Hunting Access to Public land blocked!!!

[Wyodeerhunter]

Public land locked in by private land is bullshit! At least the rancher should let you cross to go hunt there.

has anyone priced what it would cost for a helicopter to drop you in on landlocked public land? A guy here in WY had his own bike like thing that he flew into land locked public land and he said it was a hunters paradise! They shown a pic of him with a 6pt bull he took with a bow and a nice 185 class mule deer buck. I bet a helicopter ride in wouldn't be bad if you split it with a couple companions,

Its bullshit though you would even have to resort to that!

 

[BuzzH]

LA, I'm not going support something that degrades wildlife habitat or hunting in general...both of which ATV's do.

What you dont seem to get is that ATV's are the number one complaint received by the various agencies year after year. I guess you dont believe it, or dont believe in addressing the problem?

I'm not taking anyone to a sacrificial alter, the ATVers have driven their lazy asses up to that alter, at full-throttle, all by themselves.

I dont buy into the theory of "we all have to stick together" its a load of shit. Its everyones responsibility to do the right thing, unfortunately there are groups that just havent done that...atv's are leading those groups.

I dont tear up habitat with my atv, I dont chase game on my atv, I dont even own an atv. How many non-hunters look out for the interest of hunters? Yeah, not many, and I sure as hell am not expecting them to. I can choose to defend or support any gruop I want, and I also can choose not to defend or support any group I want based on their actions.

I choose to not support ATVers or the BLM giving the power to a landowner to lock the public out of public lands...

Just because I dont think ATV's belong on all public lands, doesnt mean I cant believe in Public lands access.

 

[Washington Hunter]

LA, You need to get back to the issue. ATV's are not the issue. Access is the issue. What they are saying is ranchers will be able to close public land, completely. Whenever they want. Not just for hunting, or for ATV use, but ALL use. Is that too complicated for you to understand?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Here's it is again: "“whether BLM should authorize temporarily locked gates on public lands in order to protect private land and improve livestock operations.”"

Every time some welfare rancher has a cow somewhere of course he's going to claim it will improve his livestock operation if he locks the gate!

Is that the criteria anyone here wants used for denying access to public lands, or should it be something with more public input and deliberation?

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Is that the criteria anyone here wants used for denying access to public lands, or should it be something with more public input and deliberation?"

I think its a bunch of crap that they would even think about closing access for this reason!!!
BUT-----I find it funny as hell who is making a fuss over it now,and the fact that they can't see any other side of it except what THEY might now lose !!!!Or will they?
Isnt there miles and miles of land out there that will still be left open for anyone that isnt to lazy to find it?
I think the only fair thing to do is to go relise some wolve's or bear's and maybe find some indangered fly that live's off of cow crap.
Im sure some of the greenie org. would be pleased as punch to get the job of following all the cow's around to "protect" them from the predator's,let them also police it from tresspassing hunters,what greenie wouldn't be thrilled to have that job? LOL
Now that would be a real win-win for everyone

OH except the HUNTER'S.
Yeah no need to stick together LMAO
The funnest thing is that most of us pro-ATV people aren't even asking to have access to ride off trail or road,only to be treated like any other public land user.


Im having a good time seeing how worked up some folk's are now that there little piece of the public pie might be effected.
The point is ACCESS to public area's to be uses in a legal manner.

Isnt that what we have been saying?
Get one segment out ,you will be next!!!!!!

 

[BuzzH]

MD4ME, what have you done to ensure public lands access lately...?

Thats what I thought.

Are you busy contacting your elected officials, the BLM, etc.?

Thats what I thought.

Oh, and I would rather have BLM, FS lands that were totally inaccessible than see a bunch of fat-assed atv riders tearing through it.

 

[Lostagain]

Offical poll results... thank you Buzz.
"Oh, and I would rather have BLM, FS lands that were totally inaccessible....."

Then that's what will happen. You sure showed those fatassed atvers.

