# Road closures..



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

I have heard that the feds are closing a bunch of roads down, does anyone have a link to all the off-road road closures throughout the state? I am trying to find something on my area and I am coming up short.. 

Thanks.


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

I have found out this information from the Mt. Dutton posts. You can find the info be researching the forest service web sites and the BLM websites in the district you are looking in. One more thing to add to it would be that you need to look at BLM maps as well. The forest service maps do not even have the BLM roads on them. I hunt areas that are both BLM and FS on the same road structure and without both than it is impossible to know where you are going. On a side note, I was taking with one of the FS guys and he said he is on a team that is trying to get the BLM and the FS roads all on the same map regardless which agency has them. He also said that they are not closing all of the roads down and that they are only closing roads that have been on the books for the last 20 years to close but for one reason or another haven't been. I need to do more research on his comment before taking it at face value though.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

The FS is going thru a road closure process for each forest. You have to check with each central office to find out where they are. The Fish Lake plan is complete and the new travel map is published. The Dixie is complete but the map is not published. This is a national effort brought on by the 4 wheeler crowd that wont stay on the established trails.


----------



## Renegade (Sep 11, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> This is a national effort brought on by the 4 wheeler crowd that wont stay on the established trails.


If they won't stay on established trails, what good will it do to close them?

:?


----------



## gmanhunter (Dec 27, 2007)

I watched the forest servace all week long in soapstone closeing roads. I dont have a problem with some roads people created in the last few years being closed. But I seen roads being closed that I have ventured on for over 20 years being shut down. I think it comes down to the fools who dont obey the law and venture off the roads. Creating roads of their own. I will probably get a few people upset, but if they leave closed roads to hikers, bikers, and horses, they should shut them down to dirt bikes or all motorized units. Prime example of this is petewinward in Payson cayon. The dirt bikes have dug such bad ruts, its hard to hike or ride a horse on the main trail. Nothing pees me off more than when I'm hunting off of a trail, closed to atvs and trucks to have some a hole ride up on his dirt bike scattering game for miles. I'm an atv owner myself, and I still respect the landscape and dont go off roading. Just a thought.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

gmanhunter said:


> I watched the forest servace all week long in soapstone closeing roads..


They keep going that place will be foot traffic only. that place sucks big time now. They have closed some roads that I take to get in the back country.So I have stopped going there now.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> The FS is going thru a road closure process for each forest. You have to check with each central office to find out where they are. The Fish Lake plan is complete and the new travel map is published. The Dixie is complete but the map is not published. _*This is a national effort brought on by the 4 wheeler crowd that wont stay on the established trails*_.


This has got to make the "Most Stupid Comment List"

Ahhh High-speed they are closing trails that have been open for very long times.... Should we talk slower?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Good on the Feds...many/most/all of the roads should have been closed years ago! By closing the roads, use will go down even if people still illegally drive atvs on them and the destruction of our public lands by motorized vehicles will be minimized.


----------



## KnockedandLocked (Jun 24, 2010)

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/dixie/projects/MTP/index.shtml

That is the link for the Dixie National Forrest. May be able to find other info from there.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

> Good on the Feds...many/most/all of the roads should have been closed years ago! By closing the roads, use will go down even if people still illegally drive atvs on them and the destruction of our public lands by motorized vehicles will be minimized.


So the public does not have the right to use public land? Is there something wrong with people using public land and driving roads that were put in place by feds for one reason or another and that have been there even before I was born? Should everyone else loose there right to have access to these places because of a select few? I can understand closing areas where the atvs just keep pushing in deeper and deeper But roads that have been established for long before atvs were around, come on. There is far more destruction of our public lands than from motorized vehicles such as atvs and trucks. Look at what oil drilling has done, Look at what logging has done, Fire damage, Water control, and many others. Driving on a road has far less impact useless you don't follow the rules. More people follow them then the ones breaking them.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

cklspencer said:


> > Good on the Feds...many/most/all of the roads should have been closed years ago! By closing the roads, use will go down even if people still illegally drive atvs on them and the destruction of our public lands by motorized vehicles will be minimized.
> 
> 
> So the public does not have the right to use public land? Is there something wrong with people using public land and driving roads that were put in place by feds for one reason or another and that have been there even before I was born? Should everyone else loose there right to have access to these places because of a select few? I can understand closing areas where the atvs just keep pushing in deeper and deeper But roads that have been established for long before atvs were around, come on. There is far more destruction of our public lands than from motorized vehicles such as atvs and trucks. Look at what oil drilling has done, Look at what logging has done, Fire damage, Water control, and many others. Driving on a road has far less impact useless you don't follow the rules. More people follow them then the ones breaking them.


Who said you couldn't use the land? Do you have to drive on the land to use it? One thing that roads have done is hurt mule deer populations and I know of several alpine lakes on my favorite mountain that have been virtually ruined by roads. Just because the feds made a road or just because a road is there doesn't mean it should be. I agree many more people follow the law than breaking them...that is why I like the road closures. The bottom line is that the old saying, "if you build it, they will come" rings true. IF a road is open, many more people will drive it...many many roads have undoubtedly had negative consequences on wildlife habitat. Closing such roads can only be a good thing...and, if you are still willing to get off your atv or out of your truck, you can still "use" this land.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Just so you know.... forest roads where not built for people to have access to the land for recreational purposes. They were built by the forest service to be able to access the land to fight forest fires, logging, etc.. The fact that we can use them for recreation is just a bonus. I agree that some roads should and need to be closed for the sake of healing the land and the wildlife but just some not all of them. Just because a road is closed doesn't mean you can't use the land. Walk your keister around and find you quarry - THAT'S HUNTING -8/-


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> I agree that some roads should and need to be closed for the sake of healing the land and the wildlife but just some not all of them.


And, after reading the EIS and plans, the Feds have no intention of closing all the roads...
...read this DEIS from Dixie National Forest as an example: http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/dixie/projects/ ... p_deis.pdf

Also, FWIW, this type of action is happening all across the West...


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

w2u good read.
I just got back from dixie national forest and the closed roads didn't effect me one bit most of the roads closed were dead end 1/2 mile long. In fact my son and I walked a couple of them and it was nice not to have a vehicle drive by and get us dusty.


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

This topic has become interesting in my absence.. This is starting to remind me of a parable my dad taught me years ago. One man was talking with another about building a home and said he was going to rent a backhoe to dig his hole for his foundation. The other man asked him why he couldn't just put 100 men to work with a shovel to dig the foundation. The man replied by saying, "I guess I could put 1000 men to work with a tee spoon." 

