Just curious as to what people think about the restricting motorized access to areas in which we would like for fish or hunt.  How many times have you come to a known trail, going to a well known lake, only to find signs posted restricting motorized access beyond that point?  Or perhaps, it is winter freeze up, you and your partners head out along a waterway, going up to 100 km's without using roads or trails, stump jumping through alder swamps to get on to the next waterway.  Just to find that rare, barely fished lake full of trophy trout?  Where do you stand, what do you feel is the acceptable level of access we should have?

I think there are certainly some places which suffer from vehicle traffic, or would be more enjoyable without the hum of engines to disturb them.  Seems there is room enough for all types of areas here in the US.  For those areas that don't already have asphalt and powerlines running through them, I would like to see them stay that way.

More and more we are seeing areas where motorized vehicles are prohibited.  Not a bad thing I suppose, depending on why the restriction was imposed.  Around my home town a large portion of land had such a restriction imposed upon it.  Apparently, an outfitter group had lobbied successfully for the restricted motorized access of any road, trail, or natural waterway, which lead into to their chartered area.
 
Funny thing was, a few years after this happened, one fellow thought of a way around this restriction.  These roads and trails were still open to traditional non-motorized access.  Over the summer he had gotten a bunch of sled dogs and would run his team of dogs and sled into these outfitter lakes.  I kind of admired his gall, and thought it cool to see a team of dogs pulling that sled.

Interesting question that poses much debate. I vote for limited access to trails on the edges of the area.  This would allow handicaped individuals access as you can be handicapped without being listed as such.  There is a happy medium here with limitaions of use and speeds.

In Alaska, the use of 'motorized vehicles" - mostly snow machines and ATVs (we call them 4-wheelers) - is widespread. So is their abuse. 4-wheelers ravage the landscape... and I mean RAVAGE it.  Snowmachines, while less destructive to the country-side, are extremely obnoxious both in how they are used and their noise level. I've yet to meet (in spite of their protestations to the contrary), a snowmachiner that has ANY respect for private property, and the absurd noise level being NOTHING more than pandering to excessive testosterone.
 
I try very hard to be a 'reasonable' person. However, for all the hardships that eliminating 4-wheelers and snowmachines would bring, I would vote for ELIMINATION (I'm not talking about restriction, I'm talking about ELIMINATION), of their use if given the chance... and I own a 4-wheeler.
 
Paul

Oulawing them entirely does seem a bit excessive to me.  I'm seldom in support of more restrictions by the government, so that in itself rubs me wrong.
 
I do, however, feel that quads and such should be restricted to at least some degree; they are here in Az, with some differences from other states.
 
We can insure and register quads here and make them pretty much street legal.  Tires are another matter, since none I'm aware of are ADOT (Arizona Dept Of Transportation) approved for highway use.  This restricts their use to dirt roads, or perhaps short trips in off-highway uses on the paved roads.
 
For those who think it's strange for this to be legal, think of this:  there are lots of quads and such out there that are used in the back country and they have no insurance.  If they get in an accident, or otherwise cause damage, they have no insurance to cover anything.  Since medical care for anyone hurt can be pretty high, and accidental damage to other's equipment/property is also expensive, it gets to be a problem.
 
By allowing folks to register them, and requiring insurance to do it, it does help to solve THAT problem somewhat.
 
They're treated the same as a truck or car as far as where they can go offroad in my state, and I think this is as it should be.  That's how I use mine; it gets me to my starting point quickly and with a minimum of noise.
 
Daryl

QuoteI'm seldom in support of more restrictions by the government, so that in itself rubs me wrong.

Falls a bit short of my feelings about regulations, ESPECIALLY government regulations.
 
It should indicate how poorly I think of off-road use of off-road vehicles that I would suggest ANY form of government regulation.
 
I don't want to start a fight here. Chromage asked for opinions. I gave mine. There is little in "the outdoor world" that I feel more strongly about than the abuses of off-road vehicles. There's no room left for "discussion" with me. Again, I have and use a 4-wheeler, but given the opportunity to eliminate them, I would give mine up without a whimper in exchange for stopping the rape of the countryside and the assault on the senses that they perpetrate. Off-road vehicle users may consider me a political opponent with his heart set on elimination, not restriction.
 
Paul

I agree with gitano. They have been the bane of a true hunters existence. They ride them everywhere here in Colorado whether it's legal or not. National Forest closed trails, county roads etc. Getting rid of them entirely seems the only way to control them. God bless and good hunting.
Mark

well as im literally typing this im being plagued by guys out lamping in a landrover, trying to shoot on our land without permission... ahh ive gone through it all before, no point repeating myself. all im gonna say is that there is one paticular 4x4 around here at the moment which i wouldnt mind being obliterated in an extremely gruesome and imaginitive fashion, preferably with its occupants still inside.... :D :D :D :D :D :D

There we go....now we have a discussion going. A few of the people I associate with, feel, like I do, the offroad vehicles (snowmachines, atv's, etc) pose a great threat to the environment and to conservation in general. They just make access too easy. I remember as a kid going on backpacking/canoe trips with my dad. This was a day trip just to get in, carrying our canoe & equipment. It was more work than fun, as least for me at that time, but the fishing was so worth the work. My point is that not many people were willing to do the work to get into these places often. Then someone invented atv's....three wheelers followed by quads. Access became so easy the the same people would go there day after day, as opposed to once or twice per season. A three day trip was then reduced to a few hours, just by changing mode of transportation. Increased access equals increased human impact.
 
I would like to see more areas, where use of motorized vehicles are restricted.  In this, I would also include those motorized vehicles which fly in on wings and land on water.  I strongly feel that a return to more traditional methods of access, would weed out the greedy and lessen human impact.

HSM miner; That brings back the days of my youth when I lived in Northern New York and pretty much lived in a canoe. You saw few people and when you did they belonged there. They were friendly, helpful and wouldn't steal your stuff because they knew you may need it to survive. One area I'll hunt this year I've been watching for 5 years and now it's time to hunt it. There is one road through it and opportunities for road hunting are few, which is why it's underscribed in the draw and the sucess rate is dismally low. The last place I found like that has been discovered so it's time to go to the new one. God bless and good hunting.
Mark