Hunting Camp Issues HEADS UP

B

Boskee

Long Time Member
Messages
4,859
I would highly recommend that you take the time to go to a forest service office or the website and get one of the new maps, and make sure you understand how the map works. Just because there's a road doesn't mean you can camp there. Read and understand the types of road designations and their meaning. It's not the standard forest service map you buy at sportsmen's it's different.


The old STANDARD Forest service maps won't be current enough to show changes.



There have been some changes and in many areas where you used to camp when hunting previously IT"S OFF LIMIT'S THIS YEAR, and you may be cited or told to move camp during your hunt.

Pay attention to the motorized disbursed camping areas because unless you're packing it in that's where they want you to camp.

I bring this to your attention because a friend had a tag in 5BS and was up last weekend and was told he couldn't camp there. He has camped in that spot for 20 years and it's now off limits with restricted access. He's welcome to drive in there and park to hunt but he can't camp there. The forest service employee recorded his license plate number so he's been told. They were nice but made it clear NO CAMPING IN HIS FORMER HUNTING CAMP SPOT!

Oh and I almost forgot.... make sure you show Obama how much you appreciate the changes. Remember in Novenber! Make sure you vote!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-04-12 AT 04:29PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-04-12 AT 04:28?PM (MST)

What units does this restriction include?
 
All of the Coconino NF.

All of the Kaibab NF.

Coming soon to Apache/Sitgreaves and Tonto National Forests.
 
I need some clarification. I seen a map on azfg website when this closure went into effect and unit 8 which is the unit I was drawn for elk was not part of the closure. I can't seem to find this map now, but unit 8 is part coconino nf so I am confused.
Is there only a closure in certain units or all of coconino, kaibab nf?
 
8 is part of the Kaibab, and is part of the closures. Most of the Forest Service folks are locals, and they hate enforcing this new travel management plan, but they have to.

Most are polite, but there are some unfriendlies (just like anywhere) that will be looking to bust you for anything.

Unless they improved the new road map since I picked one up, its not too impressive. Big white sheet of paper with lines with numbers drawn through it. No geographical references, and not exactly to scale. Even the closed roads have numbers.

Some people have been ripping the road signs out of the ground and tossing them, so sometimes there wont be a road number sign to reference to the map.

...and the closed roads are not marked or blocked in any way. Its up to you to know if the road is open or not. It may look open, but that doesnt mean it is.

Good luck.

www.muleybulloutfitters.com
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-05-12 AT 12:09PM (MST)[p]

this new set of road closeures is gonna be a pain in tha ace for all those whom want to enjoy the heritage of an outing- not just hunters etc.

you are not welcome in your own NF.

these restrictions are a way of the greenies showing they are in poower - most of the rd closures make no sence at all and to restrict camping areas is total B.S. it should be a safety issue to NOT camp within 30 ft of a road!!!

they can not be fought on a local level, get organized and get signed petions by "everyone " to let our congress / senators know , is the only way we can take a fight to the national forest (greenies) guys back east - they are in contol even though most have never even visited our state!

As basically - quoted from local NF employes --------------- LIVE WITH IT
 
To tell the truth I enjoy the road closures. I am so tired of quads over running the spots I hunt. Seems anymore that people associate hunting with their right to drive anywhere they want in the NF. I wish they would close more so people would get off their duffs and actually get some excercise. Not to say I have never used a quad hunting, I am just tired of overuse. I grew up in Flag and now live in CO and really like some of the areas I hunt because of road closures
 
>To tell the truth I enjoy
>the road closures. I am
>so tired of quads over
>running the spots I hunt.
>Seems anymore that people associate
>hunting with their right to
>drive anywhere they want in
>the NF. I wish they
>would close more so people
>would get off their duffs
>and actually get some excercise.
>Not to say I have
>never used a quad hunting,
>I am just tired of
>overuse. I grew up in
>Flag and now live in
>CO and really like some
>of the areas I hunt
>because of road closures

Regardless whether you are for or against the road closures (I enjoy hunting roadless areas also), the new camping restrictions are BULLSH!!!!
This seriously pisses me off.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-05-12 AT 08:24PM (MST)[p]7 west is crazy a bunch of roads are closed to ponds so it would be like a 5 mile hike but ranchers game and fish and forest serice are ok to drive them doesnt make since.
 
"Where can you get the maps or have it mailed to you?"

Go to the Forest Service website for the forest you are interested in. Call and ask for the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) They will send you as many copies as you want for free....... Terry
 
Coconino National Forest
Motor Vehicle Use Map North Half

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5364169.pdf

Motor Vehicle Use Map South Half

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5364171.pdf

Legend for the Coconino Maps:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5379391.pdf

omment to: [email protected]

Kaibab National Forest
Motor Vehicle Map South Kaibab Williams Ranger District

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5304513.pdf

Comment to: [email protected]

Motor Vehicle Map South Kaibab Williams Ranger District

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5333080.pdf
 
There are a lot of people who suck at reading maps anyways. Combine that with a POS travel map that has no geographic references and too many people will be scratching their heads. I don't see how this can be held up in court. Only time will tell I guess.
 