Progress people, progress. The roads were placed into these areas for many reasons. A lot of them had to do with old mining claims that the owners still have claims on them. If the claim is still in affect then they cannot close the road down. (according to the forest service gentlemen I was talking to) The thing that is pissing me off and I am sure a lot of you off as well is the way they are going about it. While some roads make perfect sense, others seem dumb as hell. I hunt South East and have done for the last 25 years. I have watched over the years a handful of new roads created in this time period that should probably be closed down. Roads that drive onto a ridge that is a couple hundred yard walk from a main road. Yet, I am now seeing roads that were made 63 years ago, I did the research, closed down. When I asked about them they stated that people kept pushing them further than they intended them to be. Funny how a four wheeler can make a 12' blade cut up the side of the mountain.

In this same great area I am hunting, I see Moab exploding with new roads and trails all around the redrock. I use these roads and bike trails as well but it does not make sense that one is growing the number of roads while the other is decreasing. Now I am not one that hunts from the roads, in fact I was at 11,000 feet this weekend without a road in site, but I still would like some reasonable access that has been in the mountains for many many generations. 

I am sure a lot of this could be settled with a little public interaction from the forest service folks to give everyone a chance to be heard and come up with reasonable solutions for most. I guess that is too much to ask and a few will make the call for many without the many being heard. Sounds like politics as usual!!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> I am sure a lot of this could be settled with a little public interaction from the forest service folks to give everyone a chance to be heard and come up with reasonable solutions for most. I guess that is too much to ask and a few will make the call for many without the many being heard. Sounds like politics as usual!!!


Yep...that is why the forest service solicited comments on these road closures from the public long before any decisions were made...For example, for the Dixie National Forest"In October 2004 the Dixie National Forest held a series of workshops in Cedar City, St. George, Ruby's Inn (now Bryce Canyon City), Torrey, and Las Vegas, Nevada. Participants were asked to review the route inventory and evaluation questions and provide feedback on the evaluation process. At the same time, a working group of citizens who provided suggestions for motorized travel in revising the Dixie Land and Resource Management Plan was reconvened to make suggestions for the proposed travel system and evaluation process. Input received from cooperating agencies, the public, and the work group contributed to the proposed action.

The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2006. The NOI asked for comments on the proposed action by January 31, 2007. Prior to release of the NOI, the Forest Service briefed local government officials, motorized advocacy groups, environmental groups, and businesses. Public involvement efforts after release of the NOI included public open houses in St. George, Cedar City, Panguitch, Escalante, Torrey, and Salt Lake City, Utah. The project website (http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/dixie/projects/MTP) was also used to disseminate information and gather comments. About 500 scoping responses from individuals, advocacy groups, and state and other federal agencies were received and analyzed. Subsequent to the open houses, comments on the project were reviewed and the proposed action was revised. The Forest also developed two additional alternatives based on public comments."

Of course, though, most people fail to get involved and then cry foul after decisions are made...also, FWIW, these road closures are designed to benefit wildlife without totaling eliminating access. Roads that were built "63" years ago are quite possible no longer needed and are quite possible doing more harm to our public lands than they could ever do good by providing access...

"The purpose of and need for action was developed over the course of three years beginning in 2003 as the Dixie National Forest conducted an assessment in accordance with the National 
Forest Management Act (NFMA). This NFMA analysis included a detailed agency review of 
each motorized route for known or potential effects to the environment, legal access issues, or other social uses, and was augmented by pre-planning public input. Broad, landscape-scale and site-specific considerations were made, identifying opportunities to improve watershed and wildlife habitat health, as well as the connectivity of communities, and recreational access. The Forest also considered opportunities to improve non-motorized and motorized trail systems and to facilitate desirable recreation activities. The Forest used the Motor Vehicle Route and Area Designation Guide to assist in the designation process (USDA 2005c)."

In my opinion, any action by the forest service that will directly benefit wildlife habitat including wetlands, riparian areas, and fisheries habitat is good. And, I love the fact that the Feds are taking a proactive approach to managing our public lands and motorized use!


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Of course, though, most people fail to get involved and then cry foul after decisions are made...also, FWIW, these road closures are designed to benefit wildlife without totaling eliminating access. Roads that were built "63" years ago are quite possible no longer needed and are quite possible doing more harm to our public lands than they could ever do good by providing access...
> 
> In my opinion, any action by the forest service that will directly benefit wildlife habitat including wetlands, riparian areas, and fisheries habitat is good. And, I love the fact that the Feds are taking a proactive approach to managing our public lands and motorized use!


It is not all that uncommon for the federal government to make decisions that effect the majority by not properly informing them. I am convinced that if more people were made aware of the major affects that were about to take place that they would become more involved. Unfortunately, most people do not have time to study all of the crap that the government is shoving down our throats and obviously situations like this arise. With that said, have all of our segmented national forests done the same NOI for all of the roads that you have shown with Dixie. In the areas I hunt, I have no information on this NOI.

And one final comment towards your comment on "these road closures are designed to benefit wildlife." We could eliminate every hunting method we have with firearms, muzzeloaders, compound bows, re-curve bows etc. and just allow for the longbow of the ancient times. This would benefit wildlife without totally eliminating the possibility to hunt. He!!, we could even go one step further and adopt the hunting methods in parts of Europe and have the government take us out and tell us what to shoot and when to shoot it.

I am fearful that more people like you are thinking that "any action by the forest service that will directly benefit wildlife habitat including wetlands, riparian areas, and fisheries habitat is good."

We are sportsmen and I feel that we make better decisions than the federal government of whats best for wildlife. We have been used as tools for many generations to benefit wildlife and more regulation limits our ability to affectively do this.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I agree with most of the road closures, but some make no sense at all. Like on Gentry Mountain they have closed some of the main roads which is crazy. Don't get me wrong I will hike my butt off, but to have to walk 2 miles just to get to the trail head is crazy.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> With that said, have all of our segmented national forests done the same NOI for all of the roads that you have shown with Dixie.


Yes...they have. Just because you don't have the information or haven't seen it, does not mean it wasn't done. Here is a link with the same type of information on the Manti-Lasal National Forest: http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/mantilasal/recr ... le_ohv.pdf


Troutsman said:


> I am fearful that more people like you are thinking that "any action by the forest service that will directly benefit wildlife habitat including wetlands, riparian areas, and fisheries habitat is good."


I am fearful of the mindset that many on this site have shown that because it is public land they should have the "right" to drive on all roads without fear of negative consequences. I am fearful of the mindset that our actions in national forests and on public lands do not negatively affect wildlife. I am fearful of the mindset that it is ok to rape and pillage the environment because, afterall, we "We are sportsmen and I feel that we make better decisions than the federal government of whats best for wildlife." In other words, I am fearful that hunters actually think that their decision to drive motorized vehicles that potentially cause severe damage to our public lands and wildlife habitat is a better decision than the government to close those roads down...To hell with the idea that closing a road down actually might help deer numbers increase--"It is my right as a hunter to drive down all dirt roads ever created to try and harvest an animal". Good heck, people, what ever happened to responsible land stewardship?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Other great links on road closures and travel management plans on utah's national forests:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/ashley/projects ... tation.pdf

http://www.sharetrails.org/public-lands ... STMUpdates

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/ashley/projects ... 20DEIS.pdf


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Troutsman said:
> 
> 
> > With that said, have all of our segmented national forests done the same NOI for all of the roads that you have shown with Dixie.
> ...


