Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: Realistic regulation of ORV's and Boats

  1. #1
    Member jkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    1,466

    Default Realistic regulation of ORV's and Boats

    The other ORV thread is getting a little cerebral for me.

    Seems to me one of the biggest problems with ORV's during hunting season is that hunting season almost alway coincides with monsoon season. Swamps are full, rivers are running high, and trails are generally wet. One solution is move some seasons in sensitive areas back to October after the ground starts to freeze and the rivers drop. Problem is the rivers become unrunable for boats.

    It is impossible to meet the DNR criteria for habitat degradation with any land vehicle.

    I put forth a proposal to the BOG about 12 years ago when they were just talking about changing unit 13 to 4 brow tine. The proposal was that the entire state go drawing permit for moose, any bull. It kept hunters spread out and looking at the numbers everyone that wanted a permit could have a great chance of getting one somewhere. If there were problem areas they could have registration hunts. The hate filled responses written to the BOG were amazing I thought I'd have to fight my way out of the room.
    Everyone agreed there was a problem with hunters concentrated in small areas tearing up the country and conditioning the game. Just that noone wanted a regulation that regulates them.

    How about some real ideas on how to make the situation better?
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming-----WOW-----what a ride!
    Unknown author

  2. #2
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    JKB you kind of missed the point of this post in the other thread..

    The problem is year round use the 2.5 weeks of hunting season is a small part of it ... and WINTER USE is even worse for the tundra.

    the seasons USED to be in the colder months.. however that brought Sharp declines in all of the populations... because they were so easily found. during the period of the rut.. part of the management plan is that NOT EVERY ONE kills a moose or bear every year.....if hunters go from 30% success rate to 70% rate what will that do to game populations?




    okay so WHAT is coming up in the next few meetings? irresponsible use of ATVs? that occurs year round.. hunting season is only a few weeks of it..

    trails are torn and shredded all the time... snowmobiles are one of the WORST things on tundra... most don't realize that winter travel across frozen ground is horable... don't believe it? spend the next two weeks driving across your septic line..... run your snowmobile back and forth across the lawn all winter on 1 trail.. i bet that trail is still there next summer.... for the number one reason..

    the ice gets drove down so deep and hard that it takes forever to thaw out.. and kills everything under it off..

    ATVs hit the trails in the springs as the snow leaves... that 3 inches of mud on top of the ice is a wonderful thing to spin around in and throw at each other off the tires.....


    hey, IT"S A 4 WHEELER TRAIL!!!!! people out to play don't consider the year round effect. i deal with it all summer long at home on the Rex and other area trails...

    if the trail was ONLY used in sept... for moose hunting it would heal every summer....


    as for irresponsible use of ATVs in the CUA's.... well call the trooper... he has a he-lo and can fly out there...
    __________________
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  3. #3
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Too cerebral Jim?

    Not sure how we can discuss real ideas on solutions without going down that cerebral road <grin>.

    1) Amend statutes on GAUs to define what exactly significant rutting and thermal erosion are, and allow for a fine/penalty and make violations a misdemeanor so that DNR and Troopers have actual enforcement authority. Such an amendment covers everyone at all times, not just hunters.

    2) Revisit all the Intensive Management population and harvest goals and seriously look at the repercussions in ever achieving the harvest goals without widespread ATV/ORV abuse. And how we may achieve those harvests without such degradation of lands.

    3) Look at hunting seasons as you suggested and possibly have more early-winter hunts where access isn't as problematic. (later winter hunts are not as feasible for moose after antlers have dropped because of mgmt concerns on bull-only and antler-size restrictions)

    4) Get all user groups talking in order to compromise on all of the above if necessary in order that in future more areas aren't shut down entirely to motorized access.

    I don't think it's impossible to meet the current GAU criteria at all, mainly because there is no definition for those criteria. There is huge opposition among many of the access and motorized lobbies regarding hardening any trails and making trails more sustainable. As long as a vast majority of users want to go "mud bogging" we will continue to have problems. There are certain periods as you know when none of us should travel on a trail because it just degrades it further. Yet too many really don't even consider this or care about it.

