F&G, ATV concerns not so different

[Ten Bears]

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? Unless you work for Idaho Fish and Game, the answer is four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one. However, using Fish and Game's logic, the dog might well have five.

The agency has defined all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles as means of taking game animals. That adds these vehicles to a list that includes such things as rifles, shotguns and fly rods. This definition opens the door to add other things to the list, like a pickup truck, a horse or even a pair of sturdy hiking boots. To the outsider it is obvious that the only way one of these can "take" a game animal is by direct impact. I am sure no self-respecting hunter wants to bring home road kill.

Under Fish and Game's proposal, two ATV riders can be on the same trail during hunting season, one hunting with a rifle and one out enjoying the scenery. The first would be subject to a ticket and the second would not.

But wait: What if the recreational rider has a concealed-weapon permit and is carrying a handgun? Is he hunting? If, in their travels, either one spooks a game animal being stalked by a traditional hunter, he is not likely to be much impressed by the fine distinction between the two.

It is not my intent to downplay a serious problem: irresponsible use of off-highway vehicles while hunting. The number of ATVs continues to grow. Rather than distorted definitions, I believe the answer lies in much more aggressive education and public relations, along with strict enforcement of existing laws and rules. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has made a start in the basic hunter-education course and revisions in its regulations booklets, but much more needs to be done.

The Fish and Game Department has a real dilemma, for basically it has two constituencies. First are the critters, for which Fish and Game staff members are the keepers, interpreters and appliers of the biological and other sciences used in animal management. Second are the folks who pursue the first, ranging from the most hard-core trophy hunters to the strident animal-rights advocates.

This second group requires the thoughtful application of what, for brevity purposes, I'll call political science combined with an understanding of human nature. In my contacts with Fish and Game folks, I've never seen much interest in developing these skills. Their problem is compounded as a sizable share of the second group sees an off-highway vehicle, with all its versatility, as a legitimate hunting tool.

Of course, there has never been any shortage of amateur, armchair biologists quick to second-guess virtually any action concerning the first group. A similar claque is emerging concerned with the second constituency.

Finally, I suggest Fish and Game build some bridges to the growing and organized recreational off-highway-vehicle community, as many of them are also hunters. In the two occasions in my experience when Fish and Game was invited to participate in OHV management seminars, the agency's lone participant made the basic "We got a problem so play by our rules or else" speech and left, thus forfeiting any opportunity to explore matters of mutual concern.

Tom Glass, of Boise, is with Gem State ATV Association (www.gem stateatv.org).

 

[TheTone]

I hope this organization runs out of funding in a hurry. If these idiots can continually fail to see the rampant abuse of ATVs by people who are "hunting" and the problems they are causing in many avenues for other hunters then they'll never get it. Education about the effects of roads and ATV's has been tried for around 2 decades in this state already and the facts are simply that roads and ATVs lead to lower big game populations and to lower survival at all age classes. Education efforts seem to have little effect as there are more people every year it seems that think the only way to get somewhere is from the seat of an ATV and that once on an ATV you can go anywhere road, trail or whatever. As for enforcement the people who work for IDFG in enforcement are usually pretty busy to begin with, does anyone think the best thing for them to be doing is running around after people on ATV's? I think simply closing areas is a better alternative than to spread already thin enforcement even more so.

 

[Ten Bears]

It is not my intent to downplay a serious problem: irresponsible use of off-highway vehicles while hunting. The number of ATVs continues to grow. Rather than distorted definitions, I believe the answer lies in much more aggressive education and public relations, along with strict enforcement of existing laws and rules. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has made a start in the basic hunter-education course and revisions in its regulations booklets, but much more needs to be done.

If the # of ATV's continues to go; does the # of hunters continue to grow likewise/proportionately, or have many ATVing hunters just decided to just go riding and no longer support the sport of hunting?

 

[TheTone]

Hunter numbers are pretty much stagnant to decreasing across the country.

Seems funny that you would want to underline the enforcement part of that, being as how you basically brag about your road hunting off your ATV to get your deer and elk last year. I don't know any CO who wouldn't ticket that offense.

 

[Ten Bears]

TTONE, you show where I said I was "road hunting" off my ATV last year. I ride my ATV on legal trails to the area I hunt, and killed game near my ATV. To me that means 2 things; first not all game (probably very little) runs from the sound of an ATV, and the other is I don't have to pack my game very far. Have me ticketed for that if you can.

I'm going out riding in my hunting area today. I've got trails to brush and clear.

 

[Ten Bears]

Well, I had a great ride, and see that they have been busy marking which roads are open and closed for ATV riding. I also noticed that dirt bikes don't care if roads are open or closed. The closed roads had all been ridden on by dirt bikes, but ATV's had been turning around by the signs....