Motorized Vehicle Rule in Idaho

S

Salmonfg

Guest
Reps OK bill to expand ATV hunts over F&G protest
The Associated Press
Posted: 11:47am on Mar 15, 2012; Modified: 12:34pm on Mar 15, 2012

ROGER PHILLIPS / [email protected]
BOISE, IDAHO ? Backcountry trails on Idaho's federal lands would open to all-terrain vehicle-riding hunters, under a measure passed by the House over Department of Fish and Game objections.
Thursday's 48-21 vote sends it to the Senate.
Currently, Fish and Game's rules require hunter in a third of Idaho's hunting units to steer clear of off-road vehicle trails.
This bill lifts restrictions, something ATV users say will remedy confusion over where they can ride.
Rep. Judy Boyle said such closures have been unnecessary since 2005, when the U.S. Forest Service banned cross-country ATV travel.
She argues Fish and Game's rules exceed the agency's statutory authority.
Fish and Game commissioners opposed this measure, however, arguing it hurts their ability to shield game from overharvest.
Rep. Linden Bateman contends the rule provides refuge for wildlife.
 
Ok, that Bill sounds good going through the legal system but it is not final and it has not become law yet right? What does that Bill and Judgement really accomplish accept not allowing the F&G to set the ATV Access Rules. If you have the USFS "Keeper of the Federal Lands" making rules as long term Land Management Plans to stop ATV access justifing it as ATV's causing folige and erosion damage to trails and habitat. All that I see here is smoke and mirrors By F&G and USFS.. I Dont see how that Judgement converts to opening up Federal Lands "National Forests where most of the closers are located" to ATV travel. Especially when these areas have already had road and trail closers by USFS as part of their Land Management Plan. F&G just never seem to be the leader here as USFS controls the National Forests ie: Federal Lands not F&G. USFS basically closed the referrenced areas in conjunction with F&G. Can someone explain this to me better than I am understanding it?

))))------->
 
Simple the way it is now if your hunt is ruined by an idiot on an Atv riding off road on federal land in a restricted area you can contact F&G, they can usually be reached through a county sheriff dispatch and they can take enforcement action, if no F&G is available the county sheriff deputies could respond as well. If the bill passes and your hunt is ruined by an idiot riding in a USFS or BLM closed area you can contact the USFS BLM during business hours and if the 1 LEO for the region has time they may be able to talk to you about it.
 
Son of a b!tch. There you go dumba$$e$. Ride those atv where ever the hell you want trampling hunting grounds. I freakin hate this state. Bunch of pro atv dirtbags. Ruin it, then complain. God, makes me puke.
 
dreaminbouthuntin...
Come on. Can you really post like that after you posted this...?

"What a bunch of immature children. I will be the adult here i guess and let the whinning name calling children sound like the asses. Calling names because someone prefers to eat deer meat instead of antlers. Time for a nap kids. Call me a dumb ass to my face like a bully and your manley ego will get you in trouble. Thats if you havent been in trouble or had your butt kicked for running your mouth before. Im going to guess you have.

Now rant children on how you would to booster your ego on here. I conduct myself on here the way i would if we were in person. You may not be gentlemen, but i will treat you with respect because i am a respectful person. Not becaue you are respectful or even deserve it."

On another note, if you don't like this state, you are cordially invited to get the hell out.
 
This is headed in the wrong direction. So now potentially in the once "closed" zones, we will instead have madness! Every person and their dog will be cruising on their ATV looking for deer and elk. I understand the jurisdiction argument, but throw them a bone. IDFG was helping to manage the quality of the hunt. I am unimpressed with Idaho's house. I hope the senate sees this otherwise.
 
