View Poll Results: Should there be motorized access in the Dalton Corridor?

Voters
176. You may not vote on this poll
  • No way, the area is unique and should be preserved as such.

    101 57.39%
  • Absolutely. The area is huge and needs more access.

    15 8.52%
  • The area should be open to a limited number of hunters--maybe a draw system?

    8 4.55%
  • Parts of the area should be open to atv use.

    32 18.18%
  • Let's research the impact more thoroughly before we do anything.

    14 7.95%
  • Get a horse. I loath atv's!

    12 6.82%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54

Thread: Haul Road access poll

  1. #1
    Member fullkurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska/Idaho
    Posts
    2,155

    Post Haul Road access poll

    Should we have motorized access in the Haul Road (Dalton) corridor? Take a second voice your thoughts via this poll and drop a comment if it makes you fell better about it.
    We've debated this topic (perhaps ad nauseum) but a quick vote will let everybody know how we are currently thinking about this issue.
    I've thought on it in the past and even posted about the option to research the impact of a closed loop atv trail utilizing a creek bed or something to minimize impact. Now I'm gonna say no way. I just don't think folks will use the area prudently and it will suffer--as will game #'s. Sorry for the rant...back to the poll....

    Frank

  2. #2

    Default

    I vote for no access. It would be abused. I would even say all hunters with any weapon should be at least two miles off the road. It is tough to hike and pack that far but it would put an end to those few road hunters
    who ruin it for the rest of us.

  3. #3
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    12,860

    Default

    I'd be OK with it south of the Brooks Range, but since that wasn't an option I voted for "no way". What a great way to decrease opportunity and damage the habitat of the animals we enjoy persuing.

    -Brian

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sitka, AK
    Posts
    142

    Default

    I think it should remain closed to motorized vehicle access. I also think that the regulations should be simplified and modified so there isn't any room for ambiguity.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Deep in Hllary country NY
    Posts
    446

    Red face Nice=Hard to get to!

    Hope they keep it with the restrictions that are already in place.The chase is what is special for me when I hunt. Bill

  6. #6
    Member Ripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    165

    Default

    I know the horse answer was meant to be funny, but in seriousness, is it possible to get 5 miles off the road with a horse? I haven't hunted up there before but I was looking into trying to find out if the terrain allows for horse access, or if it is too tough going for a pack horse. So I might have to walk, but that is fine...I do loath ATVs!

  7. #7
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,288

    Thumbs down Opposed

    There has been a lot of discussion about how this could possibly work if we opened it only south of Atigun Pass on a "few" designated trails. Time and time again, though, it became evident that the costs (monetarily, and to wildlife and habitat) of even "regulated access" far outweighed the benefits to hunters. Many correctly assume that the area would quickly become a draw hunt, whereas now it's open to everyone. Basically, if we were to open it up, it'd be a "draw controlled-use" hunt.

    In my talks with various other orgs about this, the ones who support it stand firm on one particular position that they won't compromise on. And that's the real kicker. They want to be allowed to drive their atv/orv to the kill site to salvage the meat. It seems absurd that we would want to regulate atv access and keep atvs to designated trails, yet allow them to friggin' be able to drive across the tundra to get the meat.

    I know it's absurd to put the cart before the horse and legalize access before we even draw up multi-agency plans and define exactly what trails (or new trails) would be opened and just what the regs would be. What a quagmire, and had SB85 passed we'd be in that quagmire right now.

    (PS, I don't think atvs are to loathed. There is atv use, and atv "abuse." Part of atv abuse is the concentration of hunters that affects both habitat and wildlife. It isn't just about habitat or scarring; it's also about large influxes of hunters to specific areas of what have formerly been refugia for wildlife.)
    Last edited by bushrat; 11-15-2006 at 16:12. Reason: added Postscript

  8. #8
    Member AKFishOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eagle River (Home!)
    Posts
    1,284

    Question 2 miles

    Would be nice if it was less than 5 miles, maybe 2…wonder how that (5 miles) was determined.

    Two people drinking beer and they looked at each other and said no way I'd want to carry something 5 miles, hey good idea.

    Seriously does anyone know where 5 miles came from.

    Thanks

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,297

    Default

    I dont have a problem with the ATV use on the south side of the pass. The reason I say this is because I have driven that stretch of road many times and it seems to get little to no use, at least from what I have seen. The only life I see between the Yukon and Coldfoot is hunters either being flown out of the few strips and grayling Lake or Tourist and then the draw hunters for moose in Sept. Thats it everybody else blasts through that 100 mile stretch going somewhere but not in there. I have had some friends that bear baited in that stretch but only the motivated pursue that for long especially with gas prices what they are. The terrain in the stretch I speak of is no different than the Steese, the Elliot, or even the Rich and the Parks for that matter. Lots of rolling hills, timber ,and lots of creeks , and only a few outdoortsman that activley use that land for recreation, maybe a float hunter or two. Definately a big NO on the North side of the pass the place would be destroyed. This is just my opinion and I love to go up to the Brooks and have had some great times up there with bow in hand. its always been a special place for me, and I got my ultimate trophy of all the critters I have ever killed up there , this guy with a bow at 20 yards! So needless to say the Brooks holds a special place in my heart.

