DonAndersen Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Don I have never done any of the deeds you mention. Put yourself in the other users shoes. If we are always pointing our fingers at the other guy and his destruction of the land to minimize our own it we wont get anywhere because it is not fair. Screw fair. When the actions of people destroy the place, banning is only the first step that should taken. All that crap we've been feed that people will always do the right thing is a heap big pile of CRAP! Unless and until we start to take responsibility for those not capable, we will continue to see our land destroyed. Don 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lad Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 "When the actions of people destroy the place, banning is only the first step that should be taken". Don that is the type of thinking that goes no where and just pits one user group against the other. When we are pointing out other user groups shortcomings and flaws we are only showing them how intolerant, judgmental and selfish we can be. What we really need is better education and enforcement of the laws already in place and leading by example. Most of the fisherman actively try to mentor the more inexperienced fisherman on best practices like how to handle fish to increase likelihood of survival. If the Atv crowd could do more mentoring and self policing it would be a big step in the right direction and with the large number of them out there it would not be that hard to really improve the situation. There are also some very pro active ATV groups who would be quite easy to work with like the Crows nest Pass Quad squad(I am not a member). If they were approached I would think they would be more than happy to work together to improve the situation. Imagine the reaction they would have if you just told them you would like to have their activity banned.....Instant back against the wall enemies. I have always admired their jingle of "building bridges not fences". We need to start thinking like that more. Most ATV users are very responsible and care just as much about the back country as the other user groups. It is not fair to make this group pay for the irresponsible actions of a few bad apples just as I don't think you should be banned from fishing because some fisherman poach. Like I said earlier if you actually want to solve the problem you also need to be part of the solution, which involves making sacrifices yourself.For the record - It would suit me well if I did not see another ATV but that would be very selfish and in the end I think it would probably backfire. My biggest fear is when it is all said and done the only thing we will have will be some manicured forest where human footprints are banned off of an asphalt sidewalk, something similar to Mt. Lorette ponds. It's really not that much of a stretch... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badatt Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Should, could , would...,. Sounds like Justin Trudeau. The only way to enforce their use is to ban them outright everywhere except a smaller enforceable area. $0.2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricinus Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Maybe jack up the fines for abuse to $100,000 (BC) would curtail the problem.. Mike 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 Lad, Always I hear about the few rotten apples spoil the barrel.cin my experience about 1/2 of the barrel is full of rotten apples. However, I spent 1/2 hour listening to a guy who organized and ran a program of trail repair and maintainence In the lands North of Burnstick Lake locally known as rig street road. $400,000 got some of the area repaired. He related that he would like to see a surcharge on OHV license of $60/year which would raise $7,000,000 for trail maintainence. He's outta money. The destruction continues. By the way, a trail I used to the Oldman for years now has holes deep enough that you can just barely see out of the windows of my pickup. I couldn't figure out why till I watched about twenty quadders ride through the holes. Each time they picked up a little mud, not a lot, but time after time till the hole is now over 3' deep. Rest assured that I picked up a little mud but not nearly the amount 60 trips those quads made while I was there. The difference is magnitude. Don 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted March 6, 2016 Author Share Posted March 6, 2016 He related that he would like to see a surcharge on OHV license of $60/year which would raise $7,000,000 for trail maintainence. I've actually heard a lot of support for this from the OHV community. Call it an "Environmental Impact Fee" or something. Would be an easy revenue generator and would be the best shot we'd have at a user pay structure for trail maintenance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddawg Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 I've actually heard a lot of support for this from the OHV community. Call it an "Environmental Impact Fee" or something. Would be an easy revenue generator and would be the best shot we'd have at a user pay structure for trail maintenance. Well, if you call it an "Environmental Impact Fee", some users will take that as a license to Impact the Environment: "I pay my fee, so it's OK to keep on doing what I do". Maybe take a portion of the fee to beef up enforcement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted March 6, 2016 Share Posted March 6, 2016 From what I heard, opposition to a surcharge on quads is lead by people from Eastern Alberta. Not sure why as so much of the land in Eastern Alberta are grazing leases. Also I learned that the Prov. Govt had increased the number of enforcement people by 10 in the Rocky area in the summer months. This is in addition to the increases of enforcement people in the County which is now 5 an increase of 500% over the past 15 years or so years. Don 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurningChrome Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Well, if you call it an "Environmental Impact Fee", some users will take that as a license to Impact the Environment: "I pay my fee, so it's OK to keep on doing what I do". Maybe take a portion of the fee to beef up enforcement.Yeah, just call it an off road license fee or trail access fee. As long as the money goes back into the resource (where have I heard that before?) in the form of creating new trails, maintaining them, and enforcement, then most would not mind paying it. From what I heard, opposition to a surcharge on quads is lead by people from Eastern Alberta.Interesting. I hadn't heard this before but now I'm curious about it. I'd think that if you gave the example of the trail system in Ontario that most people would be all over paying some fees to get something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tieflyer Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Made an appeal for action on an issue to Ms Phillips. The response gave clear indication she is heavily if not totally reliant upon long entrenched civil servants for answers and personally, woefully under informed on recreational part of her portfolio. Doubtless this will change in time as her knowledge grows but in the meantime if appealing to government on any issues be prepared for old timy stone walling that smells strongly of the old timy bureaucracy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted March 7, 2016 Author Share Posted March 7, 2016 Made an appeal for action on an issue to Ms Phillips. The response gave clear indication she is heavily if not totally reliant upon long entrenched civil servants for answers and personally, woefully under informed on recreational part of her portfolio. Doubtless this will change in time as her knowledge grows but in the meantime if appealing to government on any issues be prepared for old timy stone walling that smells strongly of the old timy bureaucracy. Ministers come and go, civil servants are forever. Let's hope the carousel of ministers for this department slows down a little and we actually get a chance to educate someone on the importance of these issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurningChrome Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Made an appeal for action on an issue to Ms Phillips. The response gave clear indication she is heavily if not totally reliant upon long entrenched civil servants for answers and personally, woefully under informed on recreational part of her portfolio. Doubtless this will change in time as her knowledge grows but in the meantime if appealing to government on any issues be prepared for old timy stone walling that smells strongly of the old timy bureaucracy. I don't expect one of the VPs at a company to make front line decisions without consulting their managers so I don't think I'd expect the minister of a large portfolio to do it either. If she'd given you an answer on the spot then it would've been lip service to appease you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Guys, unlike the last 50 years of crapping on fisheries, the present Govt closed fisheries to protect trout and developed a Policy on Areation in less than 15 years ( only took weeks). Give 'em some slack. Least they are trying. And frankly I cannot for the life of me figure out why Outdoorsmen wish for a return of the last 50 years of wild things getting screwed. Don 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.