Hunting Access to Public land blocked!!!
- Thread starter Ithaca 37
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
LA, please show me where I said we should DENY access to public lands...thats the debate here.
Like I said, theres a huge difference between limiting and denying access.
Apparently its just a little too complex for some people to "get" that.
I have never, and will never, side with any government agency or individual who denies access to public lands by way of legal right-of-way or easement.
I also strongly support a VERY heavy fine and loss of public lands leases for individuals who post public lands as private, lock gates illegally, or otherwise try to disuade legal access to public lands. No better than a poacher.
I also support limiting access where its needed and called for to enhance hunting, wildlife populations, or wildlife habitat.
If I'm the dumbass for believing in that, so be it.
Like I said, theres a huge difference between limiting and denying access.
Apparently its just a little too complex for some people to "get" that.
I have never, and will never, side with any government agency or individual who denies access to public lands by way of legal right-of-way or easement.
I also strongly support a VERY heavy fine and loss of public lands leases for individuals who post public lands as private, lock gates illegally, or otherwise try to disuade legal access to public lands. No better than a poacher.
I also support limiting access where its needed and called for to enhance hunting, wildlife populations, or wildlife habitat.
If I'm the dumbass for believing in that, so be it.
Ithaca 37
New member
LA, Maybe this issue of access is a little too complex for some to understand easily. I know it can be difficult, but with lots of work we can probably all grasp the concept eventually.
OK.... Just humor me and go back thru the posts about the atvs in idaho..... All we have to do is change the names and repost here... you're starting to sound like some of us about access. This was exactly what I and some other warned you about, that even you would be locked out, but oh no ,,,, so told ya so.
Ten Bears
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Theres a huge difference between LIMITING use/access and totally DENYING access. A few people around here seem to have trouble understanding that...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> .... few around here dont seem to realize is that limiting access isnt just about whats better for each user...but that limiting access is also better for the wildlife and wildlife habitat as well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bottom line BUZZ is, you said
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'm not against gates, even locked ones, as long as the area is accessable by foot traffic and ATV's arent allowed behind the gates.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If it's in your favor, you support it, but if they lock you out too, then you don't like it.
Well put LOST.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> .... few around here dont seem to realize is that limiting access isnt just about whats better for each user...but that limiting access is also better for the wildlife and wildlife habitat as well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bottom line BUZZ is, you said
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'm not against gates, even locked ones, as long as the area is accessable by foot traffic and ATV's arent allowed behind the gates.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If it's in your favor, you support it, but if they lock you out too, then you don't like it.
Well put LOST.
Locking EVERYONE outa public ground sure was accomplished a lot quicker than I thought. Just a month or so ago it was just those terrible ATVs, now its all of ya. But, bottom line is the two extremes fought it out and the side IT promoted won. I know IT wasn't going for a total ban on access, but the groups he promoted were. Lots of us wanted something in the middle, but the only two options were the extremes. Sucks.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ten bears, you're wrong, plain and simple.
I've stated many times that I'm all in favor of public access. I've also made it clear I'm all in favor of limiting access by certain users, and not just for selfish reasons.
What I was refering to with the no ATV's remark is this: If the gates are closed to passenger vehicles they should also be closed to ATV use, but foot traffic should still be allowed. In other words there is no reason for denial of access to public lands, if a legal access point exists.
However, I'm also all in favor of limiting access where its appropriate, EVEN foot traffic, in instances like protecting wintering big-game and things along those lines. However, the idea of some welfare rancher who leases BLM lands and then tries to deny legal access...no way.
I'm not a selfish bastard like the average ATV rider out there...I dont have to be able to use every last square inch of public lands for my entertainment.
There is value to me knowing that there are areas that arent hammered by atv's, even if I never choose to hike into such areas.
I've stated many times that I'm all in favor of public access. I've also made it clear I'm all in favor of limiting access by certain users, and not just for selfish reasons.
What I was refering to with the no ATV's remark is this: If the gates are closed to passenger vehicles they should also be closed to ATV use, but foot traffic should still be allowed. In other words there is no reason for denial of access to public lands, if a legal access point exists.
However, I'm also all in favor of limiting access where its appropriate, EVEN foot traffic, in instances like protecting wintering big-game and things along those lines. However, the idea of some welfare rancher who leases BLM lands and then tries to deny legal access...no way.
I'm not a selfish bastard like the average ATV rider out there...I dont have to be able to use every last square inch of public lands for my entertainment.
There is value to me knowing that there are areas that arent hammered by atv's, even if I never choose to hike into such areas.
BuzzH
Well-known member
LA, it hasnt been accomplished, its being proposed.
Bullhound
New member
LA and Ten Bears,
Rather than just puke out the old "told ya so" crap, give your opinion on whether you like this idea or not.
Do you think that ANY private party should be handed the opportunity to lock everybody else out of public lands?
Rather than just puke out the old "told ya so" crap, give your opinion on whether you like this idea or not.
Do you think that ANY private party should be handed the opportunity to lock everybody else out of public lands?