 

[BuzzH]

LA, you been busy writing your reps?

Thats what I thought, THANK YOU....for nothing. You've done alot to ensure public lands access.

Nice attitude by the way:

LA said, "As an AG pro, I like the idea I can close a road or gate"

Uh huh, thanks for the support, way to look out for yourself. Never mind you're totally DENYING all access.

LA, the champion of public lands access said, "MHO=== It's better to lock out everyone instead of just those segments you don't like"

All be darned, I would have never expected you to say something like that? What with the way you're always sticking up for public lands access and all.

Oh, and for the record, I dont think this mess will pass, thanks to the folks who choose to do something to keep public lands open to the public.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-12-2003 09:44: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Ten Bears]

BUZZ: <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> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...theres a huge difference between limiting and denying access.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Personally, if it comes to that, access to one person only, then there should be no access by anyone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What are you trying to say?

Is it that you feel you'll be locked out, but some "welfare rancher" will be allowed in?

I see this as a level restriction. Nothing more. I have seen this in Wyoming. I don't always agree with the closures, but access is access, and restrictions come in many forms. Think of the wildlife BUZZ:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...limiting access is also better for the wildlife and wildlife habitat as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It aint legal access if it's restricted is it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What's the value of knowing it's there, but also knowing youcan never use it? I know of land owned by timber companys around here that have cows on them all summer, the gates are locked, and everybody but passenger vehicles can use the roads (ATV's are not passenger vehicles).

WH, we have set back and watched hunters be segmented into groups that are "worthy" and "unworthy". I have been informed here that since I own an ATV I am classified and stereotyped here as; all ATV riders are fat arsed lazy slobs, poachers that use ATV's are slob ATV riding hunters, ATV's should be restricted to the travel paths for passenger vehilces even though they are not passenger vehicles. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Everybody will be locked out, not just ATV's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "NOT JUST ATV'S", that's good, who will YOU offer up next? I will bet that the wildlife in those areas of restriction wont mind no hunters around, and remember, it'll all about the wildlife.
Anti-hunter, no, I'm just anti-elitist.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you have to hunt off an ATV, you shouldn't be hunting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let me explain this again. Hunting from a vehicle is illegal. Using one as a mode of transportation to get from one place (camp) to another (hunting area) is not. Yet there are those here that would like to make it so.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ATV's are not the issue. Access is the issue.... Not just for hunting, or for ATV use, but ALL use. Is that too complicated for you to understand? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We understand fully what is proposed here. I think it is you who refuse to listen to what we are saying.

ITHACA, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> By locking some gates it would be possible to block access to many miles of roads leading into large areas of BLM or FS. Good quality roads. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quality to who?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> .... Or at least people would have to drive about thirty to fifty miles extra and have to use a very poor quality road to get into those thousands of acres. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't use an ATV on those poor quality roads, use your passenger vehicle.

It's only about restrictions, now you might get you some.

 

[Ten Bears]

BUZZ, at the moment I am supporting the measure.

 

[Ten Bears]

Oh ya, and I have contacted the BLM.

 

[Ithaca 37]

I have no problem with denying or restricting access for some types of vehicles to some areas. I just don't want welfare ranchers making the decision. I think we should use the same type of public process other travel designations go thru.

 

[BuzzH]

Ten bears,

This is PRECISELY why areas with limited access are absolutely key, and why ATV's and UNLIMITED access threaten it. There does not have to be an all or nothing approach, just because you cant ride an atv there doesnt mean we're locking out people, just limiting the mode of travel to get there. Further, as an agency the FS/BLM can set limits based on the demands of what society thinks is appropriate use.

To answer your question regarding what value lands have that have resricted access, I'll refer to a small portion of a very long letter a friend of mine wrote about the roadless initiative. My buddy is a retired FS district ranger, and also a top-notch outdoorsman.