For a long time the F&G has tried to regulate technology. from bows to muzzleloaders to guns to ATV's, boats and scopes. You name it they are going about it wrong. Instead of chasing technology just put out the number of tags that the hunt can take. Chasing technology is the wrong way to manage. On this issue the rule never stopped anyone. if you rode in in the dark you were legal to ride. In the daylight if you had a gun they tried to write tickets but it was a tricky gig. They were close to infringing on second amendment rights. Remember that rule didn't stop atv's and motorcycles in the daylight. The rule just stopped people that were hunting. A guy could walk for 3 hours up a trail to hunt, just to have a legal ATV or Motorcycle pass him and head up the trail.
Then there were units like 48 that the rule was rescinded. Once you shot an animal you could go get your ATV and pack it out passing the guys that are walking. And this rule only was for trails that are so narrow a truck can't use them. Atv's could be used on any of the full size roads.
Technology rules are put into place not to level the playing field. They are put into place to reduce harvest. Reducing harvest allows the sale of more tags without a major increase in harvest.
I am not for or against this rule as a game rule. I am against it because of second amendment implications. The state in the instance is saying where I can and can't go with a gun. Ron
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-12 AT 09:35AM (MST)[p]>dreaminbouthuntin...
>Come on. Can you really post
>like that after you posted
>this...?
>
>"What a bunch of immature children.
>I will be the adult
>here i guess and let
>the whinning name calling children
>sound like the asses. Calling
>names because someone prefers to
>eat deer meat instead of
>antlers. Time for a nap
>kids. Call me a dumb
>ass to my face like
>a bully and your manley
>ego will get you in
>trouble. Thats if you havent
>been in trouble or had
>your butt kicked for running
>your mouth before. Im going
>to guess you have.
>
>Now rant children on how you
>would to booster your ego
>on here. I conduct myself
>on here the way i
>would if we were in
>person. You may not be
>gentlemen, but i will treat
>you with respect because i
>am a respectful person. Not
>becaue you are respectful or
>even deserve it."
>
>On another note, if you don't
>like this state, you are
>cordially invited to get the
>hell out.


Wtf are you ranting about? What, i cant be mad idahos leg is making it easier for atvs to go where ever the hell they want. Pardon me for not approving. I forgot, you can have a pissed off point of view but others cannot. My post was directed at the legislator not a poster on here. Get a clue.
Btw, if you buy my house and pay for my move, i will gladly leave this sinking ship. Till then, your stuck with me. Lmao
 
>For a long time the F&G
>has tried to regulate technology.
>from bows to muzzleloaders to
>guns to ATV's, boats and
>scopes. You name it they
>are going about it wrong.
>Instead of chasing technology just
>put out the number of
>tags that the hunt can
>take. Chasing technology is the
>wrong way to manage. On
>this issue the rule never
>stopped anyone. if you rode
>in in the dark you
>were legal to ride. In
>the daylight if you had
>a gun they tried to
>write tickets but it was
>a tricky gig. They were
>close to infringing on second
>amendment rights. Remember that rule
>didn't stop atv's and motorcycles
>in the daylight. The rule
>just stopped people that were
>hunting. A guy could walk
>for 3 hours up a
>trail to hunt, just to
>have a legal ATV or
>Motorcycle pass him and head
>up the trail.
>Then there were units like 48
>that the rule was rescinded.
>Once you shot an animal
>you could go get your
>ATV and pack it out
>passing the guys that are
>walking. And this rule only
>was for trails that are
>so narrow a truck can't
>use them. Atv's could be
>used on any of the
>full size roads.
>Technology rules are put into place
>not to level the playing
>field. They are put into
>place to reduce harvest. Reducing
>harvest allows the sale of
>more tags without a major
>increase in harvest.
>I am not for or against
>this rule as a game
>rule. I am against it
> because of second amendment
>implications. The state in the
>instance is saying where I
>can and can't go with
>a gun. Ron

I just, wow. Really ron? Your second amendment rights? What? How did you go from off road atv use tearing up land and ruining hunting to where you can or cannot carry a gun?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-12 AT 10:51AM (MST)[p]Oh dreamin...
You were just saying the other day how respectful you were and you threatened to kick someones ass for calling you a dumbass... Then you turn around and do the exact same thing. Thank you for clearing it up. I now have learned you can't call someone a dumbass unless they aren't here to see it themselves. I didn't say I was pissed, but I can be if I want to. Everyone has the right to be. Its just that when I read your post on this thread, I immediately remembered what you said about being respectful to others... Its really quite funny. You don't have to get all uptight about it.

I agree, about the ATVs. I don't want every one driving around where I hunt. I am glad that all of us here occasionally disagree. I don't know who said it, but "If we are all thinking the same thing, then somebody's not thinking."

But on a serious note, why don't you move? Is there somewhere else that you would rather live? I was born and raised here, my family has been here since the 1900's and I wanted nothing more than to get out of here when I got out of school. I have lived in South Carolina, New York (up state), and Virginia. I chose to come back and live here. At first, moving was hard. But then you realize, it's not that bad. Yes its an inconvenience, but if you just sit home and complain about where you live, you will never move... I'm glad I've lived other places, it gives me a greater appreciation for where I live now.
 
if it is legal to be there on a motorized vehicle without a gun. It should be legal to be there with a gun. Simple as that. I can't make that easier for you to understand. Ron
 
I totally agree with Ron. If you want to limit the harvest, limit the tags! Don't come up with sometimes confusing rules (that some folks are not going to obey anyways) and try to limit success rates buy restricting this and that or just shortening season lengths to reduce harvest. I'm still not sure if some of the old trails I used to ride on are legal or not so I park and walk in on some of them now, but every year I am passed on the trail by other hunters on their atv's.
 
> Am I the only
>one willing to contribute to
>buying the house, & paying
>for the move, or could
>we get something started here?
>

You got the money.. I've got the time. Let the bidding begin.
 
>>For a long time the F&G
>>has tried to regulate technology.
>>from bows to muzzleloaders to
>>guns to ATV's, boats and
>>scopes. You name it they
>>are going about it wrong.
>>Instead of chasing technology just
>>put out the number of
>>tags that the hunt can
>>take. Chasing technology is the
>>wrong way to manage. On
>>this issue the rule never
>>stopped anyone. if you rode
>>in in the dark you
>>were legal to ride. In
>>the daylight if you had
>>a gun they tried to
>>write tickets but it was
>>a tricky gig. They were
>>close to infringing on second
>>amendment rights. Remember that rule
>>didn't stop atv's and motorcycles
>>in the daylight. The rule
>>just stopped people that were
>>hunting. A guy could walk
>>for 3 hours up a
>>trail to hunt, just to
>>have a legal ATV or
>>Motorcycle pass him and head
>>up the trail.
>>Then there were units like 48
>>that the rule was rescinded.
>>Once you shot an animal
>>you could go get your
>>ATV and pack it out
>>passing the guys that are
>>walking. And this rule only
>>was for trails that are
>>so narrow a truck can't
>>use them. Atv's could be
>>used on any of the
>>full size roads.
>>Technology rules are put into place
>>not to level the playing
>>field. They are put into
>>place to reduce harvest. Reducing
>>harvest allows the sale of
>>more tags without a major
>>increase in harvest.
>>I am not for or against
>>this rule as a game
>>rule. I am against it
>> because of second amendment
>>implications. The state in the
>>instance is saying where I
>>can and can't go with
>>a gun. Ron
>
>I just, wow. Really ron? Your
>second amendment rights? What? How
>did you go from off
>road atv use tearing up
>land and ruining hunting to
>where you can or cannot
>carry a gun?

how can you ever question anyone about anything, with your ignorant rants? if you dont know what i'm talking about, basically look at anything you've ever posted here. hell, just scroll up for that matter to where you've been called out. you are a joke on this board. i may not agree with ron on certain things, but he at least makes sense. we are all entitled to our opinions, but YOU should try to keep yours to yourself...or maybe just share them with buzz.
 
Do you really think that the IDFG's thinking was to limit where you can or can't take your gun? That was not their intent. You could still stow your gun, ride in and then hunt. This is a total smokescreen that now puts unlimited ATV hunting into all of the zones. Someone saw the loophole, sugar coated the right to bare arms, no jurisdiction on federal lands and sold it to their local rep who doesn't understand a thing about a quality hunting experience away from ATV's. I am fine with disabled/verteran hunters having this opportunity, but to sell it to the masses is a step backward.
Let's reconvene in December after the hunts and hear how this is a win/win situation. I hope that this dies by a no vote.
 
>Let's move it to the classified
>section and see how much
>we can raise...


Knock yourself out.
 
