Road Closure

[Utah400Elk]

I have read a lot of post lately wherein people are talking about the USFS/BLM closing roads.

When I lived in Utah I hunted out by the Flaming Gorge for archery elk. I started archery elk hunting the area in 1989. There were very few roads and basically no quads. All of my hunting was done on foot. I hiked a lot, got away from the roads and saw a lot of animals. Over the years I watched as the roads multiplied and the elk were pushed further and further back. Before I left Utah, the areas I had previously hunted were basically void of elk. These new roads have been there for over 20 years and are used by a lot of people.

I watched the same thing with deer hunting. There were areas that I used to work to get to (hours of pre-dawn hikes). Now there are roads that make it very easy to drive the same areas. These areas previously held a lot of big deer. Now?not so much.
I personally think it is good for hunting to have more Roadless areas.

One of my best hunts was a pack trip into the Uintas. 12 miles from the trailhead and we were alone. We had a great trip and went 2 for 3 on elk. We could have gone 3 for 3 but the third hunter decided not to shot a spike at 3 yards.

My best hunt ever was a deer hunt in AZ two years. This was my son?s first deer hunt and it was snowing/raining on opening morning. To keep him and my wife happy, I drove to an area with a good overlook and waited for sunrise.
(My Son waiting for his first opening morning)
http://www.monstermuleys.info/photos/user_photos3/9649waiting.jpeg
My wife asked him how he liked hunting and his response was priceless and perfect! He said ?Mom were not hunting until we are hiking!? I was very proud. We got out of the truck in the rain/snow and hiked up a little ridge. I had told my son since it was his first hunt he got to choose the deer we shot. Well we ended up shooting a little two point (he wanted that deer). This was definitely not me biggest deer but it was my best hunt.
(My son with "his" first buck)
http://www.monstermuleys.info/photos/user_photos3/1826deer.jpeg
We saw four legal bucks that morning and we were never more than about 1000 yards from the truck (just over a little ridge).
My wife, a non-hunter, was shocked. As we were loading up several trucks stopped to ask where we shot our deer. They would continually tell us that they hadn't seen anything as they drove away on the roads. My wife commented that they needed to get of their butts and hike.

For full disclosure?I am 43 and have a few significant health issues. I recently fought/am still fighting cancer and I can't hike like I did when I started. As I have said, I have a young son who is getting into hunting. These facts will make a lot of areas inaccessible to me but that doesn't change my thoughts on Roadless areas.

Please tell me what I am missing. I think the proliferation of roads has hurt hunting and I think it is a good idea to shut a few down/a bunch. Please keep any and all responses respectful. We can disagree and not be jerks about it.

 

[sageadvice]

400 said, "... I started archery elk hunting the area in 1989. There were very few roads and basically no quads. All of my hunting was done on foot."

1989 was yesterday for some of us. I can understand how "new" roads, like you are talking about, concern you and have made hunting for you not such a pleasant experience as it once was.

Much of the access that i try to protect, is the same access that we have had since the 60's and 70"s, that existed before my time. Back as a young gun ho hunter, i knew were i could hunt and not be effected by the guys hunting the roads. Sometimes, i used their presence to better aid my own hunt. I also believe that Deer can exist where there are way too many roads. It's not the dirt roads that kill the deer...

Basically, i do understand your view. The best hunting i ever had, and lots of it, was back away from where most everybody else went hunting. At the same time though, i'd like the ability to drive up close to a good vantage point and get the ol spotter working until the very last light of day. Getting a good buck down, now that presents a whole boatload of other problems for me even if i have to take my salt and pepper with me down there, get a good fire going, and eat him on the spot.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[Utah400Elk]

Joey,

My only question would be, were the roads back in the 60's and 70's legal roads? The new roads I am talking about were wildcat roads that get more and more use everyday. Now people would pitch a fit if they were to be closed. After all, a few of them have been there for more than 20 years. I think the same principle should be applied to the roads from the 60s and 70s. If they were legal roads put in by Forest Service or BLM then they should stay. If they were wildcat roads that have been developed I would argue that they should be closed.

