55% of Albertans want more restrictions on ATVs

[Bighorn River]

Interesting poll results.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/quads

55% of Albertans want more restrictions on ATVs. I guess some silver-lining for quadders that only 11% of Albertans want quads banned outright.

I would guess this means more PLUZ and designated trails across Alberta and this would be seen as politically popular.

[Swervs]

The sample sizes always baffle me on these polls. I know someone out there smarter than me probably determined this was an appropriate sample size, but always seems to be such a small sample of the population to accurately portray the views of an entire province.

[jstubbs]

^ Exactly.

55% of the 1,400 Albertans polled in a certain survey responded saying they want more OHV restrictions. Would love to see the selection method for call data. When were they called? During work hours? How did they decide which phone numbers to call? Did they leave a call back number or did they move onto the next number if someone did not pick up? What was the exact format of the questioning? Was there preliminary information provided to potentially sway an opinion one way or another?

I'm sure the poll is somewhat indicative of the average Albertan's feelings, but always have to be leery of surveys and polls.

[58thecat]

Interesting poll results.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/quads

55% of Albertans want more restrictions on ATVs. I guess some silver-lining for quadders that only 11% of Albertans want quads banned outright.

I would guess this means more PLUZ and designated trails across Alberta and this would be seen as politically popular.

Just the city dwellers.:(

[Newview01]

What percentage of those surveyed partook of the activity being surveyed?

That is akin to me wanting more restrictions on sewing machines.

[JohninAB]

ATV users are not the only ones with a stake in Alberta’s public lands.

As an ATV user, I support dialogue on ATV use in this province. Either one is proactively addressing the situation or one is reacting to a decreed solution.

What is happening in a lot of areas cannot be tolerated nor justified.

The poll results should be a wake up call to ATV users.

[58thecat]

ATV users are not the only ones with a stake in Alberta’s public lands.

As an ATV user, I support dialogue on ATV use in this province. Either one is proactively addressing the situation or one is reacting to a decreed solution.

What is happening in a lot of areas cannot be tolerated nor justified.

The poll results should be a wake up call to ATV users.

Ya we run a poll for this for that then we ban this and ban that...sad situation how the bandwagon gets rode hard and put away broken eh!

[Newview01]

The poll results should be a wake up call to ATV users.

In what way? That a lot of people who are disconnected from the activity pretend to care based on biased media reporting?

You can't seriously believe that these results are as accurate as they say they are.

[treeroot]

Interesting poll results.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/quads

55% of Albertans want more restrictions on ATVs. I guess some silver-lining for quadders that only 11% of Albertans want quads banned outright.

I would guess this means more PLUZ and designated trails across Alberta and this would be seen as politically popular.

This is a joke.

They polled a small group of people from an area in which they knew people do not use ATV's. So of course you get 55% of people wanting more restrictions.

If you did the same survey on the same number of people, but from Fort McMurray, Cold Lake, Athabasca etc.. You would get a completely flipped result.


Want more gun restrictions? Poll 10,000 people who are not owners who have never lived anywhere but a city. Want less gun restrictions? Poll 10,000 people from rural alberta.

[treeroot]

I also don't agree with doing these survery's to determine future laws.

Have a few intelligent individuals from various backgrounds, some for and some against ATVS, then have them come up with fair laws that are agreed upon by all sides.

Then enforce these laws.


Our issues with guns, atv's etc often does not lie within the laws that are formed. The issues arise with the people who do not follow these laws and how these laws are not enforced very well and violaters are not properly punished. Therefore many people think we need stricter laws to help the issues. This is not true, stricter laws do nothing when the current laws are not followed and punished.

[Bushrat]

The argument for, against, or indifferent whether it's quads, guns, pot, abortion, pit bulls, immigrants or whatever subject always runs into the wall of public opinion, right or wrong does not matter, majority rules. All one can do to support their particular agenda or right to use/own whatever is to educate the public so they support your particular interest. The best way to do this is by education and setting an example that is positive and will be viewed by the majority as a good thing not a bad thing. Unfortunately as it stands right now the tide against unrestricted off road machine use of all types is becoming viewed as negative by more and more people.