>>>For a long time the F&G
>>>has tried to regulate technology.
>>>from bows to muzzleloaders to
>>>guns to ATV's, boats and
>>>scopes. You name it they
>>>are going about it wrong.
>>>Instead of chasing technology just
>>>put out the number of
>>>tags that the hunt can
>>>take. Chasing technology is the
>>>wrong way to manage. On
>>>this issue the rule never
>>>stopped anyone. if you rode
>>>in in the dark you
>>>were legal to ride. In
>>>the daylight if you had
>>>a gun they tried to
>>>write tickets but it was
>>>a tricky gig. They were
>>>close to infringing on second
>>>amendment rights. Remember that rule
>>>didn't stop atv's and motorcycles
>>>in the daylight. The rule
>>>just stopped people that were
>>>hunting. A guy could walk
>>>for 3 hours up a
>>>trail to hunt, just to
>>>have a legal ATV or
>>>Motorcycle pass him and head
>>>up the trail.
>>>Then there were units like 48
>>>that the rule was rescinded.
>>>Once you shot an animal
>>>you could go get your
>>>ATV and pack it out
>>>passing the guys that are
>>>walking. And this rule only
>>>was for trails that are
>>>so narrow a truck can't
>>>use them. Atv's could be
>>>used on any of the
>>>full size roads.
>>>Technology rules are put into place
>>>not to level the playing
>>>field. They are put into
>>>place to reduce harvest. Reducing
>>>harvest allows the sale of
>>>more tags without a major
>>>increase in harvest.
>>>I am not for or against
>>>this rule as a game
>>>rule. I am against it
>>> because of second amendment
>>>implications. The state in the
>>>instance is saying where I
>>>can and can't go with
>>>a gun. Ron
>>
>>I just, wow. Really ron? Your
>>second amendment rights? What? How
>>did you go from off
>>road atv use tearing up
>>land and ruining hunting to
>>where you can or cannot
>>carry a gun?
>
>how can you ever question anyone
>about anything, with your ignorant
>rants? if you dont know
>what i'm talking about, basically
>look at anything you've ever
>posted here. hell, just scroll
>up for that matter to
>where you've been called out.
>you are a joke on
>this board. i may not
>agree with ron on certain
>things, but he at least
>makes sense. we are all
>entitled to our opinions, but
>YOU should try to keep
>yours to yourself...or maybe just
>share them with buzz.

I feel sorry for you and anyone that has to deal with you on a daily bases. Your unhappy, sour, and completely baseless. Sad.
 
What a mess this thread has become. Here's the deal IDFG got a lot of complaints about atv hunters where they weren't supposed to be. The federal agencies that govern the atv usage did and still does a poor job of enforcement. IDFG took on some of the enforcement role by restricting the allowed method of take. If the legislation passes there will be far less enforcement of travel restrictions and the IDFG will again receive numerous complaints reguarding atv usage that they will be powerless to do anything about. The harvest numbers have very little to actually do with this issue and the 2nd ammendment arguement is the same old "I cant think of anything else" slant to yet another issue.
 
>What a mess this thread has
>become. Here's the deal IDFG
>got a lot of complaints
>about atv hunters where they
>weren't supposed to be. The
>federal agencies that govern the
>atv usage did and still
>does a poor job of
>enforcement. IDFG took on some
>of the enforcement role by
>restricting the allowed method of
>take. If the legislation passes
>there will be far less
>enforcement of travel restrictions and
>the IDFG will again receive
>numerous complaints reguarding atv usage
>that they will be powerless
>to do anything about. The
>harvest numbers have very little
>to actually do with this
>issue and the 2nd ammendment
>arguement is the same old
>"I cant think of anything
>else" slant to yet another
>issue.

Amen.
 
The current rules are not confusing. Tell me what part is confusing.

No matter if this law changes or not, off-road riders of all types are required to stay on AUTHORIZED trails only. Just because a trail is there does not make it AUTHORIZED. Illegal two tracks that exist, are not automatically authorized, so no matter if this law passes, I hope that all authorities enforce this 100%. This is where most of the problems are anyway.

The problem is the large number of riders who don't walk anywhere they can ride instead, and we all know these atv's can go almost anywhere.

These laws are not about restricing "take" it's about restricting slobs that abuse the land and their hunting brothers because they are lazy.

I also agree that alot of the people who complain about how hard it is to find ANY buck are complaining because they can't find one from the quad trails as they ride along, without even a pair of binoculars to glass more than 200 yards from. These are not people who I feel we should cater to.