Ignorance of the law has never been a winning defense. In fact 99% of the time you'll lose. The judge may let you off because this is such a mess. But you guys need to think about this If you go nuts on them (forest service) they're going to write an incident report and that little report creates documentation for them to use against us. This is going to create major issues in hunting season but we have to get guys to write Senator McCain & Co. They have tried to get this legislation changed and bills that get passed in the house get killed in the senate. The Dems kill any bill that opposes the green lobby in any way, right now EVEN if they make sense. So you have to change Congress in order to change the law!!


The green lobby filed thousands of lawsuits between 2008-2011. They are suing the government and the states to restrict our lands and close access and WE'RE PAYING THEM TO DO IT! yes that's right the green lobby files suits and goes to court and we as hunters through our tax dollars pay their legal fees. We pay their attorneys, we help fund their organizations thru grants from the OBAMA Administration that also uses your tax dollars. This is the biggest racket in the world and unless you get the Republicans back in control they'll just keep going forward. By the way there is language in some forest plans currently where discharging a firearm or a bow is ILLEGAL! How long do you think it will be before that one winds up in court?

Think about it like this, the folks that hunt are aging and the youth aren't taking it up as frequently. So if they make it harder to go in any manner, it discourages participation. More restrictions, more hassle= fewer hunters!!! I know some of you think we rant about this stuff but they're taking your rights away on many different fronts. It's time you sit up and see what they're doing.

This year when people are having issues in the field as a result of this you need to talk to them and explain to them that the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ordered the changes, because they think it's the Forest Service doing it...IT"S NOT!! You need to get involved and tell anyone that complains and tell them to write Sen McCain.

Think about this the NRA is a very powerful force in Washington and gets things done well if you added the ATV users, campers,wood cutters, fisherman to the numbers they have to take notice!! That's a block of voters 10-20 times bigger than the NRA.

By the way, you may hate ATV's but they eliminated 50 % or more open roads in some areas, so how is that going to make things better? There is going to be more congestion on roads and in camping areas!! You guys need to understand the forest belongs to all of us and we need support not enemies! Users of all types have just as much right to be there as you do!

Here's some perspective for you young guys that think this is great, the flip side for you. Large tracts of land w/o roads makes things much easier to become wilderness designated. Then they can easily introduce more predators and enact more legislation because there's less usage by the public!!


Another point for you young guys that think it's great, you didn't pay the taxes to put those animals in the field, your uncles, father, grandfathers & their neighbors did. They made sacrifices so that you have hunting today. So why would you want to take away their ability to hunt? You'll get older too and by then you'll be singing a different tune!! Hunting and conservation isn't funded just by hunting tags, the largest source of funding comes from the hunting and fishing products we buy. The goods we buy have a tax built into the price, and that money helps fund our state departments. so when you take guys out of the game you're only hurting yourselves. Less $$$= LESS CONSERVATION= LESS $$$ for ANIMALS.


We only stay strong by keeping guys in the game not foolishly thinking our odds just got better because there's fewer hunters.
 
The US forests belong to the citizens of the United States. The roads that were created by the US Forest Service, within our forests, were paid for by United States taxpayers. The signs that mark the approved US Forest Service Roads were paid for by US taxpayers. Now, the US Forest Service has developed a Travel Management Plan and have closed TWO-THIRDS of the roads in our forest. The amount of road closures is excessive and irresponsible. They have closed legal and plainly marked roads that have been traveled for years. And, they have closed these roads -- not with a closed sign on an actual road or by building a mound to indicate the road is closed to traffic - but by having field officers distribute hard to read maps to campers.

Obviously the Travel Management Plan will greatly impact hunters come the fall hunting seasons. By reducing the number of roads we can travel on, they've taken away hunting spots, made game retrieval difficult at best and have restricted hunter campsites. Condensing hunters and their campsite options is foolish and could be downright dangerous. Many hunters are older and are unable to hike in order to hunt game. Without the use of roads, older hunters will be prevented from pursuing the sport they love.

The US Forest Service and the Federal Government have taken away PUBLIC LANDS from citizens, lands that we paid for and continue to pay for. How is that right?
 
I'm not an Obama fan, I am also no longer a FS fan. The over reach in the implementation of the travel management plan was way over... way over.

California has a law suit in place by a group with backing fighting what is happening. It will (should) have rippling effects depending on the outcome. We are being closed out by the enironmental wackos. The Travel Management Plan and the Sierra Clubs idea of vehicle access are almost word for word identical.

http://www.virtualjeepclub.com/show...nal-Forest-access-for-off-road-recreationists

However... this is not an Obama thing, it started way earlier than that. This has been in the works for years. One opening for the lawsuit was "transparency" of government. The FS used the off road groups to help map roads by asking the clubs to provide GPS routes of the off road trails. The explanation was to work with those groups to better manage our public lands. In almost all cases the mapped routes were shut down. The FS had "open meetings" to discuss options but in reality did what ever they wanted regardless of public input.