Right or wrong the best marketer wins the vote. We see this all the time in politics. Presently the OHV community is not being successful at selling themselves in a positive light, it has become a political issue. We all know where that leads.

[dmcbride]

55% of Albertan's probably have never rode an ATV.

[JohninAB]

In what way? That a lot of people who are disconnected from the activity pretend to care based on biased media reporting?

You can't seriously believe that these results are as accurate as they say they are.

Prove they are not accurate.

Should they have polled only ATV users?

You either are proactive or reactive and as seen on this forum, most are reactive.

ATV users have to get involved with finding the solution(s) to the tarnished public image they have.

End of my commenting on this thread.

[Newview01]

The argument for, against, or indifferent whether it's quads, guns, pot, abortion, pit bulls, immigrants or whatever subject always runs into the wall of public opinion, right or wrong does not matter, majority rules. All one can do to support their particular agenda or right to use/own whatever is to educate the public so they support your particular interest. The best way to do this is by education and setting an example that is positive and will be viewed by the majority as a good thing not a bad thing. Unfortunately as it stands right now the tide against unrestricted off road machine use of all types is becoming viewed as negative by more and more people.

Right or wrong the best marketer wins the vote. We see this all the time in politics. Presently the OHV community is not being successful at selling themselves in a positive light, it has become a political issue. We all know where that leads.

It is hard to compete with a marketer like the government, who has the media on their side.

But I agree. It does come down to marketing.

[Bighorn River]

This is a joke.

They polled a small group of people from an area in which they knew people do not use ATV's. So of course you get 55% of people wanting more restrictions.

If you did the same survey on the same number of people, but from Fort McMurray, Cold Lake, Athabasca etc.. You would get a completely flipped result.


Want more gun restrictions? Poll 10,000 people who are not owners who have never lived anywhere but a city. Want less gun restrictions? Poll 10,000 people from rural alberta.

I don't think you understand how scientific polls work. Make a sample of calls to all areas of Alberta weighted by population, and you get a scientifically accurate breakdown of the whole population. If you live in an echo chamber where everyone you know thinks there are no issues with ATVs on public land, you probably need to get out more, because its not the mainstream view.

Politicians are doing this all the time privately to see what the public thinks of proposed policies.

On average, it means that if they implement more restrictions, it will be more popular than if they don't and shows that the responsible ATV groups need to do a lot more work to isolate the bad apples if they want public support for their support.

And yes, all Albertans do get say in how we manage our public lands.

[Heyupduck]

Why do they want to ban them?

[Newview01]

Prove they are not accurate.

Should they have polled only ATV users?

You either are proactive or reactive and as seen on this forum, most are reactive.

ATV users have to get involved with finding the solution(s) to the tarnished public image they have.

End of my commenting on this thread.

I should have been more specific - the results may be accurate, but the sample group is probably biased - would that cause the results to be inaccurate?

I would like to see more information on who was polled.

[bobtodrick]

Gotta admit, though some polls are fairly reliable I find this one suspect.
Put on by a university class (and the average university student is of the liberal bent), I have a hard time feeling their was not an agenda, that they proved by only placing their phone calls to specific locals.

[brendan's dad]

55% of Albertan's probably have never rode an ATV.


Exactly, I am happy that the number is only 55%. Given that 80-85 % of our population lives in Edmonton and Calgary, I thought the number would be higher. And the 55% does not want Quads banned, but tighter restrictions. I am a quad owner and user, and there has been several times over the last few years over long weekends, I wish there was better enforcement and harsher penalties for unsafe usage. And have only 11% wanting them banned, is awesome.

[Headdamage]

ATV groups threw 4x4 owners under the bus years ago. As a 4x4 user that made use of trails that have now been taken over by ATV's and restricted for 4x4 use it doesn't much matter to me if ATV's get restricted now.

[3blade]

Poll says there is a 100% chance that Bighorn River is Kevin VT or one of the other banned ABHA/Y2Y board members. Click on his name and 'find all posts'

Grizzly lover, castle park lover, ATV hater, oil hater, and absolutely nothing about hunting or fishing.