I would argue that there is an absolute need for access roads. I would argue even more that we don't need roads up and down every finger ridge.

Best of luck to you this season.

 

[sageadvice]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-15 AT 04:08PM (MST)[p]Yeah, most of the country i now hunt has tons of old logging or mining roads, can't say if they were legal or not. Some go places like further back in to tie in other country, or to Lakes, streams, great camping places. Others are just there because the loggers had a easier time of getting the money out of the woods.

I don't need every single road but then again, i don't want to see whole huge tracts of land that used to have some decent access, suddenly being gated off limits to all but those who can still physically get themselves back in there.

That's why what the NF is trying to do here in NE Cali ain't really so bad. They are trying to close or eliminate a bunch of roads that aren't really needed. Many here local though, are fighting against any closures and doing a fair job of it. They don't want to start a precedence and i can't blame them for that either.

Joey




"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[foghorn]

I wish our BLM/USFS would close some roads.
I wish it were done in a thoughtful way to benefit our wildlife.
A few roads were closed during the Clinton regime. Complete with cute little signs. YOU may not go any further unless. YOU are the grazing permittee. YOU are a gubmint employee on OFFICIAL bizness. That worked real well. Didn't stop anyone that wanted to go there.
I really wish there were a way to keep people from driving wherever they feel like.
Whenever they feel like!
In my area people are cutting across meadows, up the hills, pretty much anywhere they want to. THERE IS ZERO ENFORCEMENT!!
I am at the age where I can't hike as far as I would like. Still a couple of miles from a road will earn solitary bliss! Usually.
Later
Foghorn

 

[deerslayer88]

In Utah after 20 years these roads become easements.


?If men were angels, no government would be
necessary.? John Adams

 

[elkassassin]

Sure gonna be a lot of easements soon if Illegal F'N ATV trails are included?



>In Utah after 20 years these
>roads become easements.
>
>
>?If men were angels, no government
>would be
>necessary.? John Adams








We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!

 

[Utah400Elk]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-15 AT 07:21PM (MST)[p]Is the easment from Utah state code orr Federal code. That does not make any sense to me...break the law for 20 years then it is ok?

 

[DW]

Thought u developed a cure for that elkassassin? A bit old fashioned but a cure.

 

[elkassassin]

>Thought u developed a cure for
>that elkassassin? A bit old
>fashioned but a cure.

Well!

The Law Breakin BASTARDS Don't like the Cure but it get's a few of them a Thinkin!

What they gonna do?

Turn me in to the USFS?










We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!

 

[jd332001]

I would support road closures if the roads were not originally there. Question on that though, what would be a viable time period for that road to be considered ORIGINAL or GRANDFATHERED IN?

Also this question may be a little off subject but can anyone tell me if private landowners are allowed to use roads that originate from private but end up going all over BLM/Forest. This happens a lot here in Western Colorado and I was wondering if it is legal for them to do this? These roads are only accessible to the private landowners?

Thanks,

JD

 

[Hawkeye]

DS88-

In most states, including Utah, you cannot obtain a prescriptive easement on land owned by the government (federal, local or state). Therefore, extended use does not typically result in an easement on public lands.

-Hawkeye-

 

[RidgeRunner76]

From my understanding yes, it is legal. I learned of this in a backwards sort of way. My wife and I were staying at an outfitters place who owned a ton of bottom land along the streams and rivers near Gunnison. We were just renting a cabin there, as it also got us access to the creek running through his property. While fishing, the owner stopped by to chat and not long after we had a local warden stop in to check licenses. While talking after business was completed, the topic came up of hunting season and I asked about the BLM road that lead to Forest Service land though the BLM, if access could be had through the outfitters place. The outfitter mentioned that no, it was not open to the public to cross his property, but the FS, BLM, and Wardens all had a key. The BLM road originated off the hardball, and through his hay pasture. It is a numbered BLM road as well.