We... All Outdoor Enthusiasts... need to band together to fight this. We need to get vocal NOW.

A thread that shows where the OHV dollars are being diverted and wasted, along with a contact for the state person in charge.

http://www.virtualjeepclub.com/showthread.php?72317-Our-OHV-Dollars-A-Must-Read!!!!!
 
Seems like everybody is screaming to close the forest to ATV's but when they close some vehicle travel roads the ##### hits the fan.

The "we need to stick together" plea appears to be a little late.
 
Bob some of us were on here 2 years ago and told you guys this was coming and as usual they thought we were nuts.

AZSHTR, The forest service has been working on this for years but they did implement one of the more restrictive alternatives in AZ in some of our forests when others were possible. By the way who does the forest service report to? Department of the Interior. Who heads that up Obama Administration political appointees. The decision was made at the top with considerable influence from The director or asst. director. When members on the House Resources Committee & members in Congress tell you where and why I tend to believe them. Sometimes you have to lay the blame on the shoulders of those actually responsible.
 
You're full of crap...the FS does not answer to the Department of the Interior.

Better luck next time.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-06-12 AT 10:23PM (MST)[p]Buzz, they do report to the Department of Agriculture but doesn't the head of the department of the Interior Ken Salazar control both ultimately? I think that's a yes
 
Then you ought to be able to provide a bunch of said directives that the USDI imposes on the USDA FOREST SERVICE...

Just askin'...
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-06-12 AT 10:38PM (MST)[p]Boskee,

Its a no... Secretary Salazar controls the interior.

The Department of the Interior oversees such agencies as the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Geological Survey, and the National Park Service. The Secretary also serves on and appoints the private citizens on the National Park Foundation board. The Secretary is a member of the President's Cabinet.

Secretary Vilsack controls the USDA.

The United States Secretary of Agriculture is the head of the United States Department of Agriculture. The current secretary is Tom Vilsack, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on 20 January 2009. [1] The position carries similar responsibilities to those of agriculture ministers in other governments.

The department includes several organizations. The 297,000 mi2 (770,000 km?) of national forests and grasslands are managed by the United States Forest Service.[2] The safety of food produced that are produced in the United States and sold here is ensured by the United States Food Safety and Inspection Service.[3] The Food Stamp Program works with the states to provide food to low-income people.[4] Advice for farmers and gardeners is provided by the United States Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.[5]
 
Spitting hairs here. Only in our current over government over regulated mess can we have this much bureaucracy and government intervention with a lack of common sense.
The Dept. of Interior oversees BLM lands and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture oversees Forrest service lands. But both are run by appointee political hacks. You think with a well run organization you could combine the two for more efficient government with less time for foolish rule making and a savings to the tax payer. I digress sorry.
Boskee you should put your thoughts on other web sites it is insightful.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-06-12 AT 11:02PM (MST)[p]Does an Obama appointee head up the department of agriculture who the head of the forest service reports to? Yes or NO? So if an Obama appointee heads up the forest service wouldn't the head of the forest service have to take direction from them? I was told that since Salazar had such an extensive background which he does, that he has input in most of the resource decisions in the administration. The asst. secretary that was on Rep. Tiptons bill hearing last month on TV couldn't answer a single question but the regional forest service head did but she was clearly under stress answering the questions with him sitting next to her.

When Rep.Gosar asked the questions and she had to answer yes or no it was apparent she was relieved. They wanted to cut down trees that were damaged by bark beetles that created a bigger fire hazard. Some of the areas in the Co. fire created more issues because they couldn't thin the trees. It was very clear that that forest service employee was conflicted by who was in attendance. Gosar saw that and changed his line of questions to make it easier to give her testimony. She confirmed that thinning the trees would be beneficial and would probably let the forest recover quicker.

Buzz we were typing at the same time. thanks for the clarification.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-12 AT 00:16AM (MST)[p]Try getting help or cooperation from the USFS. We spent 3 weeks in unit 10 on our elk hunt last year. We picked up over 100 pounds of trash along FR 124 and a few other main roads. We took the trash back to our camp. I contacted a FS employee and asked that they stop by our camp and pickup the trash. No show. 4 days before we packed up, I went to the Williams Office and asked that they come by and pick up the trash. Again, no show.
When it came time to leave, with trucks loaded with gear, I had to drop my tailgate and load the bags of trash. I wasn't about to leave trash in our camp. Took the trash to the Williams office and they actually helped dispose of it. According to the Director of the FS they went by the camp days later.
 
Buzz is correct in that the agriculture department does control the Forest service. In congress though, the House Committee on Natural Resources is responsible for Forestry in addition to Parks, public lands and fisheries, mining, etc. The subcommitte on Forests, Parks,Public Lands is chaired By Rep.Bishop from UT. Rep Tipton CO. and Rep.Gosar AZ are both members on that committee.

I mistakenly made the correlation that since the House Resource Committee had Forests in their area of jurisdiction that the Secretary Of the Interior had control over that area; since he Has control over our natural resources. Salazar Is in charge of National Parks, BLM, US Fish & Wildlife Service and many other areas that overlap.

Thank you AZBUSTER for help setting me straight on the overlaping areas!!

So Buzz accept my apology and AZshtr too. But in the big scope of things that changes little since the ways are forests are managed is controlled by the OBAMA Administration. It's no secret that as evidenced by my post above that the states aren't being allowed to have any input in controlling how our Forests are managed. Even to the point of being able to use proven methods that are beneficial to our forests. Rep. Gosar and Tipton were trying to get bills passed to allow the states to work with the Forest service in how our lands are managed. Something all of us agree would be in the best interests of the majority they serve.
 
Boskee,

No need for an apology.

No matter what anyones opinion on the various land management agencies, I just think its a good idea to start at the start in regard to comments regarding same.

If you're going to get involved, its best to blame the correct people/agencies and be as informed as possible. Wouldnt look too good blaming Salazar for a USDA problem associated with Vilsack., or vice-versa.


Another thing to keep in mind, blaming ONE administration for the woes of everything to do with whats wrong with the woods/grasslands/wildlife is pretty lame. Many of the problems we're dealing with now, have taken many decades to reach the point we're at today. There has been multiple chances, by multiple admininstrations, to take corrective actions along the way. Some things were done right, lots more not so much.

The perceived failures of many items being discussed here can not...and should not...be focused on one 3-4 year period. Its a little more than a whole lot disingenous to do so, and counter-productive to solving the real issues. If you're going to try solving many of these issues by simply blaming Obama and his administration...you're 100% more likely to solve said problems by pi$$ing up a rope.

Its one thing to complain about policy, thats the easy part. Finding workable solutions is the tough part, and the part that a vast majority fail epically to accomplish.

Good luck to you.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-12 AT 11:29AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-12 AT 09:51?AM (MST)

True but one can't afford to keep watching the green lobby create havoc! How many layers of protective legislation could they make with one more term?Since it's fairly common knowledge that our current president really supports them. How much further can they advance their cause with another 4 year term. They've long since poisoned the well and what they've have done to the American public by ripping them off with envirolitigation is a crime!

How many billions of dollars have we paid to law firms simply to allow them to keep suing the federal government & us the taxpayer? These bandits are living off the taxpayers and living large with the biggest scam in Washington! At some point you have to draw a line and for me that point is here! We don't need to be picking up the tabs for some damn law firm and greenie to reap havoc on our economy and our recreational lifestyles any longer at our expense.

They aren't the ones losing their jobs as a result of their actions but they don't seem to be able to have the compunction to stop. The only way we're going to stop it is defang the beast....Well that starts at the top, its where the policy is driven and it's where all the devious little plans are carried out and the grants are awarded (some good some bad). In order to get the ESA and the EPA changed we have to be in control in Washington to be able to do it. Then and only then can the charade be put to rest. Then we can actually pass protective hunting ang fishing legislation.

Come election time I'm going to cast my vote to give Obama his dream job ...Talking on the speech circut. That way all those guys he gave Federal grants to that went out of business, can show their appreciation by paying him to speak. Im sure it's purely a matter of coincidence that some of those funds came from us too. I hope you'll join me, because it's obvious if we don't do it it will never happen.
 
Obama was not president on December 9, 2005 when the Travel Management plan was adopted. He had nothing to do with this management plan. All the rules, procedures, goals and regulations that are in place now were set up in 2005 by the head of the Dept of Agriculture. I agree the rules are ridiculous but place the blame where it belongs.
 
Closed road aren't a big deal to the young and mobile, But how about the 65 year old guy with leg problems, Is it easy to just write them off because it doesn't hurt you now and maybe even helps you.
Some people can't see the forest because of the trees.
I know some day I will be that old guy so if they take away their rights it's the taking of my right because one day those rights will come back to haunt me.


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
With all due respect, that last comment is the most lame excuse I've ever heard. I hear similar all the time.

Heres my take.

I agree that its too bad some disabled 65 year old man cant ride his ATV into Wilderness Areas. Its also too bad that I've never stood at the plate in Fenway and belted a hanging slider over the green monster.

You cant always base management decisions on the lowest common denominator. If you give access to restricted areas to disabled old men, you'll be giving access to EVERYONE. Just the way it is, as its extremely difficult to legislate who you allow to ride an ATV and who you make walk...impossible really. Not to mention that a bunch of fat middle aged men will whine like girls that they too cant ride their ATV's.

The facts are that there are literally thousands and thousands of miles of open roads to 65 year old men with bad backs, bad legs, and fat mid sections. Simply the truth...drag out any forest map, blm map, etc...unarguable FACT. If a person cant find a place to take an old hunter with bad legs hunting...you've got major problems.

What is in short supply is areas where you cant drive a truck, an ATV, or a motorcycle.