    Vince, not sure where you are coming up with the "winter use is even harder on the tundra" line of thought. I don't find that to be the case at all if we have the frozen ground and amount of snow we need.



  4. #4
    Member jkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    1,466

    Default

    I'm not sure what tundra is more damaged more by winter travel than summer I guess they got it all wrong on the Slope. I've missed all this damaged tundra in Hatcher Pass and Turnagain pass where snowmachines just in these two areas out number 4-wheelers in the rest of the state. So can we be realistic here? If I drive on a trail in Sept and I'm axles deep in grass and mud I am doing more damage than driving on the same trail 3 weeks later when there is a foot of frost. I used to haul timber out of the woods we would do our hauling in the morning when it was still frozen, the vehicles would not break the crust of the ground and we could stay on the same trail all season never braiding.

    If there is going to be high success rates the Bio's would reduce the number drawing permits or close the season early by emergency order.

    Nobody missed anybodies point I just don't accept the premise that winter travel is worse on the vegetation than summer.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming-----WOW-----what a ride!
    Unknown author

  5. #5
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Vince, not sure where you are coming up with the "winter use is even harder on the tundra" line of thought. I don't find that to be the case at all if we have the frozen ground and amount of snow we need.

    there is a small point in there mark. you know the state parks require (Denali state park for sure) minimum of 24" of snow before opening trails for. or allowing snowmobile use? how long has it been since we had 24" on the ground here in the interior....? long time here thats for sure...

    the frost that gets driven down is more detrimentally to the spring regrowth. those "trails" thaw WEEKS after the surrounding areas. thus limiting the time it takes to heal...
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  6. #6
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Vince, yes it's best to have the right amount of snow and all, but still as jkb pointed out, traveling on frozen ground causes far less damage than not. Something else to keep in mind; many of the trails like the Rex were really winter trails...that's when all the real hauling of mine supplies and cats was done for the most part.

  7. #7
    Member jkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    1,466

    Thumbs up Just gettin real

    Mark, You know I'm a champion of real solutions if there is a problem. When we start talking about ANCLA for ORV solutions my eyes glaze over.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming-----WOW-----what a ride!
    Unknown author

  8. #8
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jkb View Post
    I'm not sure what tundra is more damaged more by winter travel than summer I guess they got it all wrong on the Slope. I've missed all this damaged tundra in Hatcher Pass and Turnagain pass where snowmachines just in these two areas out number 4-wheelers in the rest of the state. So can we be realistic here?......
    No. If we're "realistic" today, somebody will be unrealistic tomorrow.

    You can't even use horses without somebody demanding it stop.

    The bottom line is that the complaints will never end, so just what is "realistic"?

  9. #9
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Vince, yes it's best to have the right amount of snow and all, but still as jkb pointed out, traveling on frozen ground causes far less damage than not. Something else to keep in mind; many of the trails like the Rex were really winter trails...that's when all the real hauling of mine supplies and cats was done for the most part.
    and you are correct on that mark however the "winter use" at that time was substantially less then it is now... not to mention the addition of furthered summer usage has also grown exponentially. and is now a year round problem with the Rex trail entire groups come up for the weekend all summer long just to ride it and play in the mud... Dozens of machines. the trails do NOT have time to heal... they get a late start on a short growing season, for the winter use, they get tore up as soon as they do thaw and attempt to regrow... and low spot form that stay wet even in the dry years because the surrounding areas drain off into it.. drying out those area's making people use them to go around the mud, creating a new trail, and starting the entire process over...

    Now you have the Rex trail.....

    now you have pissed of land owners on the trail that have to deal with the mess every one makes... BECAUSE IT IS NOT THEIR YARD... how many people would do that in their OWN back yard.... ( well if you live in Wasilla don't answer) and the late seasons on the moose have been addressed for years that is a MOOT point and will never go anywhere...
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  10. #10
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Well jkb asked for real ideas...

    ...and I spouted off a few that AK BHA is trying to work on. Interested in hearing more and what the thoughts are on the ones I gave.

  11. #11
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jkb View Post
    .