Sorry Bull, but this is the perfect opportunity to twist the knife in the ol great one IT.
As an AG pro, I like the idea I can close a road or gate if I have something special going on in there. As a sportsman, I think there is a better way of getting around the bs than to put the blame on the ag folks. But hey, the sad fact of the matter is there is only two options... the two extremes. Flip a coin, which do ya want?
Totally closed off, or able to bribe your way in if you want? That is our two choices now. Each of them totally sucks in MHO.
As an AG pro, I like the idea I can close a road or gate if I have something special going on in there. As a sportsman, I think there is a better way of getting around the bs than to put the blame on the ag folks. But hey, the sad fact of the matter is there is only two options... the two extremes. Flip a coin, which do ya want?
Totally closed off, or able to bribe your way in if you want? That is our two choices now. Each of them totally sucks in MHO.
Bullhound
New member
LA,
I'm not blaming anyone here! Just answer the question. Are you just enjoying screwing with people or do you really like this idea?
I'm not blaming anyone here! Just answer the question. Are you just enjoying screwing with people or do you really like this idea?
What is this, a lesson in psychos? Either lock out the atv's or we'll lock you all out?
MHO=== It's better to lock out everyone instead of just those segments you don't like. I'm not up to hostaging out a segment of the sportsmen just b/c I personally don't like them. It's too bad too many people will sell out a segment just to protect their own ass in the shortterm, but what will happen is they will be next..... and who is going to stand up for them? Nobody, b/c you already sold everyone else out.
MHO=== It's better to lock out everyone instead of just those segments you don't like. I'm not up to hostaging out a segment of the sportsmen just b/c I personally don't like them. It's too bad too many people will sell out a segment just to protect their own ass in the shortterm, but what will happen is they will be next..... and who is going to stand up for them? Nobody, b/c you already sold everyone else out.
Ten Bears
New member
BULL, I'm waiting to see the information presented by the BLM on this issue. Before I wade in.
BUZZ, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I've stated many times that I'm all in favor of public access. I've also made it clear I'm all in favor of limiting access by certain users, and not just for selfish reasons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But you don't deny thatyou have selfish tendencies(?). You said:
<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, IMO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I win on the atv issue, because for all the caring on you do, it wont do you a bit of good....they already have been and will be more restricted all the time. Just what I want to have happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, you win.
You still can't get past the fact that ATV's are NOT passenger vehicles, can you (hence the little sticker that reads NO PASSENGERS)? They are designed differently for different purposes. Why should they be restricted to road systems designated for passenger vehicles?
How's it feel to be the winner now?
BUZZ, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I've stated many times that I'm all in favor of public access. I've also made it clear I'm all in favor of limiting access by certain users, and not just for selfish reasons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But you don't deny thatyou have selfish tendencies(?). You said:
<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, IMO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I win on the atv issue, because for all the caring on you do, it wont do you a bit of good....they already have been and will be more restricted all the time. Just what I want to have happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, you win.
You still can't get past the fact that ATV's are NOT passenger vehicles, can you (hence the little sticker that reads NO PASSENGERS)? They are designed differently for different purposes. Why should they be restricted to road systems designated for passenger vehicles?
How's it feel to be the winner now?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ten, actually it feels pretty good to be the winner...
For starters, I dont believe the BLM will be granting many landowners the right to block public access to public lands, I really dont.
If they do, they'd better be ready for some pissed off people, pissed of politicians, etc. My guess is, this idea will die a quick and decisive death...
Sure, I'll admit to having a few selfish ideas, but I dont express them here, really I dont. When I make decisions and write comments on issues, I try to keep wildlife and the environment in mind over my own selfish wants...but thats just me.
Hell, I know 99 percent of the hunters out there dont give wildlife any thought beyond getting their limit of _______(fill in the blank with whatever animal they hunt) as quickly and as easily as possible. Which is why we've seen a huge increase in 300 ultra-mags, ATV's, scent-lok suits, etc. etc. etc.
Theres really no need to quote me on how I feel about ATV's. I havent changed that stance at all...I think they should be restricted to designated routes for all purposes (on public lands).
I also have never changed my ideas on the right of the public to access their public lands, where a recreationalist can gain legal access. What good are public lands with NO access?....notice I didnt say LIMITED access.
I dont find it necessary or even appropriate for an all or nothing approach to public lands access...do we need a road or an ATV trail to access ALL PUBLIC LANDS? I dont think we do, why must access involve being able to drive your schoolbus, microbus, 4X4, motorcycle, atv, or sedan to every piece of public land? Couldnt we just have some access by non-motorized means? With 380,000 miles of open roads just on FS lands, and most BLM lands even more open than that, the problem isnt too little motorized access, in my opinion.
For starters, I dont believe the BLM will be granting many landowners the right to block public access to public lands, I really dont.
If they do, they'd better be ready for some pissed off people, pissed of politicians, etc. My guess is, this idea will die a quick and decisive death...
Sure, I'll admit to having a few selfish ideas, but I dont express them here, really I dont. When I make decisions and write comments on issues, I try to keep wildlife and the environment in mind over my own selfish wants...but thats just me.