I'm of the opinion that I dont ever want to see some of the areas I've hunted be opened up to ATV use when I get too old to hunt there. I've had my shot, and I'm not so self-absorbed that I'll feel cheated when I physically cant get to the same places I hunt today. I'll pass the torch to the younger, more fit and gladly let them experience the same things I have. The value in just knowing that roadless country exists is good enough for me, I dont have to be physically present there to enjoy it.

I watched my own grandfather go through the same. As he aged, he just accepted the fact he couldnt hunt the same places at 83 that he did at 33. He never bit ched, whined or complained about it. He didnt ask for special privileges or the "right" to jump on an ATV to get to his old hunting spots. He hunted where he could, and was happy to do so.

I reckon I'll just do the same as him...and wont be whining about no access or feeling sorry for myself.
 
There is a big difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE when it comes to being able to recreate on public lands!

Think about it! Rights are defined in the Constitution.

That's how the bureaucrats get away with making these messed up rules that they impose on the general public.

Don Martin
AWO
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-12 AT 12:48PM (MST)[p]

Restricting access they call it. Well let's look at it from the other side when you take away 65% of the areas previously open for decades to camping & hunting camps and close them to motorized disbursed camping what have THEY done. We've turned our forests into cities! Everyone's being told where they can go and where they can stay in clustered camping. Don't most of us go camping to get away? Funny thing the green lobby and the forest service doesn't pick up the tab for their operation. THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOES and now you're being told that they control the process! See folks there's the disconnect the tails waggin the dog but ain't buying the food!! YOU ARE

The forest service still needs the roads to fight fires so why do we take this approach. If we were using better management techniques like the Indians in the White Mountains it works. All the fires that have been up there in the last 10 years did far more damage in our National Forests than on the reservation yet both were in the fires path? Maybe just maybe the green lobby suing our forest service to control management doesn't know more than the career professional in our forest service. One can't argue with which method saved more forest and was easier to extinguish.

When you take the management away from the professional's and place it in the hands of politicians and radical environmental groups, things always get screwed up. The politicians get campaign donations from the greenies so they do listen to them. The greenies sue the States and Federal Government and YOUR taxes keep them employed through legal fees awarded by the courts from ESA & EPA laws. The the PRESIDENT has the ability to make grants (millions of $$$$) to the environmental groups with your tax dollars too, that helps pay salaries and overhead to allow them to sue us and keep contributing to his campaign. NOW Hows that for a racket!!! Still wonder why OBAMA & the DEMS SUPPORT THE GREEN LOBBY SO MUCH! This cycle has repeated it self so many times that there are legal firms that only do this type of business. During Obama's administration there were more green lawsuits filed than in any like timeframe in our history. This has cost you and me countless billions of dollars and it just keeps going. It's the gift the green lobby and the Dems give each other that keeps on giving!! Where's our return ... locked gates! They get to keep the money!

That's right, they sue us and we pick up the tab and they're regulating us in the courts and with the President steering the agenda with the appointed heads of the agencies. The Green Lobby make contributions to the politicians campaigns (WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS THEY GOT SUING THE GOV'T) (YOU) and through grants ( your tax dollars again) and get them elected into office! That's clearly not the majority making law is it. See why your opinion was left out of the process? When they circumvent you and congress it just keeps working so you're paying to eliminate your own hunting and land access!! Our forests have been here since we placed our first steps on the continent and the wildlife and professionals have done a pretty good job of managing them. Guess what they're still there!! It's time to let the professionals handle the management.

Funny how we don't have the man power to enforce ATV laws yet we have enough manpower to enforce & tell 10-20 times more end users where they can camp. Seems to me enforcement of the ATV laws would be much easier and a better utilization of our forest services employees time. Hey if we have issues with ATV's you could use the monies from citations to help offset the labor costs. Boy, that took a lot of thought, and it simply would work.

We don't close our freeways because we have speeders, we just step up enforcement and take away the rights to drive from repeat offenders. It's always worked and we didn't close any roads to do it. We've lost the ability to use common sense to make decisions and you want to know why because the politicians are getting involved and ($$$$$$) YOUR MONEY. Take the politics out of it and things will run better and we'll probably be amazed at how smoothly things run. The green lobby isn't going to save this planet unless the other nations comply and good luck with that. Besides, many of their radical ideas have been proven false, but when you're making a living off the backs of the American taxpayer it pays to keep the ruse going!!

Look forward 50 years and what do you see, a landscape of windmills and solar panels covering the earth. Won't that be fun to take pictures of and remember where you used to hunt, go hiking or fly a kite. Or you can build 1 Nuclear power plant or another Hydro electric dam until some more less obtrussive forms of green energy can be developed. A plant or a dam in a more remote area and still have that beautiful landscape to look at and provide enough power to keep that land untouched and still available for future generation to enjoy.

The honest fact is none of those lands had to have restricted access, they were here 50 years ago and we were hunting them then!