[Joe Black]

well thanks god we can all agree that all polls are 100% right 100% of the time, like their prediction of Trump and Nenshi's defeat,,,,, oh wait,,,,,,

Like Prime Minister Diefenbaker once said:

“I’ve always been fond of dogs, and they are the one animal that knows the proper treatment to give to poles.’”

[Bighorn River]

Poll says there is a 100% chance that Bighorn River is Kevin VT or one of the other banned ABHA/Y2Y board members. Click on his name and 'find all posts'

Grizzly lover, castle park lover, ATV hater, oil hater, and absolutely nothing about hunting or fishing.

Yup, interested in conservation and land use issues so we have good habitat so me and my kids can hunt and fish. :)

Perhaps you should start an Alberta Outdoorsmen Against Conservation club if you are threatened about talking about relevant things here.

Or, lets purge talk of conservation off this board so there's more room for articles about Trump and muslims. Now thats relevant.

Sorry, won't be around for next while as I've got a few days off and want to fill my supplemental WT tag.

Thanks for setting your hunter purity test though.

[jednastka]

I find it interesting that our hunting community has drawn a very clear line between poaching and licensed hunting, and speaks out often and loud about the abuses by poachers, calls for stiffer penalties, and really gets upset (rightfully) that they are occasionally called hunters by the uninformed press.

To my knowledge, no such distinction has been drawn between the law-abiding ATV users and those that are trashing our public land. The uninformed public does not see a difference, and the law-abiding ATV users have not actively campaigned to draw a distinction. Therefore, whenever the question of restrictions on ATV users arises, the law-abiding ATV user groups rise in anger, and do not recognize the source of the problem.

We all need to help in addressing the problem of those trashing our public lands. Maybe we need a word like "poacher" to describe them, and a "Report A Poacher"-like hotline for their excesses.

[elkdump]

Don't ban them, just make it impossible to use them anywhere but on PRIVATE PROPERTY ! Win Win :)

[CF8889]

What percentage of those surveyed partook of the activity being surveyed?

That is akin to me wanting more restrictions on sewing machines.

1 has impacts on wildlife, the environment, and various popular recreational activities that take part in mutual areas.

The other sits in a private room and you wouldn't know it existed if you weren't told.

You can do better bud

[colt-44]

I find it interesting that our hunting community has drawn a very clear line between poaching and licensed hunting, and speaks out often and loud about the abuses by poachers, calls for stiffer penalties, and really gets upset (rightfully) that they are occasionally called hunters by the uninformed press.

To my knowledge, no such distinction has been drawn between the law-abiding ATV users and those that are trashing our public land. The uninformed public does not see a difference, and the law-abiding ATV users have not actively campaigned to draw a distinction. Therefore, whenever the question of restrictions on ATV users arises, the law-abiding ATV user groups rise in anger, and do not recognize the source of the problem.

We all need to help in addressing the problem of those trashing our public lands. Maybe we need a word like "poacher" to describe them, and a "Report A Poacher"-like hotline for their excesses.

I like this actually ,

would be interesting to see how a poll on here would go if we want more restrictive , ATV regulations ..hmmm ... are we maybe defending the ATV radicals that are making a scene and disturbance

[pikergolf]

55% of Albertan's probably have never rode an ATV.

I don't think you have to have been on a ATV to recognize the damage they do.

[270person]

are we maybe defending the ATV radicals that are making a scene and disturbance


Why not? We defend the bad apple idiot hunters that make it harder to hunt private land every year that passes. No different.

The some will always have an effect on the all.

[honda450]

Can't believe on this forum guys are so out of touch. I am shocked.:sign0176:

[1899b]

55% of Albertan's probably have never rode an ATV.