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../rambeatup.jpg


    And after a nice bath from the taxidermist



    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../ramonwall.jpg

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,297

    Default

    Mark (BR) , there aint enough money in the world to fund enforcement to keep the guys on the same beaten path ( a regulated trail). Hunters just arent like that, we want to get away from each other and I cant perceive a method for regulating a designated trail. As the trail got worse a new one would be started and so on. Eventually it would be like many other trail systems around the state, a good example is the REX. Theres hundreds of commonly used trails now that arent enforced across the interior. It could never happen in an organized manner in my opinion. Another thought is that it seems as though we are in an ever losing battle on available lands to hunt. I have lost some great hunting spots due to the state giving it back to the natives but you never see anyone giving us any more land to use. Thats another reason why i think that there should be access along the 100 miles stretch I spoke of.

  11. #11

    Default open the haul road

    I say open it up. It is a unique part of Alaska that should be able to be explored using a atv. However there needs to be pull outs at certain locations so people can access areas safely. To pay for this either make it a toll road or appropriate funds in another manner. If the game does not support the pressure which is (doubtful) then turn it into a permit area. My vote is lets open it up so the atv pressure is spread out over a wider area! Chef

  12. #12
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,288

    Default Alaskacub

    AKcub,

    I hear your concerns. But you gotta realize that's a pretty mixed message you're sending, saying on one hand that it'd just turn out like other atv-access areas where regs aren't enforced and plenty of abuse takes place, and on the other saying we should open it from the bridge to Coldfoot. (BTW, you first said you had no problem with access "south of the pass," which I took to mean Atigun.)

    I think what you're implying is that the 100-mile stretch in there wouldn't see much use, but I'm not sure. If that were true though, then why open it?

    The argument of "spreading out" the pressure from other areas is one I continually hear. On the surface, it makes sense. But at some point, saturation (of hunters and access) is reached. And then, I suppose (in 2050), our grandkids say to spread out the pressure to Russia <grin>. But by then the poor hunters who were only hoping to reconnect with solitude and quiet and some tangible connection to a place left on earth that was really "wilderness"...well that will be all gone. It's a tough one, for sure. We all want the same things, basically, but we want them in differing amounts. It ends up by us all defining what part of hunting is most important to us. Some want "easy" access, lots of animals, high success rates. Others want wilderness, quiet, solitude, and that fulfills what they "need," more than harvesting an animal. Somewhere in there is compromise. Part of that compromise is saying no to atv/orv access in some places. Part of that compromise is saying yes to atv/orv access in some places. We aren't the only user-group, however, and I think that's a point we too-often forget.

    Best, Mark

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,297

    Default

    Mark sorry I wasn't more specific, I hadn't really put that much thought as to what boundaries I thought were best. I am speaking mostly from the bridge to Coldfoot. Those last comments of mine are also a concern. I know the state has these land lease agreements with the Native Org and you see them constantly getting land back but whos fighting for us to get more land available to us? The reality is that theres just not enough resources for all of us to have what we want. Thats a reality that cant be changed. it just seems silly to me to have a 100 mile stretch of land that doesn't get used that could easily be utilized out 25 miles on either side of that road(in some places) which would provide a massive area for guys to enjoy. As I see it now its being totally unutilized. How many guys actually stop to do any kind of hunting between the Yukon bridge and Coldfoot. There might be a few bowhunters that put the incidental stalk on a black bear or griz ( I have done that) but theres not any hunting camps to be seen anywhere along that route except during the moose draw north and south of Slate. I could only imagine that you get 5 miles off that highway in many places and there would be some great moose and bear hunting. I dont know it justs seems like a waste to me. I mean can you imagine driving from Fairbanks down the steese for 100 miles and not being allowed to hunt on either side of that highway the entire way down. Or from the junction of the Elliot to Manley. Fairbanks to Delta, its a lot of land Mark. I would be very interested to hear of how many hunters actually hike outside the 5 miles in that stretch of road ( the bridge to Coldfoot) to hunt, I bet the number is zero! And yes it only makes sense that it might loosen up the conjestion in other places although I am thinking mostly of the population of the North Star Borough. The huge #'s of hunters from the Los Anchorage area that are coming North each year, my solution would be null and void. Those guys's situation is so bad down there most of them would drive 1000 miles just to get to what I call over conjestion and they call not bad at all. Who knows what time will provide us with as the years pass?

  14. #14
    Member fullkurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska/Idaho
    Posts
    2,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaCub View Post
    I would be very interested to hear of how many hunters actually hike outside the 5 miles in that stretch of road ( the bridge to Coldfoot) to hunt, I bet the number is zero!
    Interesting point, Roland.
    Heckuva chunk of ground there that gets no human intervention I'd bet--could be a consideration even if ATV's were rejected, and just gun regs were revised...pipeline sensitive areas could be posted?

  15. #15
    Member M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    31

    Default ATV use

    Alaskacub, I agree. South of the pass should be open to use.