So I do believe it is perfectly legal to have a road originate off private land, that itself is public and leads to public land. I do however think this goes alot further back to agreements made from the original landowners and whatever agency oversee's the publc land. The outfitter in question was an original settler near Gunnison and I believe was 4th generation. Not sure how much it would gain to have access here, as if you drove 2 miles west, you could gain access with a really well maintained BLM road, and with a few right turns and a couple miles be right to this outfitters ranch where the gate is...

 

[Utah400Elk]

Hawkeye,

I had hoped you would respond. I tried to read the Utah statute and didn't think the prescriptive easement would apply unless the person had a dominate estate. Even then, I couldn't find anything about state and or federal land. I guess you learn something everyday.

 

[deerslayer88]

>DS88-
>
>In most states, including Utah, you
>cannot obtain a prescriptive easement
>on land owned by the
>government (federal, local or state).
> Therefore, extended use does
>not typically result in an
>easement on public lands.
>
>-Hawkeye-

While you are correct on the government lands I didn't catch anyone saying these lands were government owned.

?If men were angels, no government would be
necessary.? John Adams

 

[BrowningRage]

I have seen many of the old 'jeep trails' that my grandpa and dad and uncles used to hunt on on the North Slope already closed. They've been closed for a decade or more. Deer numbers in those areas haven't increased. Elk numbers, maybe, but not that I've seen.

While I realize that closed roads sounds like a way to reduce 'hunter pressure', you're talking about road closures for 52 weeks out of the year, in order to reduce 'hunter pressure' for like, 6 weeks..?

Road closures reduce all access, all year. That's a tough pill I think. I'd need some pretty good explanation of why they want to close such roads...

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24

 

[elkassassin]

Well BrowningRage!

I Guess where you Hunt Hasn't been completely Invaded with Illegal ATV Trails?

Hurry!

Call the USFS!

They'll make a 10"-12" Dirt Berm,put up a Flimsy Fiberglass Sign up & the First TARD by will tear the Sign down & go past/over the Chicken little Berm like it ain't even there!

Ya!

You can get to what used to be some decent Hunting Spots within Minutes on your Quads now but there Ain't a F'N Deer left anywhere near them!

I Know!

You Guys are Talkin Roads!

Once these Wheeler Trails have been Trounced by Side by Sides they're damn near a Road!

Guess some of us are Old enough to know what it once was & We know what it's like today!

HINT:It hasn't got any better,DUH!





We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!

 

[stillwaitin]

Just from my experience out in the Bookcliffs there are roads on almost every ridge and canyon and there are more elk or deer there than I have ever seen in the Unitas. So I am curious on how this will help boost numbers. I am not arguing just curious. Apples and oranges?

I do agree on closing illegal trail though. We camp in the Uintas multiple times per year and most years are there for the general elk hunt and nothing ticks me off more than hiking my fat butt up an old logging trail that has been closed off just to have guys on wheelers drive up right behind me.

 

[Utah400Elk]

I don't believe that closing roads will necessarily increase numbers but I think it can make for a more enjoyable hunt. I don't believe we need as many roads but that's just me. I think there are a lot of people who feel they should be able to drive wherever they want.

I see a lot of people who have argued that the state getting the land would stop the road closures. Like I have said...I am for closing a few roads.

 

[sageadvice]

"I see a lot of people who have argued that the state getting the land would stop the road closures. Like I have said...I am for closing a few roads."

You might want to reconsider your thinking! If the States do get our Public Land, They have already admitted that they will sell it or lease it, either way, NO ACCESS, NO HUNTING, NO TRESPASSING, and KEEP OFF!

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[Utah400Elk]

Joey,

I am against the transfer of the land. I believe if the land is transferred to the states then the land will be sold. I think closing a few roads is a better idea then selling it. I was simply saying that there are a lot of people that believe if the states get the land the road closures will stop.

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[sageadvice]

400, Yeah, i read what you simply said, i can't believe that very many may think that but don't doubt your words. I also find it hard to understand the reasoning behind those thoughts, not even a little bit, and so my comment.

If the States get our Public Lands or the Feds decide to broker it themselves, sell off or lease the rights to those lands in favor of more Tax Revenue, you can Kiss your Access, any access, to those, what was ours to roam, lands away.