I used to. We were pulling moose out of the bush in McMurray with three wheeled Honda ATC's back in the day that left very little footprint. Graduated to 4 wheelers and my last quad was a 2002 Yamaha Kodiak that I used to pull my last bull moose out of WMU530. The area is now known as CNRL formerly Albian Oilsands. Lost some good moose country when the mine went in. Thats the price of economic progress I guess. As for the progression of ATV's and the absolutely stupid ground churning power they produce nowadays, I Am definitely for ATV land use restrictions. The misses and I put on 18kms on our boots yesterday out by Robb. Beauty day out. Have a nice big doe hanging in the garage today. I love the outdoors and we don't need ATV's to enjoy it.

[colt-44]

Why not? We defend the bad apple idiot hunters that make it harder to hunt private land every year that passes. No different.

The some will always have an effect on the all.

good point and you're right about the vocal minority

[Joe Black]

I don't think you have to have been on a ATV to recognize the damage they do.

I don’t think you need to be a rancher to see the damage horses and cattle do on the environment

[pikergolf]

I don’t think you need to be a rancher to see the damage horses and cattle do on the environment

You really believe the two are comparable?

[Joe Black]

I was just trying to make and analogy as ridiculous as yours, best I could come up with.

And as for which is worse, I’m sure you know what 100 head of cattle can do to a stream bed over a summer if it’s the only water around.

[pikergolf]

I was just trying to make and analogy as ridiculous as yours, best I could come up with.

And as for which is worse, I’m sure you know what 100 head of cattle can do to a stream bed over a summer if it’s the only water around.

What analogy, I said you don't have to have ridden a ATV to recognize the damage they do.

[honda450]

You really believe the two are comparable?

Your right cattle are worse.

[SlimChance]

I should have been more specific - the results may be accurate, but the sample group is probably biased - would that cause the results to be inaccurate?

I would like to see more information on who was polled.

http://www.lethbridgecollege.ca/sites/default/files/imce/about-us/applied-research/csrl/provincial_politics_ohv-camping.pdf

Demographic breakdown is on the last page. Looks like they were fairly careful to try to match poll to provincial demographics.



A few random interesting points from in there, though:

- Support for greater restrictions looks to be a lot higher in the north (and in Edmonton, but that's less surprising).

- Young, uneducated males are least in favour of restrictions.

- Green party supporters are less likely than Conservative supporters to want increased restrictions

[Joe Black]

What analogy, I said you don't have to have ridden a ATV to recognize the damage they do.

Analogy. A thing that IS comparible in significant respects.

My ridiculous analogy was:

“you don’t have to be a rancher to see the damage cattle and horses can do to the environment”

Because it IS NOT comparible in significant respects.

That’s all.

[pikergolf]

Analogy. A thing that IS comparible in significant respects.

My ridiculous analogy was:

“you don’t have to be a rancher to see the damage cattle and horses can do to the environment”

Because it IS NOT comparible in significant respects.

That’s all.

You made the analogy, I didn't. That's all. LOL

[3blade]

Yup, interested in conservation and land use issues so we have good habitat so me and my kids can hunt and fish. :)

Perhaps you should start an Alberta Outdoorsmen Against Conservation club if you are threatened about talking about relevant things here.

Or, lets purge talk of conservation off this board so there's more room for articles about Trump and muslims. Now thats relevant.

Sorry, won't be around for next while as I've got a few days off and want to fill my supplemental WT tag.

Thanks for setting your hunter purity test though.

We talk plenty about land use management. What we also talk about is how preservationists, naturalists, lying biologists, and animal rights radicals are infiltrating AEP and conservation groups in order to end licensed hunting.

Case in point. You and your group have co-opted an organization with the name "Backcountry Hunters and Anglers" yet you make no effort to support licensed hunting, because you don't care if we get to hunt the castle, or anywhere. All you care about is banning ATVs and creating more parks, which is the Y2Y anti-human agenda. If/when the park goes status-only hunting next year, you'll just shrug and make excuses about habitat. Just like your precious national status-only hunting preserves in Jasper and Banff.

More protected habitat without licensed hunting is not an acceptable end goal.

Enjoy your trip, bet your latest user name is in banned camp before you get back.

Poor Kevin, he gets so grumpy when he's not in charge :lol:

[colt-44]

http://www.lethbridgecollege.ca/sites/default/files/imce/about-us/applied-research/csrl/provincial_politics_ohv-camping.pdf

Demographic breakdown is on the last page. Looks like they were fairly careful to try to match poll to provincial demographics.



A few random interesting points from in there, though:

- Support for greater restrictions looks to be a lot higher in the north (and in Edmonton, but that's less surprising).

- Young, uneducated males are least in favour of restrictions.

- Green party supporters are less likely than Conservative supporters to want increased restrictions

nothing more than ...neat name lol....slim

[Joe Black]

You made the analogy, I didn't. That's all. LOL

Ok. As long as you think you’re right, that’s really all that matters.

[CF8889]

Ok. As long as you think you’re right, that’s really all that matters.

He never made an analogy to begin with.. he just said you don't have to ride atv's to understand the damage they cause.. that is not an analogy.

[Joe Black]

You made the analogy, I didn't. That's all. LOL

Ok. So let me get this straight, I didn’t make an analogy either when I said

“you don’t need to be a rancher to see the damage horses and cattle do on the environment” ?

Could we call it an observation then? I think we can all agree on that.

[treeroot]

I don't think you understand how scientific polls work. Make a sample of calls to all areas of Alberta weighted by population, and you get a scientifically accurate breakdown of the whole population. If you live in an echo chamber where everyone you know thinks there are no issues with ATVs on public land, you probably need to get out more, because its not the mainstream view.

Politicians are doing this all the time privately to see what the public thinks of proposed policies.

On average, it means that if they implement more restrictions, it will be more popular than if they don't and shows that the responsible ATV groups need to do a lot more work to isolate the bad apples if they want public support for their support.

And yes, all Albertans do get say in how we manage our public lands.

I understand how scientific polls work. But this article gives no information about sample size, sample demographics etc. It does not leave me feeling like I am confident with the sample of people. Which leads me to be suspect.

This is absolutely not a properly reported report. There could be a larger report with the information about the sample, but it's just not included in the article.

I went to university and did assignments and research projects like this one. I just don't trust it without more information.

It is very easy to mislead with survey's if you really want to mislead.

[treeroot]

I also don't believe the average citizens should always be consulted (in a survey manner especially) when it comes to laws.

Someone who has never rode a ATV, doesn't even know the current laws etc should NEVER be allowed to give input or opinion.

Personally I know nothing about motorcycles. I've never ridden one, I don't know the laws concerning them, I don't know the stats about accidents involving them, I don't know the pro's and con's of driving one etc.. Therefore I should NEVER be asked if I think the laws on motorcycles should be tightened up. This question is best left to people who know the information, have driven one, know the stats etc..

[SlimChance]

I also don't believe the average citizens should always be consulted (in a survey manner especially) when it comes to laws.

Someone who has never rode a ATV, doesn't even know the current laws etc should NEVER be allowed to give input or opinion.

Personally I know nothing about motorcycles. I've never ridden one, I don't know the laws concerning them, I don't know the stats about accidents involving them, I don't know the pro's and con's of driving one etc.. Therefore I should NEVER be asked if I think the laws on motorcycles should be tightened up. This question is best left to people who know the information, have driven one, know the stats etc..

I didn't want to quote both your posts but I put a link to the actual poll earlier in the thread. Pretty thoroughly done.

I agree that broad public opinion is not useful when we're creating laws but it is absolutely worthwhile to understand what people think - and which people think what - on any given topic.

[Big Racks]

I used to. We were pulling moose out of the bush in McMurray with three wheeled Honda ATC's back in the day that left very little footprint. Graduated to 4 wheelers and my last quad was a 2002 Yamaha Kodiak that I used to pull my last bull moose out of WMU530. The area is now known as CNRL formerly Albian Oilsands. Lost some good moose country when the mine went in. Thats the price of economic progress I guess. As for the progression of ATV's and the absolutely stupid ground churning power they produce nowadays, I Am definitely for ATV land use restrictions. The misses and I put on 18kms on our boots yesterday out by Robb. Beauty day out. Have a nice big doe hanging in the garage today. I love the outdoors and we don't need ATV's to enjoy it.

