FireFlyFishing
Well-Known Member
I'm another vote for yes, they're fine provided they are following state and federal laws and staying on legal roads/trails.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Issues I have with E bike deer hunting want your thoughts
- Thread starter bowhunter1287
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Country Bumpkin
Well-Known Member
I can see both sides, a difficult issue to articulate.
Anti-Ebike; there are an awful lot of irresponsible "users" that really shouldn't be allowed very far into the wilderness. We've all seen them and they certainly aren't out there to enjoy it while "leaving no trace". These people shouldn't be allowed to tarnish the set aside wilderness areas. There are also areas that are NOT wilderness that must limit Hunter access to prevent over harvest of game. That's the part that probably frustrates a lot of folks, because we see the trailhead signs as being just normal FS or BLM (so why no motorized…?). I get it that It's frustrating to research online, find an area with high densities, high hunter success rates and "trophy quality" only to discover that the trails are mostly/all non-motorized. The reason these amazing game units exist is because of the limited access allowing most of these critters to go unchallenged through hunting season.
Fence-sitter; if the reason that the rules exist is to protect the federal or state lands from trail erosion, over-use or abuse, my opinion is that ONLY foot traffic should be allowed. That would really cut down on all of these things and would be (almost) a leave no trace scenario. I'm not trying to pick at horses, but they leave a mess and their hooves absolutely wreak havoc on any sort of wetland/grassy/stream area (compared to boots). There have been a lot of good/valid points made already, it all boils down to effort and common sense. What we often encounter is that when a tree falls down, the hikers often go over it and stay mostly on an existing trail. If horse or wheeled travelers encounter a tree and don't take the effort to stop and cut it out, they go around it and make a "new trail". This drives land managers nuts and is not leave-no-trace. Common sense would also tell us that hooves and wheels don't go well with rain and muddy trails (we should all wait for them to dry out). In our fast paced and instant gratification society, nobody waits and we end up with ruts and deep hoof prints in the trails (in those circumstances even boot tracks are damaging).
Pro-Ebike; it's already been said the some people are "too broke" to own pack stock. That's an ignorant or perhaps a lazy comment. I have the money to own stock (and I'd LOVE to). Stock ownership is a significant investment if you didn't grow up with them, or have the good fortune to reside in an area where land is affordable and work is nearby. I choose not to because as has been pointed out before it takes a significant investment in time (time that i would prefer to spend with my family doing the things They love to do). An Ebike would allow me the opportunity to unlock an awful lot of country that otherwise I couldn't responsibly access and haul game out of (and sit in my garage 10 months a year). It's an awesome resource (as are horses/mules). Denying people this access because of the erosion that it causes, while touting how awesome horses are seems silly to me. That argument to anyone that doesn't own horses sounds like a very convenient way to minimize access to the same mountains that you enjoy (reduce your competition by promoting old laws). It looks like the wheel was used in the Americas as early as 1,500 BC, but wasn't utilized for transportation until horses became prevalent and utilized for transportation (so the "primitive" argument favoring horses and not wheels is BS in my eyes).
If we want to generalize groups of hunters and say that E-bike hunters are fat/lazy, horse hunters make a mess and are selfish and backpack hunters are hipsters… then we accept that non-hunters will generalize all of us and in ways we don't want to argue. It isn't helpful.
To be honest a lot of my opinions above are over-dramatic compared to my real feelings, I just wanted to make a point.
It seems like we are right back to a point of needing to support one another as hunters and not argue over laws/rules that we didn't create. If there's a rule/law that you are passionate about, go through the proper channels to fight it, but I'd caution us all against the infighting only because we want to carve off pieces of the mountains that ONLY a few can access. The more of us fighting for hunting (by any legal means), the better our future looks.
Anti-Ebike; there are an awful lot of irresponsible "users" that really shouldn't be allowed very far into the wilderness. We've all seen them and they certainly aren't out there to enjoy it while "leaving no trace". These people shouldn't be allowed to tarnish the set aside wilderness areas. There are also areas that are NOT wilderness that must limit Hunter access to prevent over harvest of game. That's the part that probably frustrates a lot of folks, because we see the trailhead signs as being just normal FS or BLM (so why no motorized…?). I get it that It's frustrating to research online, find an area with high densities, high hunter success rates and "trophy quality" only to discover that the trails are mostly/all non-motorized. The reason these amazing game units exist is because of the limited access allowing most of these critters to go unchallenged through hunting season.
Fence-sitter; if the reason that the rules exist is to protect the federal or state lands from trail erosion, over-use or abuse, my opinion is that ONLY foot traffic should be allowed. That would really cut down on all of these things and would be (almost) a leave no trace scenario. I'm not trying to pick at horses, but they leave a mess and their hooves absolutely wreak havoc on any sort of wetland/grassy/stream area (compared to boots). There have been a lot of good/valid points made already, it all boils down to effort and common sense. What we often encounter is that when a tree falls down, the hikers often go over it and stay mostly on an existing trail. If horse or wheeled travelers encounter a tree and don't take the effort to stop and cut it out, they go around it and make a "new trail". This drives land managers nuts and is not leave-no-trace. Common sense would also tell us that hooves and wheels don't go well with rain and muddy trails (we should all wait for them to dry out). In our fast paced and instant gratification society, nobody waits and we end up with ruts and deep hoof prints in the trails (in those circumstances even boot tracks are damaging).