Wildlife numbers are better controlled by hunting than by roads. That is why we are a tool for the wildlife and the roads are not. A designated road that was created many years ago cannot cause any more damage to wildlife habitat, only irresponsible users of the road can. Thats like saying that if we regulate and take away guns than no more would be killed with a gun. By regulating those who have been bad stewards of the land by closing a potential concern just negates all the good use of those good stewards.

Reading through your link there was not one named road that would be closed. Only bureaucratic red tape to what they could close and would close if this or that happened.

In the end, wyoming2utah, we are on the same team. Instead of fighting among ourselves, we should be fighting those that plan to take more and more away from us. It is like the same discussion with the gun battle. I may not own an assault rifle or never intend to own one, but, I would defend my fellow sportsman's right to own in.

I guess my biggest hang up with your comment was *"Any Action by the FEDS."* I just don't trust our feds enough to say anything they do is good for us and the wildlife.

UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL!!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> Wildlife numbers are better controlled by hunting than by roads. That is why we are a tool for the wildlife and the roads are not. A designated road that was created many years ago cannot cause any more damage to wildlife habitat, only irresponsible users of the road can. Thats like saying that if we regulate and take away guns than no more would be killed with a gun. By regulating those who have been bad stewards of the land by closing a potential concern just negates all the good use of those good stewards.


Wildlife numbers cannot be controlled by hunting if the roads are helping lower the population status of species to the point where hunting is NOT allowed. A designated road that was created many years ago can and does impact wildlife habitat...I can think of several great examples of roads created many years ago that are currently virtually destroying fisheries habitat. And, eliminating roads created many years can and will increase wildlife habitat simply because deer/elk and many other species avoid roads even if the forage in the area is good. Even if everyone drove responsibly on many roads, negative impacts from those roads are obvious...look at I-15 as a simple example. The freeway has cut-off a major migration route of mule deer in many years; as a result, mule deer are unable to get to some of their winter grounds. You can't tell me that dirt roads up mountains and on mountains do not negatively impact wildlife populations even if people always stayed on them...

http://www.wildlandscpr.org/biblio-note ... s-wildlife

I really like this one:
http://www.iwla.org/index.php?ht=a/GetD ... ion/i/1367

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/lagrande/stark ... Wisdom.pdf


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> cklspencer said:
> 
> 
> > > Good on the Feds...many/most/all of the roads should have been closed years ago! By closing the roads, use will go down even if people still illegally drive atvs on them and the destruction of our public lands by motorized vehicles will be minimized.
> ...


I THINK URBAN DEVELOPEMENT PLAYS A WAY BIGGER FACTOR IN DEMINISHING DEER HEARDS JUST MY COMMEN SENSE THINKING OUT LOUD THOUGH


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Over the years, I have observed increased vehicular traffic through my favorite hunting areas and have also observed game moving away from the increased traffic areas. A new group began hunting one of my best areas. They road hunt on 4 wheelers all day-non stop. We no longer see any game along the roads or the new trails they have made. We now have to hike much further in to find game. The road hunters will probably cut new trails into these areas because they no longer see game. Game, particularly elk becomes sensitive to 4 wheelers. I take stands well off the roads and often observe deer and elk nearby pick up their heads and become visibly agitated upon hearing the faint sound of a 4 wheeler as far as a mile away. Every year, fewer people walk anywhere to hunt. 4 wheelers allow road hunters far more access than they ever had with their trucks.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Founder, Why do you allow idiotic, insulting comments like YAK made about my reasonable comment earlier. You should ban rude, stupid people who hide behind internet anonimity. They add nothing of value, probably just insignificant, gutless little rats.


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

Hunter Tom
How was my comment idiotic insulting or rude?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's the post I put up on Tines Up about this issue,,,,,,,,

This one gets my blood boiling..
It all started with me when the feds took the
Paunsaugunt and did the Stair Case BS..

And I agree, Old logging road and illegal ATV
trails should be closed,, But when I see 100
year old FS and BLM roads closing,,I'm pissed


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

yak4fish, So very sorry, had a senior moment. My comment was directed at TAK.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> I guess my biggest hang up with your comment was *"Any Action by the FEDS."* I just don't trust our feds enough to say anything they do is good for us and the wildlife.


Sums up how I feel perfectly. Nothing more needs to be said, IMHO.


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> yak4fish, So very sorry, had a senior moment. My comment was directed at TAK.


No worries I make mistakes to.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> Founder, Why do you allow idiotic, insulting comments like YAK made about my reasonable comment earlier. You should ban rude, stupid people who hide behind internet anonimity. They add nothing of value, probably just insignificant, gutless little rats.


Who's hiding behind a screen? Me, Pa.....LEAzzzzE! Your comment before stated that it is the 4 wheeler actions bringing this on! Sorry Bub! First its deeper than that, second they are closing all vehicle roads! So don't make half azz comments that you really have not the faintest clue about!


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

TAK said:


> Who's hiding behind a screen?


Last time I looked at my screen, I was... I thought we all were behind our computer screens. Its not like we are in a banquet room discussing and contemplating life.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> But when I see 100
> year old FS and BLM roads closing,,I'm ****


So, 100 year old FS and BLM roads do NOT negatively affect wildlife? So, if we learn that 100 year old FS and BLM roads are having a negative impact on fish populations, deer populations, elk populations, or whatever else, we shouldn't take action?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Troutsman said:
> 
> 
> > I guess my biggest hang up with your comment was *"Any Action by the FEDS."* I just don't trust our feds enough to say anything they do is good for us and the wildlife.
> ...


I don't get this comment...are you saying that NOTHING the feds ever do has helped wildlife? Surely this can't be what you mean...such a blanket statement is totally scary and dumb. A simple look back in history shows that the federal government has done many things that have greatly impacted wildlife positively in the US.

This thought is akin to me saying that I pretty much just don't trust guides enough to say that "anything they do" is bad for wildlife.