    Nobody missed anybodies point I just don't accept the premise that winter travel is worse on the vegetation than summer.


    spend the winter driving over your septic line, the leech field any part of it....... come may when things start to thaw you'll have a backed up toilet... Promise even if it is 12' down....


    and the "premise" is environmental biology 101.... DNR, the cooperative extension service they all have the info for teaching people this stuff..
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  12. #12
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    back later, to hard to type one handed, lil one passed out on me
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  13. #13
    Member jkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    1,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    No. If we're "realistic" today, somebody will be unrealistic tomorrow.

    You can't even use horses without somebody demanding it stop.

    The bottom line is that the complaints will never end, so just what is "realistic"?
    In regard to the BOG they can spread people out with drawing permits and reasonable access.

    They can also get rid of the ridiculous antler restrictions.

    People riding around looking at illegal bull moose for 40 days in unit 14 and 16 a couple years ago is crazy. 3000 people riding around unit 13 looking for 150 4 brow tine bulls is crazy.

    If the problem is the trails and the solution is the BOG there is plenty they can do to encourage people to not tear things up. How about if you are cited something in regards to ATV regs you lose your opportunity to put in for Drawing permits for 5 years.

    The answer is not closing areas to ORVs. We need to harden the bad spots on popular trails. We need common sense regulation and punishment that fits the crime. If a ATV ran over someones sewer line on private property near the Rex, the operator gets to pay to repair it and lose their hunting privileges for 5 years. I gotta go to bed I could write on this subject all night.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming-----WOW-----what a ride!
    Unknown author

  14. #14
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jkb View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    No. If we're "realistic" today, somebody will be unrealistic tomorrow.

    You can't even use horses without somebody demanding it stop.

    The bottom line is that the complaints will never end, so just what is "realistic"?
    In regard to the BOG they can spread people out with drawing permits and reasonable access......
    That doesn't solve the supposed problems with these vehicles.

    Are these supposed environmental problems just a front to reduce hunting pressure?

  15. #15
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Jim, the antler restriction thing

    Jim, there are some valid biological/mgmt concerns that have led to the various antler restrictions. I don't think we can simply get rid of those.

  16. #16
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Jim, there are some valid biological/mgmt concerns that have led to the various antler restrictions. I don't think we can simply get rid of those.
    And 15 years after implementation of the antler restrictions I've also not seen any follow up research to validate the original biological premise, either.

  17. #17
    Member arrowslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    270

    Default

    What was the original biological premise?
    I know personally I feel antler restriction has affected the antler growth in the area I am in. The typical moose used to have wide laid out palms with only 3 brow tines, so they would hit the 50 or 3 mark. Now it has changed to 4 brow, I believe that was because we were having allot of moose taken with 3 brows that were down in the 30's. The antlers are changing in the heavily pressured area I am in. They aren't getting as wide but are getting narrower and taller. Some of the wider ones in the 35-40's are forks. After that they stay narrow and go up. If they keep thinning out they'll look like elk (maybe a little exaggerated). Like something in the gene pool changed. I am not saying this has any value, but just what I have noticed about moose changing in a heavily hunted area. I wanted to know what the original premise was and see if it had anything to do with what our group has been seeing.

  18. #18
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arrowslinger View Post
    What was the original biological premise?....
    I can't find a good link to the theory, but it goes like this:

    If human harvests are limited to 50" or 3/4 brow tines and spike/fork, the medium aged bulls who genetically have the greatest antler growth will be spared until they get big (>50", or with >3/4 brow tines), and the yearlings who will likely never grow big antlers (spike/forks, who should have paddles after 17-18 months of life) will have a greater chance of getting culled before they mate too often.

  19. #19
    Member arrowslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    270

    Default

    I guess we need to thin out the forks then, because we are getting some wide, heavy massed spike / forks. Quite a few 4 brows aren't making 50 now either.

  20. #20
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default arrowslinger...the reasoning for SF/50" reg

    Arrowslinger,

    The reasoning behind the spike-fork/50" or 3 or 4 brow tine reg has to do with needing to maintain adequate bull:cow ratios (preventing overharvest of bulls) as well as ensuring genetic diversity of a herd. It has worked to improve bull:cow ratios in some areas, as well as provide for longer general hunting seasons.

    It hasn't worked in all areas, which is explained in the link below:
    http://wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm....hntbul6#spike



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •