blocked trail

[BuckKiller]

this was our third year in the area, my uncle bought 10 acres of land off of 65 between the intersections of 4 and 135, that we camp on. we ended 5 deer for 8 people in that area two 8 Pointers a 10, a doe and a fawn (which was my brothers first deer).

we also shot 3 more while bow hunting but not from the remer area (4 point, a doe and a fawn). so we ended up with more then enough deer.

I got the only two deer I saw this year (one of the 8 pointers and the 10) but the rest of the group saw a bunch of deer (probably around 15-20, mostly does tho).

i'll just google the websight and see if I can find it... kind of curious to see what says. Ill let you know if I can't find it

thanks for the info,

Tim

[BuckKiller]

yup this sums it up...

" Cross-country travel, off designated Forest Service roads, is prohibited for any reason. Only roads displayed on the Motor Vehicle Use Map are open to motorized recreational use. OHV use for big game retrieval or placement of hunting stands continues to be prohibited on national forest land.

" Cross-country OHV travel to set up any stand/blind or for big game retrieval is illegal on national forest lands and leads to other resource damage, including the cutting of timber for shooting lanes, litter, and creating illegal trails. Information on permanent stands and OHV use on national forest lands can be found on the Chippewa National Forest HSOforum at www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/chippewa.

" The Chippewa National Forest allows hunters to use portable stands/blinds that do not damage trees or resource and that are removed at the end of the hunting season. Portable stands are defined as those that are chained, belted, clamped, or tied with rope and do no damage. Portable stands/blinds may be set up one week prior to the hunting season through one week after the close of hunting season. (August-January 7, 2008.) Portable stands left after the close of hunting season will be impounded and owner issued a violation notice for abandoning property.

[kobear]

Almost all state forests have been redesignated concerning trails usage. DNR has a great forest reclassification page.

Highway vehicles must also be reliscensed as OHV's to be used on trails designated OHV. Have fun with that at the DMV, I read the regulations with the ladies three times before they agreed to "try the impossible" which worked of course.

[fishinsfun]

There is a difference between MN DNR and Federal Forest Service policies and actions. If the land with the whacked trees was federal, they were most likely closing the road permanently. They don't do that if they plan on using the road again for management purposes (timber harvest, TSI, habitat improvement, etc.), its called decommissioning. If the road were to be used later for management access and they wanted to keep out motorized vehicles, they would only put up a berm, some rocks, or a gate (this rarely keeps out those who feel it is their "right" to drive their wheeler back there because its public land).

Also, let me step on my soapbox here. Most people have no clue what the difference between state and federal land management agencies are (if I had a dollar for every person who called me a forest ranger...). I realize most folks are too busy to bother researching which agency does what and who works where, but as outdoorspeople it is certainly in your best interest to learn as much about how the state and feds differ in policy and management of the lands and lakes that are so important to you.

Stepping off my soapbox. Thanks for letting me rant, especially for a first time poster to this particular area!

[Tom7227]

So you can't leave it at a rant - how about some examples of what you're talking about?

[fishinsfun]

It really just comes down to understanding the fundamental differences between the feds (and even the difference between a National Park and a National Forest), the state, and the county. There are vastly different laws for managing each in general and even differences between certain types of lands within each ownership (as NP NF above).

As one recent example, I heard that Joe Soucheray of KSTP AM1500 went on a rant about the Kekekabic trail in the Superior National Forest and the BWCAW. As I listened to the podcast, I realized he had no idea what the Wilderness Act is and what its implications are to managing the BWCAW. He just kept talking about how the District Ranger should just do this or do that, not understanding that there are laws prohibiting what he was talking about. And as a finer point, one of his callers said the "DNR should just manage it like a snowmobile trail", or something to that effect. Hello, the DNR doesn't manage it!