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Troutsman said:
> ...


wyoming2utah, it is if you only read part of peoples posts. I was taking something you stated, *"Any Action by the FEDS is a good thing"* and stating that I do not trust them enough to say *ANYTHING* they do is good for the wildlife. I am not sure where "NOTHING" was placed in their. Our federal government is terribly mismanaged; if you don't believe that people feel this way, just look at their approval rating. They have a 16% excellent approval rating which gives insight on the mismanagement of government. To think that they will magically manage this section of the government to the approval of the American people and do a great job of doing it is outlandish. By stating "anything they do", clearly shows that you approve of what and how they are doing it. This would place you with the other 16% of the country, which, is out of touch with the rest of the country. Or maybe, it is the elitist percentage, that just thinks all us simple folks are to dumb to understand what really needs to happen.:roll:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... erformance


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> wyoming2utah, it is if you only read part of peoples posts. I was taking something you stated, *"Any Action by the FEDS is a good thing"* and stating that I do not trust them enough to say *ANYTHING* they do is good for the wildlife. I am not sure where "NOTHING" was placed in their. Our federal government is terribly mismanaged; if you don't believe that people feel this way, just look at their approval rating. They have a 16% excellent approval rating which gives insight on the mismanagement of government. To think that they will magically manage this section of the government to the approval of the American people and do a great job of doing it is outlandish. By stating "anything they do", clearly shows that you approve of what and how they are doing it. This would place you with the other 16% of the country, which, is out of touch with the rest of the country. Or maybe, it is the elitist percentage, that just thinks all us simple folks are to dumb to understand what really needs to happen.:roll:
> 
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... erformance


Wait a second...you are calling the kettle black here and totally taking what I said out of context. I said: "In my opinion, *any action by the forest service that will directly benefit wildlife habitat including wetlands, riparian areas, and fisheries habitat is good.*" Somehow, you misconstrued that into ""Any Action by the FEDS." I stand by my comment that any action the feds take that will benefit wildlife is good...but, by no means, do I think all actions by the FEDS are good!

Do you really believe that actions by the FEDS *THAT WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT WILDLIFE* is bad?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> wyoming2utah, it is if you only read part of peoples posts. I was taking something you stated, *"Any Action by the FEDS is a good thing"*


See, I NEVER said this! You took my quote totally out of context and changed it...this is what I said:



wyoming2utah said:


> In my opinion, any action by the forest service that will directly benefit wildlife habitat including wetlands, riparian areas, and fisheries habitat is good.


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Troutsman said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah, it is if you only read part of peoples posts. I was taking something you stated, *"Any Action by the FEDS is a good thing"* and stating that I do not trust them enough to say *ANYTHING* they do is good for the wildlife. I am not sure where "NOTHING" was placed in their. Our federal government is terribly mismanaged; if you don't believe that people feel this way, just look at their approval rating. They have a 16% excellent approval rating which gives insight on the mismanagement of government. To think that they will magically manage this section of the government to the approval of the American people and do a great job of doing it is outlandish. By stating "anything they do", clearly shows that you approve of what and how they are doing it. This would place you with the other 16% of the country, which, is out of touch with the rest of the country. Or maybe, it is the elitist percentage, that just thinks all us simple folks are to dumb to understand what really needs to happen.:roll:
> ...


The FEDS do not have an active roll in benefiting wildlife, that is left to the local government. These road closers are more political based than anything else. They are buying votes from the environmentalists and do not care (in my opinion) 10 cents about the good they do for wildlife.

As you pointed out, you stated "any action by the forest service" I have taken the forest service out and added in FEDS. The forest service = the FEDS!

To say that these road closers will directly benefit wildlife is just a guess. Having less traffic in specific areas "can" help wildlife by giving them more forage and less collision accidents. As for the studies that you provided links to, they talk about presence of wildlife within the direct location of the roads vs being some 300 feet of the roads. Tell me again why it is a bad thing for the wildlife to be further from the roads?

Personally, I think that animals get used to their environment and adapt to it. Look at the buck in Colorado this year at the office building. Are these paved roads negatively effecting him? I guess they could if he gets hit; otherwise he seems pretty content with the roads he is surrounded by...


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> TAK said:
> 
> 
> > Who's hiding behind a screen?
> ...


Key point is *your hiding*, I am just behind it.... Or I could not see what I typed! The big factor is I would say it in person also! As many of you WOULD NOT!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> The FEDS do not have an active roll in benefiting wildlife, that is left to the local government.


BS....the Forest Service and the FEDS have a huge roll in benefitting wildlife. I spent two summers as a college student working for the forest service and I saw with my own two eyes some of these actions. You can't tell me that federal biologists working within our state haven't done a lot to help improve and benefit wildlife. That is nonsense.



Troutsman said:


> As you pointed out, you stated "any action by the forest service" I have taken the forest service out and added in FEDS. The forest service = the FEDS!


See, Kettle, here you go again calling the pot black. I did NOT say "any action by the forest service"... I said that all *ACTION THAT BENEFITS WILDLIFE* is good....not "any action". There is a big difference. You are totally changing what I am saying and misconstruing it...spinning it! Again, do you believe that when the feds do improve wildlife habitat and help wildlife it is bad?



Troutsman said:


> To say that these road closers will directly benefit wildlife is just a guess. Having less traffic in specific areas "can" help wildlife by giving them more forage and less collision accidents. As for the studies that you provided links to, they talk about presence of wildlife within the direct location of the roads vs being some 300 feet of the roads. Tell me again why it is a bad thing for the wildlife to be further from the roads?


Again, BS. These road closures will directly benefit wildlife...of that, I am certain. And, having less traffic in specific areas will help wildlife in a lot more ways than what you mentioned including things like erosion control and less siltation in streams and rivers (I have personally seen several high country lakes that have been virtually ruined by siltation from roads). 


Troutsman said:


> Personally, I think that animals get used to their environment and adapt to it. Look at the buck in Colorado this year at the office building. Are these paved roads negatively effecting him? I guess they could if he gets hit; otherwise he seems pretty content with the roads he is surrounded by...


Yeah...mule deer across the western US have done an outstanding job of "adapting" to their changing habitat...that's why every state in the West is just loaded with them!

What this whole argument boils down to is that some sportsman feel entitled to drive up and down the mountain and through the forest and trees regardless of the consequences...they feel that since they have been doing it all their lives and since their dads did and their dads' dads before them that it is ok. Well, I hate to tell you buddy, but as we progress as a society and we learn and learn, we can see the mistakes we have made and we need to learn from them. Many of the roads that have been built and made are not good. These roads need to be shut down just like many of the roads I have come across that were shut down in the 50s. Road closures--whether they inconvenience us as sportsman or not--are good things that help keep our wild places wild!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> This thought is akin to me saying that I pretty much just don't trust guides enough to say that "anything they do" is bad for wildlife.


Ummm, YOU HAVE! :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > This thought is akin to me saying that I pretty much just don't trust guides enough to say that "anything they do" is bad for wildlife.
> ...


 :roll: Show me one time when I have said that! But, pretty much anything YOU do for wildlife is bad!


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> In my opinion, *any action by the forest service* that will directly benefit wildlife habitat including wetlands, riparian areas, and fisheries habitat is good.


Right, right, you never said any action by the forest service :roll: I guess I am just adding in more words there...

