|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
A reasoned reply (I hope)
Posted by bushrat on Oct 09 2005
fullkurl,
You make some good points, particularly about a "plan" on how to do it and enforce it. But SB 85 is putting the horse before the cart in that there is no definitive "plan" as part of the bill. The bill, if passed, simply seeks to repeal the ban on atv use within the corridor, and THEN the state and federal managers and legislators, with input from the general public and various powerful orgs like AOC, will draw up a plan. Frankly, I'm afraid of the plan that may be drawn up! I'd feel differently if they put the horse before the cart and showed us a plan first. Once the ban on atv use is repealed, anything can happen up there. We just don't know. Right now we can't enforce regs in the Controlled Use Areas throughout the state already on the books.
Hunting used to be synonomous with certain amount of work. Didn't it? And it also used to be synonomous with outdoor skills, time in the woods, and intimate knowledge of flora and fauna. I'm growing weary of hunters arguing that they no longer have the time to hunt (the ones that are physically able to use the quads God gave them) and therefore they need areas that offer "quick" access to hunting grounds. In the long run, "quick" and "hunting" are becoming as inextricably intwined as "fast" and "food," and it's negatively affecting hunting on the whole.
An older guy in his seventies once argued the point that since he could no longer hunt the way he used to (age, infirmity) that it was his right to hunt however he saw fit, in this case by using an atv to access hunting grounds. He was even arguing the right to shoot from his atv. The asthmatic, the hunter with a bad back, the one who is physically disabled, the "old" hunter...where is the line? We have a non-profit draw program now that helps some disabled hunters to hunt near urban areas. We have proxy hunts to supply meat to those that can't physically hunt anymore. In asking for the right to hunting access via atvs because of a disability, including the "disablility" of just plain having too much lard on one's body and not enough time on one's hands, well...to me that isn't a valid argument.
However, I can't argue with your desire to use the tools you have to access hunting grounds. To a degree. No, I don't own a snowmachine, an atv, a plane. But we charter planes when we can afford the high cost and we have a couple canoes and a jon boat with a 25hp kicker that we can use in high water. We have a dogteam and worn-out snowshoes for winter travel. I have a bad back (woe is me) from 25 years of hauling 5-gallon buckets of water and packing moose meat to the river (and then to the meat shed) and carrying logs and cutting firewood and all the other myriad chores involved with this lifestyle. It comes with the territory. Hunting is indeed a big chore when it involves moose. I try to get moose as close to the river as I can, whether via canoe or boat. I understand the genuine need to get a moose (or caribou) close to a road or a trail or a river. And I empathize with it. Limited atv use COULD work, as you say, to appease the ever-growing majority of hunters who use atvs, but so far experience has shown that we can't enforce Controlled Use Areas already in place, let alone any more of them.
What opening the Dalton corridor will do to caribou harvests and populations is a whole 'nuther ball of wax. In opening up the corridor, how long (in the real world) do you think hunters will be able to hunt whatever population is "close" to the haul road, or close to whatever trail(s) may be designated for official use, before it turns into a Tier hunt?. A year? Two? Before THAT herd is so diminished that another will have to be found in another place. Or before "hunters" complain that they have the "right" to go farther in search of game with their atvs, and someone in the legislature draws up another bill. Land travel in summer/fall by thousands of atvs has serious and negative habitat effects we don't see with river travel and aircraft use and with wintertime snowmachine use, though all those means of travel if done by untold thousands of hunters has serious game density repercussions.
Bottom line on SB 85: Let's see a plan first! What's the rush? Show the legislature the plan, THEN they can vote on the bill after also hearing from constituents. This is back-door politics at its worst.
Best, Mark
Previous: haul road atv use. fullkurl Oct 09 2005
Next: great points. fullkurl Oct 10 2005
 Message Thread:
|