"There are 380,000 miles of roads in the National Forest system, more than
30,000 miles in Montana alone. As I approach the age of 60, I struggle to
reach the same areas I did 20 years ago. However, even when I can no longer
get to these areas I will remember the values that exist there as I look up
from a distant point. I do not support those who are so self-indulgent that they insist on being able to drive to anywhere they might choose. One doesn't need to be physically present in wild country to appreciate its existence.

I am most concerned about perpetuating wild country experiences for the next generation. Future generations deserve our prudent care of roadless areas.

The federal government Science report for the upper Columbia Basin Planning effort found roadless areas were the most
ecologically intact of any of the federally or other ownership managed lands in the study area."

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-12-2003 10:05: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Lostagain]

IT, Buzz... your ONLY bitch is that some welfare rancher gets to make the decision and not YOU?

 

[Lostagain]

After talking on the phone to someone I know in DC, she gave me the inside dope about it. A demo senator from NY knew she couldn't get the bush adm to close access to areas in the west, but knew if she presented as the ranchers could then the idea would fly.

Pretty slick. They believe in DC it will go along with some other crap legis and pass. It went from being a potentially east vs west battle to being sportsmen vs AG, support now at nearly 80-1.

END RESULT is the same, just got someone different to blame.

 

[BuzzH]

LA, I'm against anyone who denies access to public lands.

I'm not against people who impose restrictions, in other words if the welfare rancher wanted to close access to foot traffic only...assuming a legitimate reason...no I wouldnt have a problem with it.

However, there should be involvement by the public in such decisions, not just the agency and one welfare rancher.

The problem I have is that most welfare ranchers seem to think they own MY FRICKIN LAND.

Oh, and by the way I dont give a shit what bush and his cronies propose, I'll access (by foot and legal access point) any BLM lands in the west despite what the this new round of crap says. Its my land and I dont care what any BLM manager or welfare rancher has to say about it.

Dont worry if this does pass, sportsmen can and will put pressure on the local BLM to make sure not a SINGLE welfare ranchers case is justified for denying public access, like you've said before LA, most BLM land is just sagebrush, dirt, and weeds anyway. What legitimate reason could be drummed up to keep the public out?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-12-2003 10:26: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Ten Bears]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'm not against people who impose restrictions, in other words if the welfare rancher wanted to close access to foot traffic only... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> See, that's the sticker, foot travel includes you, your upset because you read this as not including you in the access. You still don't get it do you?
And no,you never really answered the other questions either.

 

[Lostagain]

It seems you just show up when things affect YOU.

Where the HELL were you when the ideas to change the entire BLM/USFS management from an extraction to a ecosystem management? They asked for comments to do away with timber sales, grazing leases, etc and change it to contracting out and paying someone to do those things in a manner to benefit and on a timetable of the BLM/USFS. Even those welfare ag bastards at the farm bureau went for them. I guess your's got lost in the mail, more likely you just ignored it b/c it didn't affect YOU.

 

[BuzzH]

Ten, I get it totally, you want to be able to drive your atv to every last piece of public ground...I dont want you to be able to.

In fact I want the opposite, I want more areas where non-motorized travel is the only allowable travel.

However, unlike you, I dont want everything off limits to motorized travel. I'm not opposed to limited motor access in some areas. As of right now, theres way too much motorized access on FS and even more on BLM lands.

GET this through your head, I've already said it many times, I'm against DENYING access to public lands. Limiting access to foot travel is not DENYING access, even the ATVers can access that, just not by machine.

What this new proposal does is DENY ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS, if you support that, well, it isnt worth my time or yours to discuss this any further.

 

[BuzzH]

LA said, "Where the HELL were you when the ideas to change the entire BLM/USFS management from an extraction to a ecosystem management?"

I was actually on the ground, working for the USDA Forest Service implementing the then new idea of eco-system management, as well as writing in my comments on everything from RA's to Lynx to travel plans.

The better question, what were you up to?

LA, find someone elses leg to hump, I've been involved in more public processes on resource issues than any 30 people on this board.