Let me break down one last time how scary the comment is. Taking your entire quote, "In my opinion, *any action by the forest service* that will directly benefit wildlife habitat including wetlands, riparian areas, and fisheries habitat is good." You have a stop at nothing attitude that you share with a lot of environmentalist whack jobs and anti hunting groups. They would make the identical comment you have made here. By saying "any action", that would include removing our hunting rights for good. Many people believe that hunting hurts wildlife and is not an effective way to manage it.

Do you see the danger in you comment you are sticking by?

Lets play this out: 
1) any action by the forest service; forest service bans all guns on forest service property. The lead from the guns are destroying the habitat and the poaching is rampart. This will directly benefit wildlife, right? :roll: 
2) any action by the forest service; forest service bans all foot traffic from the mountain side and limits it to only designated roads that you cannot go more than 10 feet off of the side. Wouldn't this benefit wildlife? No pressure except from the scary roads that they already stay away from.. :roll: 
3) any action by the forest service; Forest service bans hunting completely on all federal forest service lands. Wouldn't this directly benefit wildlife? Now they are not being shot and killed by the scary hunters. :roll:

Now I know you are a smart guy, but, you are very stubborn and refuse to see the point I am making. Maybe, just maybe read what I am writing and step back before typing our your rebuttal to my comment and think about it. I have only given 3 example of what the forest service can do that, some would say, will directly benefit wildlife; i'll bet I could come up with a dozen more. Knowing that you are a sportsman that truly wants to see our wildlife managed well, do you honestly go this far? Which side are you on? Every sportsman wants to see wildlife taken care of responsibly. If they do not, they are not true sportsman.

Arguing about the feds benefiting our wildlife by whatever means necessary (any action) is not for sportsman. o-||


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Do you really believe that actions by the FEDS *THAT WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT WILDLIFE* is bad?


I have given three examples above that I believe this is a bad thing. Do you really believe that any action by the FEDS *THAT WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT WILDLIFE* is good?

Action 1 by FEDS, take away hunting to directly benefit wild life. BAD!!

Action 2 by FEDS, close down all federal land except for designated roads to directly benefit wildlife. BAD!!

And on, and on, and on, and on............. :roll:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > But when I see 100
> ...


+1, Maybe as a society and race we are a little more educated than we were 100 years ago??? I hate change, can't make me do it!

[attachment=0:27cpzbua]thumbnail.aspx.jpeg[/attachment:27cpzbua]


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, *any action by the forest service that will directly benefit wildlife habitat* including wetlands, riparian areas, and fisheries habitat is good.


Troutsman -- you left our part of his quote. The important part. The part that says "that will directly benefit..."

So, as for your dangerous scenario's, let's fix them:

Do you see the danger in you comment you are sticking by?

Lets play this out: 
1) any action by the forest service *that will directly benefit*; forest service bans all guns on forest service property. The lead from the guns are destroying the habitat and the poaching is rampart. This will directly benefit wildlife, right? * does this really benefit wildlife?* Lead is bad, we know this. There are already moves towards non-toxic ammo. But, banning guns? I don't see the benefit of banning guns. how does banning guns benefit wildlife?
2) any action by the forest service *that will directly benefit*; forest service bans all foot traffic from the mountain side and limits it to only designated roads that you cannot go more than 10 feet off of the side. Wouldn't this benefit wildlife? * does this really benefit wildlife?* Is foot traffic currently causing issues?
3) any action by the forest service *that will directly benefit*; Forest service bans hunting completely on all federal forest service lands. Wouldn't this directly benefit wildlife? Now they are not being shot and killed by the scary hunters. :roll: * hunting directly benefits wildlife.* We know this. So, outlawing hunting would not benefit wildlife.

Troutsman -- you're pretty stubborn too.


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

PBH, I was paraphrasing at the bottom. I did not leave it out to provide spin. The scenario's provided work with or with out (that will directly benefit) and I have even used benefit wildlife in the scenarios. Do I feel that these 3 scenarios help out wildlife? No, but, other anti-hunting groups may. For instance, lead in our water sheds hurts wildlife in a microscopic way so not allowing guns could possibly help out. 

Personally, I really do not want to go in any more detail on these scenarios because this is a public forum and I am sure they are trolled by anti-hunting groups that could take part of an argument and use it against us. I give the lead example because of the already ban on lead shot from shotguns that is in affect for waterfowl hunting. Everyone of the scenarios could be spun to benefit wildlife. Just like the road closers are being spun to help wildlife. 

At the end of the day, you need to way the pros and cons for every action that takes place. Here is a plausible one for you. We are in complete agreement that hunting directly benefits wildlife. Now, if you close the majority of the roads down in a hunting unit, and, people are unwilling to get out and walk, which is becoming more and more of the case, then how can hunting be effective to take the game off the mountains? They cannot get to the game now to affectively hunt it. This may be far out there, but, less roads = less game being taken off the mountains. I guess they will have to increase the quota for the permits being sold to off set this. That would not be bad at all... Close all the roads  Wait, some of my family members cannot get out like I can because of physical conditions  I guess that we will just have to make the sport for those fit enough to be able to hike in 10 + miles..... Sorry 6 year old son, I know you want to go with daddy but there is just no way that you will be able to physically make it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH, what you and your brother miss is that there is no assurance that these actions advocated by the forest service will "directly benefit wildlife". 

While I agree there are many things that can/should be done to help wildlife, I do NOT blindly accept whatever actions the forest service recommend. Some policies implemented by the forest service has NO direct benefit to wildlife, that is not in doubt. This whole deal is one of MANY reasons I dislike the whole public land set up. We have people in other states often having more say on what happens to land in Utah than people who live here and are directly impacted by the decisions. As long as pinheads with interests that are often not inline with the interests of the people who actually use the land, unwise policies will be the norm rather than the exception.


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> PBH, what you and your brother miss is that there is no assurance that these actions advocated by the forest service will "directly benefit wildlife".
> 
> While I agree there are many things that can/should be done to help wildlife, I do NOT blindly accept whatever actions the forest service recommend. Some policies implemented by the forest service has NO direct benefit to wildlife, that is not in doubt. This whole deal is one of MANY reasons I dislike the whole public land set up. We have people in other states often having more say on what happens to land in Utah than people who live here and are directly impacted by the decisions. As long as pinheads with interests that are often not inline with the interests of the people who actually use the land, unwise policies will be the norm rather than the exception.


+1


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> PBH, what you and your brother miss is that there is no assurance that these actions advocated by the forest service will "directly benefit wildlife".


So, what you are saying is that these closures might not "directly benefit wildlife"?


proutdoors said:


> While I agree there are many things that can/should be done to help wildlife, I do NOT blindly accept whatever actions the forest service recommend. Some policies implemented by the forest service has NO direct benefit to wildlife, that is not in doubt.