I'm still seeing many, most all of our western States now, talking very quietly, about transfer deals that could end access or hunting on public land as we know it.

This deserves a very watchful eye!

Hawkeye, am i wrong to be so concerned about this?

Joey




"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[Vanilla]

You don't need to worry about the states taking control by suing the Feds, like Utah is saying they will. That lawsuit is DOA. No chance of prevailing.

You are very wise to be very concerned with the Rob Bishops of the world that are pushing for state transfer and/or selling off the land for tax revenue. The only way it happens is if congress allows it to. There are those trying in congress for just that.

 

[Elkduds]

Shenanigans in Congress, the latest:


Cally Carswell | March 31, 2015 | Web Exclusive
Over the last few years, a movement in Western states to "take back" federal lands has been gaining funding and followers. As we reported last October, eight states have considered the idea of late, but none so seriously as Utah. In 2012, Utah passed a law demanding 20 million acres of federal land, and the legislature has since allocated taxpayer money to studying the issue and devising a winning legal strategy. But even as excitement spread among some right-wing county commissions and state legislatures, most lawyers and observers agreed: There was no winning legal strategy. The federal government is under no obligation to transfer public lands over to the states.

But there might be another way to achieve the same goal: Go through Congress, instead of the courts.

Last week, the U.S. Senate passed a budget amendment sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, supporting the idea of selling, transferring or trading federal lands to the states. The measure is purely symbolic. It doesn't cover any specific parcels or give Congress any kind of new authority to chuck federal holdings. Proposals still have to make it past the House, Senate and the White House to go through. But the amendment is a "signal" that considering such bills is a priority of the Congress, says Robert Dillon, communications director for Murkowski's energy committee.

Jessica Goad, a policy advocate at the Center for Western Priorities, which opposes the state land-transfer movement, believes Murkowski was "testing the waters" with the amendment, attempting to gauge how her colleagues might vote on land transfer bills in the future. Such bills are likely in the pipeline. E&E Daily reported earlier this month that Michael Swenson, a D.C.-based lobbyist for the American Lands Council, the Utah-based group leading the states' movement, is educating "lawmakers on the benefits of relinquishing federal lands to the states." Swenson told E&E that he "expects federal legislation to be introduced by fall."


Oil and gas development in Utah's Uintah Basin takes place mostly on federal land. Photo courtesy WildEarth Guardians.
Sportsmen's groups have been particularly vocal about their opposition to the land-transfer movement, believing that in the hands of the states, which lack the financial resources to manage them, lands would be developed and privatized, resulting in a loss of access. Whit Fosburgh, head of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, called the Murkowski amendment "a finger in the eye to sportsmen everywhere." In an email statement to High Country News, Fosburgh said: "It was not clear to us why the amendment was necessary, and its language was sufficiently broad to be worrisome about its potential implications for the future. Senator Murkowski may not have intended to suggest that millions of acres of public land be put on the market, but the unfortunately broad language of the amendment implies that."
On the Senate floor, however, Murkowski was unambiguous about why she believed the amendment was necessary: It is too difficult to drill, mine and otherwise develop energy on federal land. It's true that it is much easier to develop certain state lands. "Trust" lands, for instance, are explicitly intended for development and to make money for the states; they have no real conservation mandate, and are subject to few environmental regulations. Whether that's a good thing, of course, is a matter of opinion. It's also true that the shale booms have largely taken place on private land, but that's a function of geology more than regulation. North Dakota, for instance, has very little federal land.

It is not the case that federal lands are broadly hands-off for the energy industry. For proof, visit, well, Utah. Or, consider that onshore oil sales from federal lands increased from 96 million barrels in 2003 to 133 million barrels in 2013, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Curious how your Senator voted on Murkowski's amendment? It was almost a straight party-line vote, with only three Republicans coming out against it. Cory Gardner of Colorado was the lone Western Republican to vote no, joining all of the Western Democrats.

Cally Carswell is a High Country News contributing editor and is based in Santa Fe, New Mexico.