Hell, I know 99 percent of the hunters out there dont give wildlife any thought beyond getting their limit of _______(fill in the blank with whatever animal they hunt) as quickly and as easily as possible. Which is why we've seen a huge increase in 300 ultra-mags, ATV's, scent-lok suits, etc. etc. etc.
Theres really no need to quote me on how I feel about ATV's. I havent changed that stance at all...I think they should be restricted to designated routes for all purposes (on public lands).
I also have never changed my ideas on the right of the public to access their public lands, where a recreationalist can gain legal access. What good are public lands with NO access?....notice I didnt say LIMITED access.
I dont find it necessary or even appropriate for an all or nothing approach to public lands access...do we need a road or an ATV trail to access ALL PUBLIC LANDS? I dont think we do, why must access involve being able to drive your schoolbus, microbus, 4X4, motorcycle, atv, or sedan to every piece of public land? Couldnt we just have some access by non-motorized means? With 380,000 miles of open roads just on FS lands, and most BLM lands even more open than that, the problem isnt too little motorized access, in my opinion.
Ten Bears
New member
My point exactly. You are in favor of restrictions on your terms. I don't see this as a access closure. After all there will be use of the resource by someone, right?
Just not on your terms. I am indifferent at the moment. I see that as you would catagorically restrict ATV's from public lands. I now see that maybe this restriction from grazing leases isn't such a bad thing either, I mean, I wouldn't want you stepping in the cow droppings.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What good are public lands with NO access?....notice I didnt say LIMITED access.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly, buy some cows and get yourself a lease.
I see that as the same solution you have given the ATV rider here. Remember saying something disabled riders have no business hunting if they can't walk. (I'll find it).
Same applies here, can't afford cows and a lease, don't bother.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-11-2003 17:37: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>
Just not on your terms. I am indifferent at the moment. I see that as you would catagorically restrict ATV's from public lands. I now see that maybe this restriction from grazing leases isn't such a bad thing either, I mean, I wouldn't want you stepping in the cow droppings.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly, buy some cows and get yourself a lease.
I see that as the same solution you have given the ATV rider here. Remember saying something disabled riders have no business hunting if they can't walk. (I'll find it).
Same applies here, can't afford cows and a lease, don't bother.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-11-2003 17:37: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ten, you're again wrong....
It will be a closure for EVERYONE, except one lease holder.
Limiting access to foot traffic only will not be a closure but for a very few.
If you think thats a good idea, well, discussion over. Thankfully, you're in the minority on that.
Personally, if it comes to that, access to one person only, then there should be no access by anyone.
It will be a closure for EVERYONE, except one lease holder.
Limiting access to foot traffic only will not be a closure but for a very few.
If you think thats a good idea, well, discussion over. Thankfully, you're in the minority on that.
Personally, if it comes to that, access to one person only, then there should be no access by anyone.
Ten Bears
New member
BUZZ, I doubt you'll comprehend what I'm trying to say, but here goes.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> EXACTLY MY POINT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> EXACTLY MY POINT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
JoseCuervo
New member
You guys are entertaining as all hell. I am stuck over in Japan for a few days, and the ability to read some good old fashioned name calling sure beats watching CNN all morning. Keep up the good work, and if any of you actually address the issue:
“whether BLM should authorize temporarily locked gates on public lands in order to protect private land and improve livestock operations.”
The issue in this thread is actually a pretty important one, if you ever hunt on public lands. Keep in mind, in Idaho, many agencies allow livestock operations on public ground, so the impact could spread to other areas.
“whether BLM should authorize temporarily locked gates on public lands in order to protect private land and improve livestock operations.”
The issue in this thread is actually a pretty important one, if you ever hunt on public lands. Keep in mind, in Idaho, many agencies allow livestock operations on public ground, so the impact could spread to other areas.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Ten Bears and LA, what are you guys...anti-hunters now? You sure sound like it. What does this issue have to do with ATV's? Absolutely nothing! This issue is about ranchers having the authorization to lock the public out of public lands. Don't you get it? Everybody will be locked out, not just ATV's. If only ATV's were being restricted, those ATV riders would still be able to walk in and hunt. Which is how it should be. If you have to hunt off an ATV, you shouldn't be hunting.
What does this issue have to do with ATV's? Absolutely everything! This issue is about extremes taking what they want and having sportsmen fight over who they are going to sacrifsy. Don't you get it? Everybody will be locked out, not just ATV's. You want to sell out the atvs, fine. TenBears and I have enough balls to stand up to all ya and to the extremes and tell everyone that sportsmen count. Sportsmen matter, there is enough country for everyone to have a piece for their own selves and we don't have to cannabalize some segment of the sportsmen just to appease some leftist. We know not to count on you lily livers to do what is right for the wildlife and for hunting.
Tell us .... WHO are you going to lead to the alter to be disposed of next?
Tell us .... WHO are you going to lead to the alter to be disposed of next?
Similar threads