It all boils down to what you want, you can hunt, fish , or camp today, tomorrow and pass that on to your grandchildren or you can allow 4 more years of regulation, land access restrictions. more prohibitive legislation on BLM, Forest and other state lands, and allow the green lobby to take away more jobs in their quest.

The decision's easy for me, I vote we get the regulationist's out of office and go with the guys that want to end the nightmare. By the way, Sen, McCain gave a few of us his word he would fix things if we give him the tools. He needs Republicans to have a majority in the senate & house to be able to end the gridlock.

Senator McCain did come out and speak publicly & supported hunting and fishing protective legislation on prop 109 which would have protected your right's to hunt and fish in AZ and the media crucified him for backing it. Why? think about it, it makes things far more difficult to restrict your access or right to hunt when you have that protection! So if he supported it, who opposed it? The democrats and none other than Mr. Obama! It's all about smoke and mirrors boys don't buy the crap!!
 
You want to really get into this it all started in 1972 with executive order 11644 it was a busy year for Tricky #####. In 2005 a Bush appointee started the rule making process.

Think about it for 7 years this has been going on and now we are upset with it. The rule was designed to let each National forest(Kaibab,Coconino,ect.)in the nation set up a travel management plan specific to that forest. Because it is a rule public input was sought during the process and meetings were held. I like most here had no idea this was going on or I would have attended the meetings and I would love to hear from someone that went to the meetings(not from the Sierra Club). Remember each forest is specific with it's plan not all are the same(game retrieval).

The good news is some of the forest directors are listening to many of the obvious mistakes with regards to roads. Last year I pointed out some of these and they will listen and act on some suggestions. E-mail them if you feel there is a error.
The biggest mistake is the 30' rule for trailers. Everyone should get together on that one.

Buzz wished he could hit a hanging slider out of Fenway.Well like a hanging pitch that does not do as the pitcher intended we allowed this to go thru and the Sierra Club hit it out of the park. Hope we pay attention, might be more rules out there we don't know about yet.
 
By the way Boskee, I'm with you "Believe in America" Go Romney.But I do say both Republican and Democratic representatives should be watched now more than ever.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-12 AT 02:34PM (MST)[p]Buster, you're missing the point here. Unless we get together with a unified loud voice it's only going to continue! I went to meetings guess what, greenies wrote tons of letters and the hunters, not so much. That's how they use public opinion against us yet they are controlling things with fewer supporters! We need to look at the bigger picture here. Not when it started cause both sides made mistakes but when it's going to get fixed!

Unless we eradicate the ESA & EPA this is going to continue. I didn't blame the forest service a lot of them hunt and don't like it either but they answer to Washington. Whether or not we want to believe it Obama's squarely in bed with the green lobby! They oppose, even make sense legislation, like TIPTONS bill mentioned above! Some of us get wrapped up in stuff that's water under the bridge and lose sight of the big picture. When it happened is in the past, the restrictions they applied happened in the today. They did have other less restrictive plans why didn't they use those?

Unless we stop them in this election you're looking at more 4 years of more restriction coming whether you want them or not! They're in court every day taking away your right to hunt in multiple states and on multiple issues, and LAND ACCESS is right at the forefront of their agenda, and their USING OUR TAX DOLLARS TO DO IT! We're PAYING the legal fees & bills to END OUR OWN HUNTING!! REALLY!! I've attended well over 300 meetings and watched things up close and personal.

It's time to take the gloves off! AS a hunter, you're either with us or against us, but if you like to hunt and fish we need to open our eyes! Last I looked they weren't passing any laws to promote those activity's. Our destiny is in Our hands but we have to be able to make a change to stop what they're doing. The only politician that can't hurt you is the one that's not in office! Sorry but those of you on the fence either vote across party lines or be prepared to hunt less because as the lands get restricted so does your opportunity. They already want to make Kaibab into a PART OF GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK and you can't hunt in the park. What do you think the odds are with OBAMA in office 1 more term that that happens? How many hunting opportunity's will be lost with that signature? Thousands!
 
Preaching to the choir Boskee. I understand fully and agree with a lot of what you say.Boskee if you attended one of the forest service meetings on the TMP and signed in. Could you send me a pm.
 
The 30 ft rule is bad but I looked at the rules for Apache Sitgreaves and there are plenty of roads that are open. I like what I saw. I do not know if the 30ft rule will be in the Apache Sit. forest. Anyone even if they are 80years old should not have a problem finding open areas to hunt.
 
I guess I missed the part about the the 30' rule for trailers! Is that where trailers over 30' are not allowed in the forest?

Don Martin
AWO
 
Don on the map it has what is called motorized dispersed camping in those areas you can pull a trailer in with out breaking the rules (fewer spots and more congestion than a KOA). Now on many of the allowed roads the long established camping spots are not designated for motorized dispersed camping. This is where your camper or any motorized vehicle can not be more than 30 feet off the designated road and they suggest that you parallel park to the road if it is too long. My example is you have a long established camping spot that you can safely pull your trailer in 100 feet off the road. Well you are now breaking the rule. It just doesn't make sense for both safety and enjoyment of our forest.
 
i rarely camp in kaibab any longer because of the 30' rule. Coconino has camping areas that still allow 300' from the road in areas that are labeled camping corridors. i lost access to alot of my old camping spots in unit 8 because i could not fit the trailer and my truck all with in the 30' of the road edge. plus who wants to camp right on the main roads with people driving up and down the roads throwing dust all over.
 