For full disclosure, I own and use quads and horses to hunt with, so I don't want to ban them, but they must be used ethically or will be restricted.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-12 AT 08:26AM (MST)[p]oh bpk hunter great one show us the way.....please post and tell us of your virtues and codes of atv conduct so that your sheep can follow in your footsteps.......you sound a lot like a couple of the california newbies i work with. they hunt here five six years and have the answers for everything as long as it's 'their" way.

ron is 100 % correct. the idfg has ZERO buisness regulating atv use. tech. is here to stay. as i have said many times if atv's are banned fine, but no horse hunters no dirt bikes, bicycles, and everyone must park there trucks as soon as pavement turns to gravel. motorized travel harms dirt, gravel roads and can cause erosion and harm creeks and streams and the native fishes...see i can be radical too !

i am older than most here and probably am done hunting for the most part, but if you ban atv's lets ban lazer rangefinders, target turret scopes, any rifle over 10 pounds, gps units, two way communication including cell phones,any rifle scope of 12x magnification or greater and on and on........and by the way most people i see riding "off road" are not fat lazy people they are young kids or "in shape" guys. fat lazy and old stay on logging roads.because were lazy.......:)
 
I don't know about you guys but I enjoy hunting every year, its one of the greatest things about living in Idaho. So it kills me to see that some of you guys would rather see a limit in tags than a MVR restriction. I understand not wanting to micro manange everything, and having rule after rule after rule.

But don't you think we've become way too efficent at killing animals? Shouldn't there be some rules and restrictions. With todays rifles, if you can see it you can kill it, so the only way animals can survive is by being where the hunters aren't. So if you take away the F&G ability to manage where hunters are, I guess we'll just have more controlled hunts and less opportunity.

I guess I'm just frustrated that this bill is trying to satisfy a few people that want to ride and hunt at the expense of the majority that just want to hunt.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-12 AT 01:21PM (MST)[p]i did make a snide post regarding fellow contributers here. and it was good natured and just for the spirit of debate. having said that the bill isn't doing anything other than telling the idfg department to keep there nose where it doesn't belong . they manage GAME not roadways. if the bill passes there won't be beer swilling bubba's doing wheelies up and down everydraw. the laws are the same. you must stay on designated trails and roads. i do 100% of my atv riding on roads fullsize pick ups use.
 
The original ATV rule was written vaguely so IDFG could sort out the enforcement details and legislators could avoid accountability. In my experience enforcement of the law varied from warden to warden. Completely unacceptable.

If an area is closed to motorized travel - close it to EVERYBODY!
 
I liked the rules limiting atv's the deer had a fighting chance. So cut the tag #'s in half or shorten the season to keep fat azz s on their quads? Makes no sense.
 
Oh Beavis don't feel it's necessary to apologize for arguing with me. I know I must be right if you are calling me out.
 
why does everyone have such an issue with horses? i don't get it. banning them with atv's is like comparing apples to oranges.

and i would have no problem with cutting tags to make for less frequent yet more quality hunts. i dont know about everyone else but i think i would rather shoot a nice buck every 3 or 4 years backpacking then shoot a spork from a quad season after season like every redneck in this state :)

this state really is run by rahtards, i agree. it's very simple.
cut tags, cut doe/youth tags (not eliminate), actually regulate ATV use correctly the way the law now is intended and i think a 3 point or better point restriction in unit 39 would be a good thing. even though these studies have proven it might not be the best, i still think that in a unit like 39 it would give these bucks a fighting chance to grow the herd. even if they are monster forkies. people should not be hunting OTC units like 39 to kill their B&C buck anyway, that's what controlled hunts and colorado are for.

did anyone actually read the bill in full anyway?
 
Yep read it not much to it. Simply takes the F&Gs ability to regulate atv usage on nearly all of the hunted ground of the state. Anyone who thinks this will not increase illegal atv use needs a reality check.
 
yah no doubt 6speed. i wish there was a way to better enforce the way we have the law setup now but that would require more fish cops i guess. obviously not in the budget. they should raise resident hunting prices
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_20141102_204620.jpg
Colorado Trophy Mule Deer
mag7.jpg
19375.jpeg
IMG_5155.jpeg
IMG_20201112_185540_865.jpg
DB02CF6C-EC8D-4BF0-AD38-9577B36D592C.jpeg
1681495706155.jpeg
_AAX1741-Edit-Edit-2.jpg
IMG_6897.jpeg
20210403_133307.jpg
20230911_075935.jpg

Idaho Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Bearpaw Outfitters

Idaho Deer & Elk Allocation Tags, Plus Bear, Bison, Lion, Moose, Turkey and Montana Prairie Dogs.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, whitetail, bear, lion and wolf hunts and spend hundreds of hours scouting.

Jokers Wild Outdoors

Trophy elk, whitetail, mule deer, antelope, bear and moose hunts. 35k acres of private land.

Back
Top Bottom