure you say the accused is free to hire an attorney and take it to a jury trial...well, how many people are going to want to spend that amount of time and money fighting a ticket that may only be a couple hundred bucks? I just don't think they should be prosecuting people unless a law enforcement officer has actually caught that person in the act of breaking the law. I think it's a great idea to write down registration numbers and turn them in, and take pictures too, if possible. That would at least be enough to make somebody think twice about coming back into that area again. I think what is really needed is some substantial fines and confiscation of ATV's. But for this to happen I would hope they would have been caught in the act, by the law enforcement officer. Otherwise it just wouldn't be right.

 

[Ten Bears]

I think if I catch somebody in a closed area, write down their sticker number, and maybe take a few pictures of the ATV &/or rider, that should be good enough, but if the inforcement officer needs to see the tire tracks or trail, I'll take him/her back to where I found/saw the illegal ATV, and he/she can collect their own evidense.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I personally would get a GPS coordinate because I usually always have one on me.

That way, there is no mistakes made what so ever...

 

[ringer]

Law enforcement in this country will never be able to issue citations based upon hearsay and a photo taken by Joe Blow. Maybe a photo camera set up by law enforcement like photo radar would work in problem areas but that would brobably be vandalized. If it is just one person who is going to testify in court I can't believe it would prevail since it is a she said, he said deal. I think it might help to report the incident with photos and times to LEO and they could focus on the problem areas. The photo deal might work if the area was 100% identifiable but with digital software any good attorney could dispute it. Maybe higher fines or use fees to fund more enforcement is the solution.

 

[Ithaca 37]

WH, "I just don't think they should be prosecuting people unless a law enforcement officer has actually caught that person in the act of breaking the law."

How many criminals would ever be prosecuted if a LEO actually had to catch them in the act of breaking the law? How many murders or bank robberies are witnessed by a LEO? How many poachers are caught in the act?

About 60% of the poaching citations issued in Idaho are because of tips to the Citizens Against Poaching hotline.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Well, in the case of poaching they usually come up with some kind of evidence that proves their case. But what is the evidence when somebody is being accused of riding an ATV where they shouldn't be? I wouldn't think the word of one witness would be enough. How are they to know that witness isn't making up a story?

 

[MattK]

WH- There may be a few people who have a grudge and would set up a false situation but I doubt many people would waste their time doing this. If you think about it, eye witness testimony is used in almost all criminal cases. It turns into a he said/ she said type of case. I must admit that eye witness testimony is proven to be the most inadequate but most believed testimony in the court system. If you can show tire tracks and registration #'s off of an atv and identify the person, it is basically a slam dunk in our court system. I doubt many people fight it because most are probably guilty. (I would concede that a few may be innocent or set up but I would assume that # is very, very low, especially if you don't know the person who you are turning in.)