The Kaibab has areas that are on spur roads that are designated camping areas. These areas do allow camping 300ft off the road. Many are the traditional camping areas that have been there for years. The problem is the map. The only way to know is to read the website. They didn't put the info on the map. There is a box on the left side of the map with a list of spur roads and these are the roads where designated camping is allowed.
THE MAPS ARE DESIGNED TO BE CHANGED YEAR BY YEAR FOR NOW BUT WE NEED TO HAVE OUR VOICES HEARD ABOUT WHAT CHANGES YOU WANT. WE NEED TO BAND TOGETHER AND BE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT.
The important thing is that the FS wants to here from the public about changes that they would like to see. If you have specific issues like the need for more clarity on the maps, more designated camping, more consistency from forest to forest, more OHV only trails, big game retrieval or any thing else you, individually, need to comment. I posted the emails for commenting in a post above.
The Arizona Elk Society has been writing letters, filing appeals and been involved in this issue for over 4 years. You can read some of the letters we have written on our website, look under the ISSUES tab on the right side of the home page, www.arizonaelksociety.org.
The only other group that was at the meetings on a regular basis was the OHV guys. At each meeting there was one or two hunters/sportsmen, one or two OHV guys and the rest were the Sierra Club type people. We commented at every meeting but there just wasn't enough representation. I posted on the internet back then and it just wasn't important enough for the sportsmen or other groups to get involved. Now you have the chance to make your voice heard by commenting from behind your computers. Make sure you get pasted the mis-information and let them know how you feel about specifics.
AZGFD has been at the forefront on this issue representing sportsman and they are frustrated too that the FS will not listen to them.
I am working on a document that lists issues and contact info for the FS so people can comment to the right persons.
Steve
 
>I guess I missed the part
>about the the 30' rule
>for trailers! Is that where
>trailers over 30' are not
>allowed in the forest?
>
>Don Martin
>AWO


don you may now parrallel park with in gravel flinging distance of every vechile that drives bye!!

new meaning to caravan travel
 
Four years ago I was guilty of hunter rights apathy. I am trying real hard to change that.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-09-12 AT 11:17PM (MST)[p]Are you allowed to camp more than 30 feet off the road if your vehicle is 30 feet or less from the road? Can you pack your stuff farther off the road and set up your camp?
 
Everything with wheels on it has to stay with in 30 feet, tents and other items can go in further. That is in Kaibab.
 
"Everything with wheels on it has to stay with in 30 feet, tents and other items can go in further. That is in Kaibab."
This statement is only true for roads that do not have any designated camping areas on them.
The FS has identified spur roads that have historically had dispersed camping and on those roads you can camp up to 300ft off the road. Most of the shorter spur roads are identified on the MMUV map in a box on the left side of the map. Some of the longer ones are on the regular map area.
WHAT THE FS FORGOT TO DO IS TELL THE PUBLIC ABOUT DISPERSED CAMPING AREAS IN THE LEGEND ON THE MAP.
 
>The Kaibab has areas that are
>on spur roads that are
>designated camping areas. These
>areas do allow camping 300ft
>off the road. Many
>are the traditional camping areas
>that have been there for
>years. The problem is
>the map. The only
>way to know is to
>read the website. They
>didn't put the info on
>the map. There is
>a box on the left
>side of the map with
>a list of spur roads
>and these are the roads
>where designated camping is allowed.

Just to clarify, I have not found anything, anywhere,that allows
for a motorized vehicle or vehicle pulling a trailer to camp more than 30 feet from a designated travel route on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger districts of the Kaibab forest.

The MV Use Maps have a list of spur roads on the map with a note that says; "Roads Too Short To Be Seen Clearly On The Map". From talking to the Williams office thay explained that the intent of the list is to provide a reference as to which spurs roads are open. The 30ft camping rule still applies on these roads.

While scouting this past weekend I noticed thay have begun putting yellow "ROAD CLOSED" stickers on the existing brown carsonite numbered road signs. The campsite I have used for 25+ years is now on a closed road but is within 50 yards of an open road. Makes me wonder how many "new" campsites will now be created on the forest because of these situations.
 
Where did you get this information? They are telling me the list of spur roads is there because they are too short to put on the map and that the 30ft motorized rule still applies. ????

Is there anything in writing from the Williams Ranger District to verify this?
 
300 ft. off a spur road is news to me. Every spur rd. I have encountered in Kaibab will dead end at a camping spot and your truck and trailer will for all purposes be in the road that is now dead ended at a camping spot. There is squares with the FS number on the map and on the legend it will tell you how many feet long the spur road is. I was told the squares(spur rd.) are the dispersed camping spots and the 30 foot rule still applies.
 
