Quote:
Originally Posted by bitterrootfly
I understand where you are coming from and I use to think almost exactly the same, and this is coming from someone who almost exclusively hunts in K country but we don’t always need to pick conservation OR atv use and random camping. The problem with the Bighorn is where it puts the power in the hands of people who have no place holding power over conservation and wildlife. I don’t own an ATV or a horse and every one of my hunts is done on foot, but there is already plenty of land for guys like me (and I assume you as well) to do what we love on foot away from vehicles. Does the bighorn need to be looked at as far as some conservation issues, absolutely but a sweeping motion like the current bighorn plan is not the way and unfortunately organizations like BHA (of which I WAS a member) have failed to recognize that and are crawling in bed with the devil (hyperbole I know). If you ever are down in the k country area and want some pointers to some awesome foot access only spots, let me know brother.
|
I appreciate where you are coming from for sure, and I think we share far more similarities than differences. I do agree that we don't have to pick conservation or Atv's and random camping, and that is sort of where I am at on the Bighorn. On a personal level I would rather see no Atv's in the Wildland, but I think it is important the final plan strikes a balance between all users. That does not mean Atvs are permitted to run wild (they aren't now), but it does mean greater restrictions within the Wildland. Furthermore, the PLUZ is a large area that allows for random camping and Atv access.
As far as kananaskis goes, keep me in mind. I am probably a 7-8 out of 10 on a mouth reed, and would be happy to leave the Prime at home if it meant getting into some elk as a caller.
Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk