Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01
This entire statement clearly shows your stance, you want foot access only.
|
Not at all. However, where the landscape is sensitive, if we as hunters are going to continue to enjoy access, we need to back off insisting that all methods need to be allowed. There are plenty of areas that OHV use will not impact the habitat critters depend on. Let's leave their use there.
Quote:
|
What defines an area as sensitive? That term gets thrown around pretty carelessly among your kind.
|
Not sure what "your kind" means, but if it means people who understand that the animals we hunt and fish need a place to eat, a place to procreate and a place to retreat to, then I guess I am one of those.
Sensitive areas can be many things. In the east slopes, headwaters certainly, streams certainly, and wetlands certainly. Montane regions are critical for wintering ungulates.
Why do I care? Because I want to ensure that my kids and grandkids have as much access as I have had, and that there are healthy, huntable and fishable populations of all manner of species for them. Why is that a bad thing?
Quote:
|
As for the groups that allow foot access only, is it not a different story than crown land? I agree with ACA etc sites being foot access only, but when it comes to changing large swaths of crown land arbitrarily, there is a problem.
|
Why is it a problem to have non-motorized access restrictions? What is wrong with walking, canoeing, or riding in by horseback? Not only does it make for less impact on the landscape, but it makes for a better hunt, at least in my experience.