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,297

    Default

    And Frank as you know and everyone else that has driven north, the term "Pristine" is referring to what, the 30 yards on either side of the road that has been sandblasted by 18wheelers with thickest layer of dust and silt you ever saw in your life coated to the Black Spruce. "Pristine" is a little bit rosier picture than what I see driving up there. There's barren Finger Mountain and barren Gobblers Knob both terms the truckers created for Landmarks as far as I know and I agree that as you start entering the mouth of the Brooks north of Coldfoot its some of the most beautiful scenery in this state, running along the Deitrich and some of the Koyokuk braids but that 100 mile stretch walled up by trees growing dirt isn't to pristine by my standards. I am also not in favor of removing the bow and arrow reg inside the 5 just let the gun hunters get back there on wheelers if they want to and hunt, I just dont see the physical damage that so many describe. I also dont understand the defense of the Caribou herds in that time of year they are so much further north than that area so I dont see them in any kind of Jeaporady. For what its worth over a 10 year period I know a lot of guys that hunt up North and I have never met "1" that has walked out 5 miles south of Coldfoot. I think the thing needs thought out, but I definately think its a waste of a big chunk of land as of now.

    Just for S & Grins theres a lot of hunters on this forum that have hunted up north or know someone who has hunted up north.Do any of you know someone who has hiked out 5 miles south of Coldfoot and North of the Yukon to hunt anything?

  17. #17

    Question None That I Know Of! Also Have A Question?

    I have been hunting up the Haul road for quite a while, and I have never seen, or known anyone to hike that area to the 5 mile. I have quite a large hunting/social group that I communicate with often about hunting and fishing etc. They too live in Fairbanks, and North Pole, and they haven't seen anyone either to speak of. We do see and know people that use the small rivers to get outside the 5 mile(by canoe or jet). We do see and know people that bow hunt caribou in that area in Dec/Jan time frame when the caribou are down in that area. I agree, that is some nice country, and besides the incidental bear stalker now and then, it looks almost untouched.
    All of this leads me to a question I have been meaning to ask for some time now. I know what the law says about the 5 mile corridor north of the Yukon, I mean as far as I am concerned, it is in black and white! Yet I talk to, hear, and read about people who take quads in off the Haul road south of the pass and north of the Yukon. Most used area that I hear about is around Cold Foot etc. They claim they are legal as they go in on established roads/trails.The main one mentioned being the trail that runs east out of Cold Foot(its on the map). Am I missing someting in the ADF&G play book???????? Could it possibly be legal for residents who live north of the Yukon, but not the rest of us? Would like to know all the details, so any and all help with determining what is actually right and wrong, and for whom, would be appreciated! thanks in advance..............
    Be safe, and enjoy your time outdoors!
    Mountain Man

    "I'm not here for a long time! I'm here for a good time!!!!!!!!!!!"

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    fairbanks alaska
    Posts
    207

    Default everything changes

    it's been awhile since i've chimed in, but the haul road is getting more impact. there was a day when going up and trying to catch one right off the side of the road was THE motivation to drive up there for that chance. talk about primo access. no recreational vehicles needed. it was affordable as it gets beyond your own back yard. it seems now the road has become more populated than turnouts can allow for, pilot cars and truckers don't like us in their way, state troopers are filling ticket quotas, a bunch of "better than thou's" are furious if they see a hunter with a bow within visibility of the road, and those military guys in goretex are almost criminals just for participating (that's just my sarcasm as i write from iraq). with the ever rising complaints, i would support a few (read 3 or 4) selected atv access areas between the yukon and deadhorse that would get you outside of the cooridor. i would support a single trail in different put-in spots that are more than 5 miles long. there should be no hunting along the access trail, and some of these increasing numbers of hunters would be able to gun hunt on foot and realistically not ruin anything along the haul road. i believe 1 trail has already been started by a couple trucks

  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Frankly it's been beat to death. Those that attended the meeting here in fairbanks when SB85 was being hered, 99% of the folks were against it! Just about every thread you ever read shows the same. I would suspect this poll is going to show the exact same thing. A few people who'd like to romp acrossed the tundra to have it their way (typical alaskan mentality as was proven a few years back to can the BOG!!!) and the rest saying no!

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    yukon bridge to coldfoot questions.

    Recently, in the past 4 or so years now, we've lost a wide open hunt to a now draw hunt for moose. Do you think by opening this up to atv usage we will not loose more?

    Yes the subsistence users out of wiseman and coldfoot are allowed to use atv's, to what degree I do not know or why, I believe that is federally mandated (as all but the little stretch by coldfoot and finger mt is feds up till slope mountian, there north is state).

    The issue raises issues with subsistence users vs sport users. We already know the debate!!! We already know who'll loose!!! Not to mention the area from coldfoot south is a relatively LOW moose density area to begin with.

    I'm sure it would be nice to get out somewhere, but I don't see the benefits of doing so in this area, east or west of the road. Coldfoot to atigun, no way!!! Atigun north, no way again. Just my buck fifty!

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •