Do you guys really believe that all ATV riders break the law?

[Delw]

you know we had that quad up there for 8 days and only started it for this pic today.


Delw

 

[Ten Bears]

As to "non-riders" reporting riders to be in areas they aren't suppost to be, I would fathom a guess that more often than not that is NOT true. Often in Az when roads are closed it is either private, leased, or closed land for OHV use, just because an ATV or 4x4 can whip around that baracade or locked gate doesn't mean it is "open" and if it is open for vehicle use then a non-rider reporting it causes no harm because the reporting law angency will arrive see it is an "OPEN" area and just leave, if they even show up to begin with. So I fail to see how "uneducated nonriders" have anything to do with areas being close to ATV's and off road vehicles, the area's are being closed due to enviromental damage being done by people who do not follow the laws already there and as such are ruining the image of all ATV riders.

I was hoping that I wouldn't have to go too in depth with defining how fatassed non-riders are hurting the sport. BUT, here's an attempt; If a non-rider reports a [non]violation to an agency, and the agency goes out and invesigates the "violation", but finds that no "violation" actually occurred. How many times does that agency contact the person that reported the "violation" and let them know that there really wasn't a violation in the first place? So, now the "witness", thinking that they have done the right thing, is only reenforced to pursue the matter further with more reports of "violations", and continues life with the "ASSumption" that all ATV riders are illegal, and they have seen it first hand (not knowing that their own ASSumptions and lack of education on the issue have led them to make incorrect and uneducated conclusions). In recent years around here we have had a shooting fatality over this very issue;: A father and son had gone hunting on a "gated" road, the father had ASSumed that the gate meant closed to ALL motorized vehicles, later in the morning two ATV riders (hunters?) came riding down the road OPEN for ATV travel. The father flagged down the ATVs and started a confrontation with the riders about being on the road. The riders stated that the road was open for ATV travel, and left the father and son, and started to ride away. The father fired a shot (here's were the questionable part/call comes in) at/over(?) the ATV riders, and in the insueing exchange of gunfire, the father was mortally wounded.

CASPER, I don't think you looked at the bigger syntax structure. Those are two seperate "paragraphs" (statements?).

I had gone south for a hunt in a OPEN for ATV travel area. I will post pictures of the area for your review of the devistation.

With a mentality like that you think "David K. Marple, 19, of Lost Creek" is going to be concerned about ethical and legal riding when he's on his ATV?

How about: With a mentality like that you think "David K. Marple, 19, of Lost Creek" is going to be concerned about ethical and legal hunting out looking for game (or any other "recreation" he partakes in?

EG, thanks for confirming your own true lack of interest in the real issue. If you can't take time to be part of the solution, go home, because otherwise your just part of the problem.

 

[Nemont]

Ten,

What do you think occurs more often? A non rider turning in a legal rider or an illegal rider getting pissed off when a nonrider questions there "right" to ride on a particular trail?

If your defense is that non riders are discriminating against legal riders by calling wolf too often you are standing on shaky ground.

Does anyone else around here believe that there is any kind of problem with legal riders being turned in? I have never, not once, ever heard of this happening; not from riders, LEO's, hunters, fisherman or conservationists. I am willing to bet that the cases you discussed are isolated events.

I think you are attempting the old tactic of changing the situation around so that the offenders become the victims. It isn't going to work on the majority of people who have a stake in this issue. Most are getting frustrated with illegal riders to the point that they are willing to end or at least severally restrict legal activity on ATV's.

I would suggest you find a different argument because that dog ain't gonna hunt long.

Nemont

 

[Nemont]

October 7, 2004 The number of all-terrain vehicle deaths in southeast Mississippi has increased steadily in the last three years, according to a report released this week by AAA Ambulance Service.
By Jenny Hunsperger
American Staff Writer [email protected]


The brother-in-law of Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre died Wednesday night as a result of injuries sustained in an all-terrain vehicle accident, said Lamar County Deputy Coroner Randy Beck.

Casey Tynes, 24, was transported to Forrest General Hospital by Rescue 7 helicopter ambulance at about 6 p.m. He was pronounced dead 20 minutes later, Beck said.

Tynes is the brother of Favre's wife, Deanna, Beck said. The Favres were in Green Bay at the time of the accident.

Wednesday's death was the second tragedy for the Favre family in less than a year. Brett Favre's father, Irvin Favre, died just four days before Christmas after suffering a stroke or heart attack while driving his car in Kiln.

Wednesday's accident happened at the Favre residence in the 7600 block of U.S. 98, west of Bellevue, when the ATV went through a patch of loose gravel and flipped, officials said.

Lamar County Sheriff's Department deputies are reconstructing the accident.

Sheriff Danny Rigel said Tynes suffered head trauma in the accident and was not wearing a helmet.

Rigel said other people were nearby when the accident occurred. The Favre family hasn't issued a statement, he said.

"They're pretty shook up," he said. Tynes lived at the Favre's home.

Tynes' body was to be sent to University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson for an autopsy, Beck said.

The number of all-terrain vehicle deaths in southeast Mississippi has increased steadily in the last three years, according to a report released this week by AAA Ambulance Service.

In the 13-county Southeast Trauma Care Region that includes Lamar and Forrest counties, 5 percent of the deaths caused by injury involved all-terrain vehicles in 2003, the latest year statistics were available.

That percentage has grown from 3 percent in 2001.

.

 

[Ten Bears]

I don't know if you realize it, but life is a terminal event, and aint nobody getting out of it alive........

As far as your other comments, my pointis that it is a matter of education for both riders and non-riders (get that yet?). You can't blame one without examining the other aspects as well.

As far as your dog don't hunt, to bad, sad to hear that. A freind once told me there are at least three truthes to every incident; your truth, my truth, and the real truth. You can't understand the real truth until you examine the individual truthes involed. It is saddening that so many can't take time to examine the truthes.

 

[Nemont]

Ten,

What truths are you wanting me to look at? Tell me where I said education isn't a good thing. Tell me where I haven't reviewed what you have written for "truths".

I wasn't even anti ATV until I started seeing what was happening to hunting and to the landscape because so many people were using them irresponisibly. Now I think they should not be allowed into areas that they so easily destroy.

I would be all for education, on both sides, if the ATV crowd was willing to believe they were doing anything wrong. You may be able to seperate out the good riders from the bad riders but a lot of people believe they can't.

I think you have been equally unaccepting of the the "truths" that ATV's in the hands of alot of people are viewed as a passport to wild and scenic places that were never intended to be accessed by a vehicle of any kind.

So believe what you wish about whether I can see "truths" or not but I can see truth of your arguement that ATV'ers have been victim of nonriders will never be believed by enough people in the public to make a difference.

If you believe education will stop people from riding illegally you are living in near complete denial of the true scope of problem and the damage being done.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

That is funny to hear that the problem is a lack of edcuation on the "nonriders" about (non)violations....

I wonder if assaulting a Federal Officer is a "(non)violation" in Ten's eyes??? Or is it a lack of "edjumacation" on the BLM Officer's part???

ATV rider pleads guilty to striking BLM officer
05:49 PM MDT on Tuesday, October 5, 2004



BOISE -- A Twin Falls-area man pleaded guilty Tuesday to using his all-terrain vehicle to injure a U-S Bureau of Land Management officer.

A Twin Falls-area man pleaded guilty to assaulting a federal officer with an all-terrain vehicle.

Tom Lyn Callen was charged with assault on a federal officer.


Callen was riding his ATV at Salmon Creek Reservoir on July third.


A BLM ranger approached Callen on foot because he was riding in an area off-limits to motorized vehicles.


Callen raced down the hill and struck the officer in the knee.


Callen then drove the ATV 19 miles to his home, but was arrested.


The ranger was treated and released from the Twin Falls hospital.


Sentencing is set for January Fifth.

 

[Ten Bears]

EG, either show the full article or provide a link to it. I read the article in yesterdays paper, and I seem to remember he (Callen) had other "legal" issues other then just riding in a closed area.

NEMONT, I see many of your statements as "denial" of non-riders lack of understanding as a part of the problem. I have seen here many statements about the number of riders that are doing so illegally, but have any of you ever answered any of my questions????? Seldom if ever. How many registered ATV's are there; nationally or ever in your state? How many would 10% be? Remember, those that register their ATVs are the majority,but there are a lot of riders that don't even register their machines, These are typically the ones that are the biggest problem.

As for your comment about not believing 10% of hunters are violating hunting laws, maybe you should check with a game cop. I did, and he told me that if he calculated the number of sportsmen that he talked to last year, and divided it by the number of tickets he wrote it was about 27%, but if you did that for the entire region he works in, it averaged out to about 15% for north Idaho. I'm sure people with "contacts" like IT & EG could get the numbers for the entire state if they wanted to. There again, an issue of denial, and lack of effort to educate, if you were to live where I live you could say my initial estimate was conservative. I would contact an game cop there if I had an email for one.

 

[Nemont]

Ten,
I will play along. Do you have any scientifically conducted research to back up that 15% of all hunters violate the laws? Does the violation range from major to minor violations? Poaching vs. Trespass vs. not having adequate hunters orange.

Do you believe 15% of all hunters are poaching and destroying habitat and ignoring all laws regarding hunting? If that is true I would love to see that research.

I talked to out local highway patrolmen the other day. He said that in Montana he figures that 60 to 70% of driver exceed the 70 mph daytime speed limit. These drivers, including me, are breaking the law. The difference is that we are destroying habitat.

I am curious what questions you asked me that I didn't attempt to answer? I don't recall any questions you asked. But if I ignored your questions I will attempt to answer them in the future.

As for me being in denial regarding nonriders education the burden of proof is not upon me or other non riders. It is for those who are riding legally to prove that ATV's can be used in a way that does not destroy habitat. So far that has not happened. You view closures of ATV access as a positive thing so do I. I just don't believe that education of nonriders to understand riders "rights" is the problem you are making it out to be. Maybe it is, maybe nonriders are out turning in a lot of legal riders and feeling that the problem is being taken care of. I don't believe that is accurate but perhaps it is true.

Can ATV's be used in a responsible manner and not do significant damage to a public resource? I haven't been very encouraged regarding that issue. I see more and more damage in places that ATV's shouldn't even be near.

Tell me how you educate nonriders to enjoy ATV's in the woods when the nonriders are simply trying to get away from noise and crowds.

If the majority of people demand land managers put an end or to severally restrict ATV access and ridership on public lands: Isn't that an excercise in democracy?

Nemont

 

[Ten Bears]

NEMONT, I see you enjoy playing EG styled word games. I never made the statement that 15% of ALL HUNTERS violate the laws. Nor did I know that inforcing laws was a sciene of study. I said:

As for your comment about not believing 10% of hunters are violating hunting laws, maybe you should check with a game cop. I did, and he told me that if he calculated the number of sportsmen that he talked to last year, and divided it by the number of tickets he wrote it was about 27%, but if you did that for the entire region he works in, it averaged out to about 15% for north Idaho.

Since we don't have hunter orange laws in Idaho, I don't think that would be an issue. He said he had contacted X number of sportsmen (hunters/fishermen/outdoor recreationists) and issued X number of citations. If you divide the # of citations by the # of "sportsmen" you get the %. How much more would you like? It is hard to reason with you when even you differentiate a difference between poaching and trespassing. Tell me the diference. Please define POACHING?

Do you believe 15% of all hunters are poaching and destroying habitat and ignoring all laws regarding hunting? If that is true I would love to see that research.

I have seen horse camps that are every bit as "environmentally" destructive as any ATV camp, and in many cases more so. I think all hunters are destructive to the environment in one level to another. Again, you not I said ALL HUNTERS are poachers. I teach in my hunters safety class that about 10% of hunters are intentional poachers and do so without regard to the game laws, and that 10% of hunters would not violate any game laws no matter what, but that 80% of hunters fall somewhere in between the two extremes.

Tell me how you educate nonriders to enjoy ATV's in the woods when the nonriders are simply trying to get away from noise and crowds.

I would start by teaching them some tolerance and respect for other recreational pursuits. Much as we do with the non-hunting groups. There will always be those that will not accept that others can and will think differently (on both sides). I would recomend that the nonriders find a place free of ATV travel, much like the area I hunted earlier this week. BTW the area I keep referring to is OPEN for ATV travel.

ATV parked in that one. Anybody see it?

See the camp on the far ridge?

Glad somebody didn't tell this bull elk that he needed to be 2 miles from where any ATVs travel.

Name another activity in which we make the law biding members justify the existense of the sport to the nonparticipants.

Seemed like a good bear, but I passed him up. I'm waiting to get a good one over my bait site.

EDIT: could one of the moderators please help me get these photos up and running?

 

[JoseCuervo]

By Ten Bears...

If a non-rider reports a [non]violation to an agency, and the agency goes out and invesigates the "violation", but finds that no "violation" actually occurred. How many times does that agency contact the person that reported the "violation" and let them know that there really wasn't a violation in the first place? So, now the "witness", thinking that they have done the right thing, is only reenforced to pursue the matter further with more reports of "violations", and continues life with the "ASSumption" that all ATV riders are illegal, and they have seen it first hand (not knowing that their own ASSumptions and lack of education on the issue have led them to make incorrect and uneducated conclusions).

Thanks for writing that.... I have never laughed so hard at the accidental murder of the English language....

By Ten Bears....

EG, thanks for confirming your own true lack of interest in the real issue. If you can't take time to be part of the solution, go home, because otherwise your just part of the problem

I am not part of the problem as I am the one providing input, comments, testimony to every agency that I can, requesting that roads be closed, areas be restricted from Fat-Assed ATV riders, and Hunting Licenses be pulled if hunters are caught sitting on their Fat-Ass on an aTV.

Why would I want to waste my valuable time helping Law Enforcement catch 1 or 2 per year, when I can help the Agency remove 1,000's of machines from our Public Lands???? Seems like my time is better spent removing the 1,000's. And like Buzz points out, the Fat-Assed aTV crowd is losing, Forest by Forest, Unit by Unit, State by State, trail by trail...

When the head of the FS cites the Fat-Assed ATV crowd as one of the top 4 threats to the Forests, I think it is pretty clear that the Blue Ribbers efforts were failures, and we will see fewer and fewer Fat-Assed aTV riders on Public Lands....

 

[Nemont]

Ten,
defining poaching depends upon who you ask. Here is the definition from the Indiana Fish Cops.

Who are the poachers and how should you report them?

Simply defined "poaching" is any illegal taking or processing of fish, game or nongame wildlife. To recognize illegal acts, a basic knowledge of fish and wildlife regulations is necessary. Brochures describing fishing and hunting laws are available from license vendors and from the Department of Natural Resources.

In recent years we have stretched the definition of "poacher" to include a person or group of people that kill fish and wildlife by means of pollution or by destroying valuable habitat such as wetlands and rivers. In many cases this type of poacher has a much more devastating effect on our fish and wildlife resources than the conventional poacher.

The tools of the 20th century poacher are the back hoe, bull dozer and tank truck. If you see a bull dozer or back hoe altering or destroying a natural river or woodland report this potential violation immediately. Tank trucks backed up to a river, stream or drainage ditch could indicate the illegal dumping of pollutants or hazardous waste. Anyone witnessing this situation should call 1-800-TIP-IDNR as soon as possible.

Or Utah's definition

Poaching is theft and you are the victim

Simply defined "poaching" is any illegal taking of fish, game or nongame wildlife. It is not a crime committed against the Division of Wildlife Resources, but a crime affecting all citizens of the State of Utah. Poachers steal from consumptive and nonconsumptive users alike. Present and future generations of law abiding outdoorsmen are the victims. Poachers erode public support of hunting and fishing. They threaten the existence of our sport. In short, poaching is a serious crime, and poachers are nothing more than thieves.

Take a stand. Defend wildlife and the right of future generations to enjoy it. Help Stop Poaching.

Okay I don't want to play word games with you but please back up the following statements you tell your hunters safety class. Can you give me actual hard evidence that 80% of hunters are willing to break game laws at some point? I have not seen that statistic anywhere. It would seem to me that if that is what you are teaching there must be some studies done, either that or you are teaching your opinion.

have seen horse camps that are every bit as "environmentally" destructive as any ATV camp, and in many cases more so. I think all hunters are destructive to the environment in one level to another. Again, you not I said ALL HUNTERS are poachers. I teach in my hunters safety class that about 10% of hunters are intentional poachers and do so without regard to the game laws, and that 10% of hunters would not violate any game laws no matter what, but that 80% of hunters fall somewhere in between the two extremes.

Tell me where I said some horse camps are not hard on the environment. I don't think I ever mentioned horse camps. What is more telling to me is that you admit ATV camps are also hard on the environment.

I don't know why you accuse me of word games. I quoted you in most of them. You stated that you teach your hunters safety classes that 80% of hunters operate in a legal gray area but the Fish Cop you asked said it was 27% and you said it was 15% but you teach that 80% are at some point in or could be in violation game laws.

Nemont

[ 10-08-2004, 09:41: Message edited by: Nemont ]

 

[Ten Bears]

EG, your lips are'a flappin' and the winds'a'blowin', but what you're really saying is that you're too lazy to report real law breakers?

Why would I want to waste my valuable time helping Law Enforcement catch 1 or 2 per year,....

I don't know, maybe because if you admit that you are wrong. You see, if you help "catch" one or two breaking the law, then you'd have to face the fact that the other couple hundred you see with their ATVs in the back of their truck or on a trailer aren't out there breaking the law. Your way of thinking is kinda like the antigun lobby, and you can't come to grips with the fact that, just because people own them, it doesn't mean they're using them to breakthe law.

EG, you mocked my example, is that because: (a) you can prove it incorrect, (b) didn't grasp the whole concept of the analogy, (c) can't dispute it, so you resort to attacking the syntax of an informal correspondence?

 

[JoseCuervo]

(B). I read it, and re-read it, and just kept laughing at the writing.... Sorry, couldn't help myself....

Yeppers Ten, I am too lazy to waste my time in October and November chasing down every Fat Assed ATV Rider, and figuring out which laws they are breaking at the given moment.

Instead, I'll take the "lazy" way out, and spend the other 10 months writing letters, taking pictures, providing comments to get ALL of the ATVs removed from MY PUBLIC LANDS (unless areas open to full-size cars). And trust me, you have read enough of my writing, to know that I can weave a very compelling comment to the agency seeking inputs....

And given Bosworth's comments, and the viscous assault on Federal Agents by the Fat-Assed ATV rider, it is getting easier and easier to have my comments (and others similar) heard....

 

[Ten Bears]

NEMONT, think back to grade school and number lines in math. If you have 10% intentional poachers (-10) on the number line, 10% strictly law biding hunters (+10), and the area in between is the other "80%" of hunters. Some will lean toward -10 and others will be more toward +10. In the middle may be nothing more then they were with someone that killed an illegal animal, and helped hide it, or they know someone who kills animals and uses somebody elses tags all the time. Are they the poacher? By law, yes, they are. Are they likely to get a ticket? Probably not, but then again it prbably depends on how big of a part they played in the poaching event. So, YES, I said that 80% of all hunters operate in the legal gray. The fish cop said he, personally, averaged 27% detected violations that received paper, and that "regionally" the average was 15% detected and received paper. Are you implying that the fish cop was able to detect/solve every poaching case or law violation that came his way?
"I" used the analogy of horse camps, not YOU. Are you implying that only horse and ATV camps a "environmentally" destructive? It was an analogy, nothing more. Much like the analogy of 10-80-10.

I don't know why you accuse me of word games. I quoted you in most of them. You stated that you teach your hunters safety classes that 80% of hunters operate in a legal gray area but the Fish Cop you asked said it was 27% and you said it was 15% but you teach that 80% are at some point in or could be in violation game laws.

That statement is exactly why I said you are playing word games.

The fact that he had 27% violations that recieved paper demonstrates that the # of sportsmen violating the law is higher then 10%.

[ 10-08-2004, 10:24: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]

 

[Ten Bears]

EG, you still haven't shown that I can't legally go to AZ and use my ATV to retreive "legally" taken game statewide....

I also see your tainted thought process clouds you judgement, and I'm sure that your ranting letters are seen for just what they are. I know of others that rant semicoherently on the other extreme of the issue.

BTW, I doubt you will ever get "your" way since I have recently read in the paper up here that the fish & game recently paid for ATV access for hunters to a timber company. It was for access to 17,000+/- acres with gated roads through it, for hunters. Evidently the roads through it will be open for ATVs on down, but closed to "passenger" vehicles. I guess I could say thank you for your contribution to the payment. Have you ever contacted the guys at Potlatch to tell them they are wrong?

Note: Overnight camping by permission only. No full sized vehicles (except contractors with company permit). ATVs (less than 56") allowed only on existing roads
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/hunt/access/2004properties.asp?ID=186

Note: No motorized vehicle use permitted on any road except ATVs are permitted on the first 8.5 miles of main road. ATV travel during weekdays strongly discouraged due to active timber harvest activities and log truck use of roads.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/hunt/access/2004properties.asp?ID=185

[ 10-08-2004, 10:36: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]

 

[Muledeer4me]

"If ATVs are only used to retrieve wounded game, why do they take more than one??? "


How hard is that to figure out.
You have one truck and three hunter's.
Not everyone want's to hunt the same spot.
It's cheaper to take the ATV and split the gas then it is for everyone to take there own truck.
We just got back from a moose hunt,two hunter's ,lots of area to glass, they each had an different idea of where they wanted to be.
One took the ATV the other took the truck.
Some days we all were in the truck.
One day they both used the ATV to get to a ruff spot to do some glassing.
When the moose hit the ground no ATV was used to retrieve it.
Just because you see an ATV does not mean that person is doing something illegal.
We were glad we brought our's along on this hunt.
It gave our son something to drive, and it made me happy that it was his young butt that had to freeze while riding it.

 

[guppie9]

Instead, I'll take the "lazy" way out, and spend the other 10 months writing letters, taking pictures, providing comments to get ALL of the ATVs removed from MY PUBLIC LANDS (unless areas open to full-size cars).

Gee...call me crazy, but aren't they OUR public lands. Hence the word...PUBLIC

 

[Nemont]

M4M and Guppie,

I am curious if you both also think a major problem with the ATV issue is that non riders are incorrectly turning in ATV users and that non riders also need to be educated about ATV's proper use? Just am trying to understand that argument and how the case would be made for it.

Nemont

 

[Ten Bears]

NEMONT, nice twist, while in the analogy I may(?) have said "major problem"(?)(I guess someone could reference that initial statement for me), but in the spirit of the analogy, the analogy itself was meant to imply that, non-riders are equally unaware of ATV regulations as some ATV riders are (is it really that difficult to understand?), and there their uneducated speculation only compounds the issue. Could you see it if someone who didn't know differently went to EG and said they had seen an ATV on a gated road, and EG told them that ATVs are not allowed on gated roads. They would take what he said as the truth (predominately because he portrays himself as an authority on all issues ), when in reality EG may tell people that strictly because of his own bias against ATVs (easy enough to understand?).