You guys are correct.
My comments were old info that was gathered from FS reps in meetings before the final decision was made.
?On the Williams Ranger District, 18 miles of roads (which equates to more than 70 short spur routes) were added to the road system to access recreation opportunities including motorized dispersed camping. Use the free Motor Vehicle Use Map to locate these routes.?
When accessing camp spots on the spur road you will still only be able to park your vehicle 30ft from the spur road.

The idea that the FS portrayed is that the spur roads are short dead end roads designed to let the public get off the main roads to camp. They basically lead to historic dispersed camping areas.
The problem here is that many of the pullouts for trailers on the spur roads are more than 30ft off the road. So thanks for thinking about letting us get off the main road but why call it dispersed camping if we can't disperse. Why not call it a parallel parking spur road.
These are the types of issues that need to be addressed and commented on to the FS so that our voice can be heard and maybe with enough comments on the same issues we can get some of these things changed.
 
Well I honestly have to say, when one of the most informed sportsmen in the state who has done many many countless unthanked deeds gets confused, what chance does the average guy have!! Misinformation abounds!!

WE ALL HAVE TO MAKE SURE OF WHAT RULES APPLIES IN OUR HUNTING UNIT BECAUSE THE RULES AREN"T THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD. That's right what's applicable here isn't there so make sure you guys get the maps for the forest you're planning on hunting in this year and make sure you understand the rules. Good luck to all & I hope you all have a very good hunt or hunts!!

Remember the forest service isn't our enemy they're just the guys that take their orders from Washington. They have to enforce the rules and I can assure you it isn't a part of the job any of them like!! It's your Forest and if enough of you call and complain it will make a difference!! DOING NOTHING CHANGES NOTHING, you have a voice let it be heard!
 
Kaibab Forest, Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts;

Just be clear here, for a "Spur Road" to be legal it must be numbered and included on the map legend as open. If it's not numbered or if it is marked closed with a yellow sticker applied to the carsonite sign then you must be within 30FT of the nearest designated motor vehicle use road. If the "Spur Road" is open to travel the 30FT motorized vehicle rule still applies.

Guys, that un-numbered 100ft two track that leads back to your favorite campsite is no longer open to travel.

The Coconino Forest has made provisions for 300ft dispersed camping in some areas. The only way to know where is to get the new Motor Vehicle Use Map.
 
There many historic camping spots left off the map in unit 7w in the Kaibab(the un-numbered 100 ft. 2 track spots).Now each time I go up there I am going to make a note and send a email for each one that I think was just missed on the survey. They are listening so input could help ease the problem.
Do a count on the maps of squared roads call them spurs or dispersed camping spots then look at the number of tags during your hunt. You will have to race other hunters to find a quality camping spot. If you don't get one of these you are now parallel parking 30' off the main road.
Like ktmrider said your favorite campsite for many years just off the road is now off limits.
 
My buddy has a archery elk tag in 6A he said the forest serivce is handing out maps saying theres all kind of rules now i no im in 7 west and its a joke
 
In 7 west people are driving on closed roads and camping 2 to 300 yards off the roads looks like for the elk hunt next week i bet the forest service going to have there hans full.
 

Similar threads

W
Saratoga Area Questions
Replies
12
Views
1k
88man
8
M
1st timer South Dakota Archery Mule Deer - DIY
Replies
7
Views
774
MIhunter31
M
urge2hunt
Idaho Deer & Elk Hunts Available for 2024
Replies
0
Views
739
urge2hunt
urge2hunt

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_0042.jpeg
11-9-08 007.jpg
1704251292503.jpeg
1704251426455.jpeg
E478ED9C-5B17-4C94-A9EE-E229B4659EC9.jpeg
BFD8DA03-6CD1-468C-9331-CE210125A93B.jpeg
A0E5725E-CA3A-4DEB-BE4E-F548C0453757.jpeg
20210222_170553.jpg
EDAE070C-BFD9-4335-8473-F5AD39A9E2AF.jpeg
IMG_6796.jpeg
Elk Hunting Success
IMG_5890.MOV

Arizona Hunting Guides & Outfitters

SilverGrand Outfitters

Offering mule deer, elk, antelope, bighorn sheep, javelina, and turkey hunts in Nevada and Arizona.

Arizona Elk Outfitters

Offering the serious hunter a chance to hunt trophy animals in the great Southwest.

A3 Trophy Hunts

An Arizona Outfitter specializing in the harvest of World Class big game of all species.

Arizona Strip Guides

Highly experienced and highly dedicated team of hardworking professional Arizona Strip mule deer guides.

Urge 2 Hunt

THE premier hunts in Arizona for trophy elk, mule deer, couse deer and javelina.

Shadow Valley Outfitters

AZ Strip and Kaibab mule deer, big bulls during the rut, spot-n-stalk pronghorn and coues deer hunts.

Back
Top Bottom