Agreed...and neither do we simply "blindly" follow or accept their actions. But, when they do something that will DEFINITELY benefit wildlife--like closing roads--we are for it! The evidence to support road closures is abundant and clear...those unwilling to accept it and believe it are either poor land stewards or naive.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> Close all the roads  Wait, some of my family members cannot get out like I can because of physical conditions  I guess that we will just have to make the sport for those fit enough to be able to hike in 10 + miles..... Sorry 6 year old son, I know you want to go with daddy but there is just no way that you will be able to physically make it.


That's just it...all the roads are NOT being closed nor is there any plan to do so. You are sensationalizing the situation and trying to make it worse than it is...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I do NOT blindly accept whatever actions the forest service recommend.


No. You blindly refuse any actions proposed by the Feds. This is just as bad as blindly accepting. You must be willing to look at each situation objectively and weigh the pros vs. cons, like mentioned by Troutsman.



proutdoors said:


> Some policies implemented by the forest service has NO direct benefit to
> wildlife, that is not in doubt.


Correct. And, I'd be against them, right with you.



proutdoors said:


> This whole deal is one of MANY reasons I dislike the whole public land set up. We have people in other states often having more say on what happens to land in Utah than people who live here and are directly impacted by the decisions.


Unfortunately (depending on your point of view), we have to live with it. It is PUBLIC land, and thus someone in Virginia has as much say as to the use of the land as someone in Utah. But, you also have as much say to how the PUBLIC land in Virginia is managed.



proutdoors said:


> As long as pinheads with interests that are often not inline with the interests of the people who actually use the land, unwise policies will be the norm rather than the exception.


Who's more involved with the decision making process? The pinheads with differing interests? Or the locals? THAT'S THE PROBLEM! Maybe it's time that " the people who actually use the land" get involved and participate in the process. How many of those upset that roads are being closed on Dutton got themselves involved during the PUBLIC input period??? And, now that the decisions have been made, using input from the PUBLIC that did get involved, we are all crying foul!

FWIW -- not all Forest Service employees are from states other than Utah. I know many, many Forest Service employees that have grown up right here in Utah. What makes you (Pro) think that they are all pinheads whose only agenda is an environmental "green peace" type agenda?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Not that I have much to add to the conversation other than to say I am all for some road closures. There are too many IMHO. I wasn't aware of the closures and not aware of any public input opportunities. If they happened great.....if not shame on the USFS for not taking input prior to closures.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I do NOT blindly accept whatever actions the forest service recommend.
> ...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> When did I say, or even imply, that all forest service employees are from states other than Utah? Answer; NEVER. I am saying those that make the decisions are most often, of not always from outside of Utah.


That there is funny. I don't care who you are.

Pro -- it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. It is what we have. Public land. We all have our say. Right or wrong, you get to have your opinion and I get to have mine. So does the hillbilly from Kentucky. Just because you live in Utah doesn't mean that your opinion is the correct opinion on how our land should be managed.



Pro said:


> Why should someone in Virginia, that will NEVER set foot on the land, have as much (often more) say on what happens to land in Utah?


Why? Because it's PUBLIC. We live in America. That person has every opportunity in the world to visit Utah's PUBLIC lands, and therefore they can participate in the process just like you and I. Unfortunately for you, you chose not to participate while others did. Now you're mad about the outcome. Who's fault is that?

FWIW -- I live in Utah, and I think more roads need to be closed. We need more wild places. My opinion. I'm a Utahn.



Pro said:


> It's a stacked deck, much like the RAC process. More often than not these times that are open to PUBLIC input, the decisions have already been made and the rest is all for show and to appease folks like you that actually buy into having any say.


 cry me a river. This process has been in the works since 2004. And you're crying that the decision was already made? If that were the case, the roads would have been closed in 2005. You've had plenty of time to work with, for, or against these closures. It's too late now. You blew it.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> It's a stacked deck, much like the RAC process. More often than not these times that are open to PUBLIC input, the decisions have already been made and the rest is all for show and to appease folks like you that actually buy into having any say.


A couple definitions from the internet:

Intimidate: to make timid; to frighten into submission. Implies inducing fear or a sense of inferiority into another.

Cow: implies reduction to a state where the spirit is broken or all courage is lost.

Pro -- what's wrong? is your spirit broken? I'd like to help:

http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Through-I ... 0449207862


Editorial Review said:


> If you've ever found yourself coming out on the short end of the stick, you'll appreciate the rewards that can be yours whenyou take the initiative in every area of your life. Written by the bestselling author of MILLION DOLLAR HABITS, this business gem, explains in candid terms what intimidation is, why you become intimidated and how you can avoid the mental lapses that can cause you to fall victim to intimidation.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > When did I say, or even imply, that all forest service employees are from states other than Utah? Answer; NEVER. I am saying those that make the decisions are most often, of not always from outside of Utah.
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > It's a stacked deck, much like the RAC process. More often than not these times that are open to PUBLIC input, the decisions have already been made and the rest is all for show and to appease folks like you that actually buy into having any say.
> ...


No, my spirit is just fine. I just know how the system works, and have wised up enough to know when/where to spend my energy. Thanks for your 'concern' though. :roll: As I get older, and hopefully wiser, I pick my battles. I no longer feel the need to make every issue a Bunker's Hill. I also have focused most of my attention to my family, what I have energy for after that goes to issues I have strong feelings about. I have attended, and even helped organize several Tea Party rallies, so I am not sure my 'courage' should be called into question. :? Just because I don't waste time/energy talking to pinheads who have already made up their minds on what roads they will close, doesn't mean I have given up or been intimidated. It just means I am aware of the how the game is played.


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Troutsman said:
> 
> 
> > Close all the roads  Wait, some of my family members cannot get out like I can because of physical conditions  I guess that we will just have to make the sport for those fit enough to be able to hike in 10 + miles..... Sorry 6 year old son, I know you want to go with daddy but there is just no way that you will be able to physically make it.
> ...


According to you, closing roads is good and directly benefits wildlife. So, do you or do you not think that anything the forest service does, that will directly benefit the wildlife, is a good thing?

Would you still be making that comment if they closed all of the roads? After all, according to you, it would directly benefit wildlife.

I may be blowing it up with my comment there, but, it is just to illustrate a point. A very real case in the unit I hunt is a road that was closed down far below the trail head. I have a 7 year old little girl and two twin 2 year olds that will not be able to make this hike now until they are at least 10 years old. Is that "sensationalizing"? I had planed on taking my little girl up to this spot this year and I am now unable to do so. The reason for this closure where they closed it has nothing to do with benefiting wildlife. It has to do with some complaints they had received from the public that felt their hiking experience was intruded upon by ATV's. After the forest service guy gave me this reason, he stated that he was a hunter and that he hunted the same area and this would make it a better hunt because less people would be able to get up their.