Pro-Ebike; it's already been said the some people are "too broke" to own pack stock. That's an ignorant or perhaps a lazy comment. I have the money to own stock (and I'd LOVE to). Stock ownership is a significant investment if you didn't grow up with them, or have the good fortune to reside in an area where land is affordable and work is nearby. I choose not to because as has been pointed out before it takes a significant investment in time (time that i would prefer to spend with my family doing the things They love to do). An Ebike would allow me the opportunity to unlock an awful lot of country that otherwise I couldn't responsibly access and haul game out of (and sit in my garage 10 months a year). It's an awesome resource (as are horses/mules). Denying people this access because of the erosion that it causes, while touting how awesome horses are seems silly to me. That argument to anyone that doesn't own horses sounds like a very convenient way to minimize access to the same mountains that you enjoy (reduce your competition by promoting old laws). It looks like the wheel was used in the Americas as early as 1,500 BC, but wasn't utilized for transportation until horses became prevalent and utilized for transportation (so the "primitive" argument favoring horses and not wheels is BS in my eyes).
If we want to generalize groups of hunters and say that E-bike hunters are fat/lazy, horse hunters make a mess and are selfish and backpack hunters are hipsters… then we accept that non-hunters will generalize all of us and in ways we don't want to argue. It isn't helpful.
To be honest a lot of my opinions above are over-dramatic compared to my real feelings, I just wanted to make a point.
It seems like we are right back to a point of needing to support one another as hunters and not argue over laws/rules that we didn't create. If there's a rule/law that you are passionate about, go through the proper channels to fight it, but I'd caution us all against the infighting only because we want to carve off pieces of the mountains that ONLY a few can access. The more of us fighting for hunting (by any legal means), the better our future looks.
Saw the same thing in the Big Horns, only it was 2 stroke dirt bikes. They even stopped at the fence, read the rules, then sped right on through and up into the Wilderness Area.
As for Ebikes, I just look at them like 4 wheelers and side by sides- if they are made legal those areas WILL be overrun with them.
I don't hike like I used to so can't access much of what I did years ago but THAT'S OK. Let the younger, in shape folks enjoy it the way that we did without the crowds that ebikes would bring.
KyCarl
Well-Known Member
Remember the E-Bike guys pay taxes just like the rest of us.... what pays for those public zones??
If we're talking impact on land i guess people haven't seen what a pack string of horses do to it. A dirt bike cant even compete with it let a lone a electric bicycle. Ive hunted off horse my whole life and i have a backou bike as well as a new surron dirt bike. Neither one will do the damage a horse does. But I believe they should all be only allowed on the trails.
Taxes have nothing to do with it. I can't afford an eBike but since I pay taxes I demand access?
It's about saving what actual wilderness we have left.
One area I used to hunt has a very rough road going in probably 20 miles. Ten years ago, if you took your time and drove in you were rewarded with peace and quiet.
Today, you get to listen to all the side by sides racing up and down the road and the trash they leave both along the road and at every place they stop.
With ebikes in the Wilderness, you wont HEAR them but you'll still have the crowds and the mess.
The whole wilderness thing is a liberal push for years. I grew up hunting eastern oregon where we drove in forever. One year they shut it down. No big deal we got horses and started using them. Problem was fish and game would come driving by in deer season to check on the wolfs. Also i can drive in there after spring bear season ends until archery season elk starts. It's not about keeping it wild it's about stopping hunting. And in there I believe its to protect the wolfs
bowhunter1287
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2015
- Messages
- 369
I would agree that horses make a trail but I have seen more land that is tore up from cows then I have horses and have seen cows in wilderness and those ranchers get to keep there cows places until sep 1 and even later other places and when they go in they get to drive where ever to find or retrieve there cows. They treat the public land likes it's there personal land
The areas I'm talking about is designated Wilderness and nobody is allowed to drive in. Hell, snowmobiles are not even allowed.
I'm not against eBikes in places where other rubber tires are alllowed, but I am against opening up new areas.
I agree but I think horses shouldn't be either they do more damage then e bike could dream of
dfanonymous
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2016
- Messages
- 2,321
Except there's like 5 people that have horses, and the means to trailer and care for a horse. While anyone with $5k will have a ebike from every age and walk of life.
That's what impact is. That's why some trails are horse authorized and some are foot only…in national wilderness.
Ive hunted back country oregon and idaho for long time. 1 outfitter with string of horses will do more damage to a trail then 50 ebikes. Again ive done both. So damage to the wilderness is not a valid argument other then people with horses not liking the bikes
I don't have horses. I don't have an e-bike. I don't want to see a horse trailer at a trailhead that I want to walk down and I don't want to get passed by a dude with an e-bike on the way in. It sucks because there's no way I can get in as far as those guys with as much energy.