The thing is, part of me agrees with this; until, I stop my selfish thoughts and realize that it just eliminated the option for kids and others who cannot physically climb the last 1500' of step terrain they cut the road off at. Can I make it? Yes I can and have already 3 times this year. Can my kids? Nope!

Closing some roads make sense, but, they should be discussion with the public and mapped out so the public can see what they are doing and be a part of the decision before they do it. You mention they did this with Dutton, but they have not done it with all units and roads. If you disagree, show me a map of the proposal from the entire Manti-Lasal unit. I have searched and asked the forest service for this map or even a map that shows what is closed and what is opened. They cannot provide this map at this time because it does not exist.

I have a challenge for you; I challenge you to find, in statistical study that negatively affects big game and small game by reducing the number of animals in an area, aside from the animal getting hit by a vehicle. What are we really talking about when we say benefits wildlife? Benefits them by not scaring them? Benefits them by allowing them to eat where the road is? On the unit I hunt, there is no lack of forage. The roads closed will not save more animals. So, what did they really benefit?


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

Searching to understand better where you are coming from I have dove into your links even further and found this summary, 
"Summary
*Not all ORVs negatively impact hunting and
fishing, but some ORVs driven in certain places
and in certain ways can.* Though more studies
are still needed on many aspects of ORV impacts
on wildlife and fisheries, a growing body of
evidence in journals and other studies points to
the conclusion that ORVs *can* negatively affect
hunting and fishing.
As the popularity of ORVs continues to climb
across the country and particularly in hunting and
fishing locations, we need to continue to explore
ways to minimize the negative impacts of ORVs on
these important outdoor activities."

The number one thing I read in your journals you have sent me to is that a few jack a$$e$ are ruining it for the rest of the responsible sportsman by the way the use their ORV's. This does not justify removing the opportunity from the other 99% of the people by closing the roads.

As for collision mortality, please explain how you can have this over a road that is climbing up a mountain with boulders and other obstacles with a maximum speed of about 10 mph?


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

I very much like this PBH sumbeetch!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

InvaderZim said:


> I very much like this PBH sumbeetch!


Isn't that special.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> The number one thing I read in your journals you have sent me to is that a few jack **** are ruining it for the rest of the responsible sportsman by the way the use their ORV's. This does not justify removing the opportunity from the other 99% of the people by closing the roads.


I recall while playing high school football this exact scenario. Conditioning. Everyone lined up running 'hills'. We'd go on a snap-count. We usually had a certain number of 'hills' to run. If a SINGLE person went on the wrong count, WE ALL started over at 0 'hills'. 1 jackass ruining it for the rest of us.

Opening weekend of the archery hunt this year (2010) I'm hiking along the edge of a grove of aspen to a drop-off. Along comes a truck and ATV trying to beat me to the edge. The truck stops. The ATV continues, cross country ahead of me into the aspen and down along the ridge. Three guys pile out of the truck and head towards me. I comment "you know this isn't an ATV trail, right?". Their reply: "We're retrieving downed game". I said "that doesn't matter". They replied "did they change the law?". I responded "It's people like you that ruin things for the rest of us".

Unfortunately, a few jackasses ruining it for the rest of us is EXACTLY what this is about. If you feel that these jackasses (I think it's a larger percent than only 1% -- much larger) abuse doesn't justify closing things down for the rest of the non-abusers, then maybe it's time for the non-abusers to start policing the abusers!

Back to my football story and missed snap counts ruining it for the rest of us: It was all a lesson taught to us by the coaches (Forest Service). The less they (coaches / forest service) had to police us (players / ATVers), and the more we (players / ATVers) policed ourselves the less they (coaches / forests service) had to punish us and be the bad guys. Our coaches knew **** well that after a few times of starting over, and having to run those hills again that we'd figure out a way to keep those abusers from ruining it for the rest of us! Guess what? It worked.

go ahead Pro. We all know that you have to say something...


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

Policing ourselves is a great tool and everyone should do it. I have turned in several jackasses for abusing the land and have even turned in one poacher. You should have went a step further and called the authorities on the people you wrote of riding cross country. However, the federal government is not my coach, nor do they have the right to make us re run the hill until everyone is perfect. Education is a more valuable tool than closing any road. Using our land in a way that benefits humans and wildlife is the ultimate goal, not one or the other. 

That was an unfortunate event that took place on the opening weekend of the bow hunt for you. The best way to avoid this is to hunt away from the road system and not right next to it where a truck can come up on you to ruin your hunting. Besides, Wyoming2Utah has provided information to us that game animals stay away from roads which would make it a very bad place to hunt. P)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> Opening weekend of the archery hunt this year (2010) I'm hiking along the edge of a grove of aspen to a drop-off. Along comes a truck and ATV trying to beat me to the edge. The truck stops. The ATV continues, cross country ahead of me into the aspen and down along the ridge. Three guys pile out of the truck and head towards me. I comment "you know this isn't an ATV trail, right?". Their reply: "We're retrieving downed game". I said "that doesn't matter". They replied "did they change the law?". I responded "It's people like you that ruin things for the rest of us". I wonder why you didn't turn them in to the 'police'/coaches? :O•-:
> 
> Unfortunately, a few jackasses ruining it for the rest of us is EXACTLY what this is about. If you feel that these jackasses (I think it's a larger percent than only 1% -- much larger) abuse doesn't justify closing things down for the rest of the non-abusers, then maybe it's time for the non-abusers to start policing the abusers! If the abusers are already abusing by going into closed areas, what is gained by closing more areas? Doesn't that just punish the non-abusers? This is akin to banning all guns because of "gun abusers". Typical progressive NONSENSE!
> 
> ...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> That was an unfortunate event that took place on the opening weekend of the bow hunt for you. The best way to avoid this is to hunt away from the road system and not right next to it where a truck can come up on you to ruin your hunting. Besides, Wyoming2Utah has provided information to us that game animals stay away from roads which would make it a very bad place to hunt. P)


You are correct. Even if it was said tongue in cheek. The problem is that on the Boulder Mountain you can't walk more than 1/2 a mile in any direction without running into some kind of "road". I believe that this is exactly why the FishDix National Forest has been working for the last few years on travel management plans. They are certainly behind the game (consider Ashley and Uinta forests and their plans). In the last couple years, the FishDix have been "numbering" trails and roads. This is the first step in getting roads closed -- you have to inventory what's there.

FWIW -- this area I was hunting in did not have any roads in it 3 years ago. Last year, an ATV drove up the fence-line, and through the grove of aspen. 1 year later (2010), this new ATV trail appears to be a frequently used trail. It's unfortunate -- this grove of aspen is surrounded on four sides by thick pine, and is a fantastic spot for deer and elk. Some people are just too lazy to get off the bike and walk half a mile.

come on Pro -- you're too up-tight. You need to relax a bit. How's life treating you? You have any good hunts you're guiding this year?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> Troutsman said:
> 
> 
> > The number one thing I read in your journals you have sent me to is that a few jack **** are ruining it for the rest of the responsible sportsman by the way the use their ORV's. This does not justify removing the opportunity from the other 99% of the people by closing the roads.
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I am no longer guiding, and I NEVER will again. I am helping a few good friends with their LE elk hunts though. In fact, I will be heading out in a couple of hours, so things on the hunting front are excellent.


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

PBH said:


> Troutsman said:
> 
> 
> > That was an unfortunate event that took place on the opening weekend of the bow hunt for you. The best way to avoid this is to hunt away from the road system and not right next to it where a truck can come up on you to ruin your hunting. Besides, Wyoming2Utah has provided information to us that game animals stay away from roads which would make it a very bad place to hunt. P)
> ...


Last time I was down in the boulders about 4 years ago, I backpacked into some of the lakes about 5 or 6 miles in. I don't remember seeing any roads within a half mile. I guess a lot has changed in the last 4 years :roll:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> InvaderZim said:
> 
> 
> > I very much like this PBH sumbeetch!
> ...


Excuse me...not to interupt and I have no dog in this fight....but that's funny stuff right there. :mrgreen:

Sorry...carry on. o-||


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

PBH.... Are you packing a sign on your back that blinks "Free Gas". I don't think any single person in the world has seen this many people off making new roads as you have.... :shock: 

Now I'm sure your being honest here.... Right!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Troutsman said:


> Last time I was down in the boulders about 4 years ago, I backpacked into some of the lakes about 5 or 6 miles in. I don't remember seeing any roads within a half mile. I guess a lot has changed in the last 4 years :roll:


You show me a lake on the Boulder, and I'll show you a nearby road.

FWIW -- can anyone on this forum name "some lakes" that require a 5 or 6 mile backpack hike on the Boulder?



TAK said:


> PBH.... Are you packing a sign on your back that blinks "Free Gas". I don't think any single person in the world has seen this many people off making new roads as you have.... :shock:
> 
> Now I'm sure your being honest here.... Right!


I guess if you spend enough time on the mountain, you'll see it too. Just come up on Boulder during any of the deer / elk hunts, and I promise you'll see ATV abuse happening as well. It isn't hard to find.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

FWIW -- can anyone on this forum name "some lakes" that require a 5 or 6 mile backpack hike on the Boulder?

I can't


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

Brookie said:


> FWIW -- can anyone on this forum name "some lakes" that require a 5 or 6 mile backpack hike on the Boulder?
> 
> I can't


If you go to several lakes it can add up pretty quick. A backpacking trip that uses roads is irrelevant. :roll:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> The problem is that on the Boulder Mountain you can't walk more than 1/2 a mile in any direction without running into some kind of "road".





Troutsman said:


> Last time I was down in the boulders about 4 years ago, I backpacked into some of the lakes about 5 or 6 miles in. I don't remember seeing any roads within a half mile. I guess a lot has changed in the last 4 years :roll:





Troutsman said:


> If you go to several lakes it can add up pretty quick. A backpacking trip that uses roads is irrelevant. :roll:


Backtracking here, aren't you?

Remember what this conversation is about. It's about roads, and unfortunately, you can't get away from the roads on many of our mountains. You hiked, and didn't see any roads -- that doesn't mean that they weren't there -- as I pointed out to you your mistake in a PM. There was a road within 1/2 mile of the lakes you were at. Isn't that sad?

Boulder is only one example. It's a sad example -- because it's true.


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

PBH said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that on the Boulder Mountain you can't walk more than 1/2 a mile in any direction without running into some kind of "road".
> ...


As you stated in your PM:



PBH said:


> That's a good area -- but you need to look at a map. There are roads just above Yellow and Blue, on the Griffin Top. Right about 1/2 mile from Blue, as the crown flies. You're also less than 1 mile from the road at Lower Barker.


It looks like you don't even understand what a 1/2 mile is. It seems to me that the "less then one mile" after the sentence of "right about a 1/2 mile" would suggest that it is a little bit further. :roll:

What is truly sad is your attempt to attack me while trying to gather information from me. Here is a link to a website that would argue with your 1/2 mile comment.

http://www.redrockadventure.com/fishing ... erview.htm

Now the real question here is, have you personally used these illegal ATV trails you are so desperately trying to have closed down? My backpacking trip started at Bakers reservoir and went all the way to long and round bottom lake, while hitting the lakes in between. There was no mistake in a PM, unless you consider the mistake a road you would have not gone in on yourself because you knew of a road that was not on a map. By this website that I have included, they have identified this as a 2 mile hike.

Lets not forget, my comment was made to your pathetic attempt to state that you could not hunt anywhere on the boulders without out being within a 1/2 mile from a road. :O•-: o-|| :roll:

Just because where you recreate there are roads running all over hell, and is a bad thing; doesn't mean that every single mountain has the same problem. This is not a one shoe fits all problem and for the FEDS to treat it like that with support from people like you, is just idiotic. Personally, I think that this has to do more with you not being able to hunt like you used to because of 4 wheelers all over the place. Why else would you give examples of events that are ruining your hunting experience.

I think Pro said it best when he stated that trying to close roads down because of a few jackasses is like taking guns away from people because of a few jackasses. It just does not make any sense o-|| .


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Trout -- give it up. You obviously don't know the area you are arguing about. Look at a map. There is more than 1 trailhead to Willow Bottoms. You took the long one. There is another LEGAL road on the Griffin Top that is less than 1 mile from the Willow Bottoms. Same thing with Blue and Yellow lakes. Look at a map. You're going to be hard pressed to find a lake on the Boulder that doesn't have a road nearby. 1 mile, 1/2 mile -- whatever. So I stretched things a bit by saying "1/2 mile". I should have said 1 mile.

Hike around on that mountain and you'll find plenty of roads, both legal and illegal. You don't have to drive them to find them.


You never did say how fishing was -- which was the true intent of my PM.

by the way -- that link you referred to: not exactly the best info out there. Don't trust everything it says...


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

PBH said:


> You never did say how fishing was -- which was the true intent of my PM.


Thats hard to believe considering I did tell you about the fishing. Try to go back and actually read what you claim that you were inquiring upon. :roll:



PBH said:


> You obviously don't know the area you are arguing about. Look at a map. There is more than 1 trailhead to Willow Bottoms. You took the long one. There is another LEGAL road on the Griffin Top that is less than 1 mile from the Willow Bottoms. Same thing with Blue and Yellow lakes. Look at a map. You're going to be hard pressed to find a lake on the Boulder that doesn't have a road nearby. 1 mile, 1/2 mile -- whatever. So I stretched things a bit by saying "1/2 mile". I should have said 1 mile.


All of this is irrelevant and just distracts from the actual topic. The fact that you can get off the road system, even in the boulders, is truly what is relevant here.


----------