That's a slippery slope. That's great that you and the missus had a great hike and it was a productive hunt, love to hear those stories. You might not need atv's to enjoy the outdoors , fair enough. A bow hunter might say the same thing about rifles though. As far as restrictions on use, I'm all for it, as long as it's done in consultation with all stakeholders. Who better to help police the idiots than the responsible ATV riders? As mentioned, similar to the poacher comment made above.

[michaelmicallef]

Just the city dwellers.:(

We prefer to be called tree huggers or fun wreckers.

[Big Racks]

I don't think you have to have been on a ATV to recognize the damage they do.

Begs the question, is it the ATV or is it the rider? Like a firearm, the ATV in of itself is just a tool and does no damage if left to its own devices.

[HunterDave]

What's the difference between "Public Use Areas" and crown land? Are those the same as designated PLUZ areas? I've never heard Crown Land called that up this way and I'm thinking that it's a Southern Alberta thing.

Am I missing a page from the survey or were these the only questions asked?


Questions

To better protect the province's wilderness and park areas, the Alberta government has announced it will restrict or ban off-highway vehicles and random camping in the newly created Castle provincial park, and possibly other public use areas over the next three to five years.

a) Beginning with off-highway vehicles, also known as OHVs, please tell me if you think there should be more or less restrictions on OHVs in public use areas. Would you say OHVs should be...
Additional Information if requested) Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs) are often referred to as All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and include quads, motorcycles, dirt bikes, side-by-sides, and snowmobiles.

b) Thinking now about random camping. Random camping occurs when people camp outside of designated campgrounds. Please tell me if you think there should be more or less restrictions on random camping in Alberta's public use areas. Would you say random camping should be...

• Banned in all public places
• More restricted
• No more/less restricted
• Less restricted
• No restrictions at all
• don’t know (unprompted)
• refused (unprompted)

[Freddy]

And this article says different things.
http://www.lethbridgenewsnow.com/article/576732/southern-residents-less-favourable-toward-carbon-levy-ohv-restrictions

[kedive]

Gotta admit, though some polls are fairly reliable I find this one suspect.
Put on by a university class (and the average university student is of the liberal bent), I have a hard time feeling their was not an agenda, that they proved by only placing their phone calls to specific locals.

Ha this was done by Lethbridge College. Most of the kids at that school are farm kids or small town kids from southern Alberta. I wouldn't bet on them being overly Liberal bent.

Edit: As I finish reading through the comments. I'd also like to say I'm not sure why people are getting bent out of shape over an unofficial poll done by a community college class.

[1899b]

That's a slippery slope. That's great that you and the missus had a great hike and it was a productive hunt, love to hear those stories. You might not need atv's to enjoy the outdoors , fair enough. A bow hunter might say the same thing about rifles though. As far as restrictions on use, I'm all for it, as long as it's done in consultation with all stakeholders. Who better to help police the idiots than the responsible ATV riders? As mentioned, similar to the poacher comment made above.

I agree with you. Life would be boring without slippery slopes lol....

[seven0eight]

I find it interesting that our hunting community has drawn a very clear line between poaching and licensed hunting, and speaks out often and loud about the abuses by poachers, calls for stiffer penalties, and really gets upset (rightfully) that they are occasionally called hunters by the uninformed press.

To my knowledge, no such distinction has been drawn between the law-abiding ATV users and those that are trashing our public land. The uninformed public does not see a difference, and the law-abiding ATV users have not actively campaigned to draw a distinction. Therefore, whenever the question of restrictions on ATV users arises, the law-abiding ATV user groups rise in anger, and do not recognize the source of the problem.

We all need to help in addressing the problem of those trashing our public lands. Maybe we need a word like "poacher" to describe them, and a "Report A Poacher"-like hotline for their excesses.

THIS. Don't defend or protect these a-holes. Out them.

[Chuck_Wagon]

The college students did three polls at once when they did this atv one, with phone numbers given to them from InfoGroup. Their business is to provide contacts to target specific customer-centric requests. Meaning, they can give contact numbers to businesses to target a specific audience.

http://www.lethbridgecollege.ca/about-us/applied-research-innovation/citizen-society-research-lab/alberta-opinion-studies

They did these 3 polls at once by phone contacts provided by InfoGroup:
2017 Reports
-Alberta Provincial Politics: Carbon Levy and Rebate Program
-Alberta Provincial Politics: Public Use Areas Protection Plans - OHV and Random Camping Restrictions
-Alberta Federal Politics: Vote Intention

[colt-44]

................

[Don_Parsons]

Dam, that's the craps as I just bought a Mule and named him Albert Theodore Valentine or (ATV) for short.

I'm dun founded why 55% of the people that have never meet Albert want to band him.

Oh Boy, whats the world coming to.

Don

[slickwilly]

I can't believe I am seeing this on the AO forum, but it seems like some people are giving their opinion without having read the actual data. Colour me shocked.

You can read the breakdown here:
http://www.lethbridgecollege.ca/sites/default/files/imce/about-us/applied-research/csrl/provincial_politics_ohv-camping.pdf

The study was conducted by university students, they talked to a random slice of the population. 1400 is a pretty big slice as far as public opinion surveys go.

Public opinion is a scary thing when you are in a minority group. ATVers, hunters, all of us are in the minority of the whole population. We live in a democracy, so what the majority wants is what happens. If the public opinion starts turning against a minority, its the job of the minority to convince the majority that what they are doing isn't a negative. Even if the majority is uninformed, or lives in a different area, or *gasp* votes a different way.

[slickwilly]

Why not? We defend the bad apple idiot hunters that make it harder to hunt private land every year that passes. No different.

The some will always have an effect on the all.

We do?

[HoytCRX32]

In my opinion the ATV industry has completely **** the bed on this...instead of promoting responsible use, we get TV ads showing 6 seaters blowing through streams, mud and wilderness. What kind of image does that give the uneducated viewer, hence, why are we surprised at the poll?? I enjoy watching Destination Polaris but, to me, they make it more about raw power and bling than they do about outdoor experience...they should be ACTIVELY injecting themselves into this kind of debate.

Couldn't Destination Polaris have a segment (or more segments) on their program highlighting conservation, do's and don't's, etc?

Just my HO...In the words of Jim Shockey...."OK, back to the show"

[colt-44]

I find it interesting that our hunting community has drawn a very clear line between poaching and licensed hunting, and speaks out often and loud about the abuses by poachers, calls for stiffer penalties, and really gets upset (rightfully) that they are occasionally called hunters by the uninformed press.

To my knowledge, no such distinction has been drawn between the law-abiding ATV users and those that are trashing our public land. The uninformed public does not see a difference, and the law-abiding ATV users have not actively campaigned to draw a distinction. Therefore, whenever the question of restrictions on ATV users arises, the law-abiding ATV user groups rise in anger, and do not recognize the source of the problem.

We all need to help in addressing the problem of those trashing our public lands. Maybe we need a word like "poacher" to describe them, and a "Report A Poacher"-like hotline for their excesses.

yes ... I agree

[slough shark]

I don't think we need more restrictions, we need more enforcement of existing laws. Enforcement is next to nil (I have called in over a half dozen times to f&w in the last year and a bit with plate #'s, sometimes pictures etc...) never once have they followed up. Unless they simply issue a ticket based on a phone call which is likely not the case nothing gets done. It's frustrating when they could issue enough tickets to pay their salary for the year while helping the environment in a couple hours every few weekends in the spring/summer :angry3:

[HunterDave]

In my opinion the ATV industry has completely **** the bed on this...instead of promoting responsible use, we get TV ads showing 6 seaters blowing through streams, mud and wilderness. What kind of image does that give the uneducated viewer, hence, why are we surprised at the poll?? I enjoy watching Destination Polaris but, to me, they make it more about raw power and bling than they do about outdoor experience...they should be ACTIVELY injecting themselves into this kind of debate.

Couldn't Destination Polaris have a segment (or more segments) on their program highlighting conservation, do's and don't's, etc?

Just my HO...In the words of Jim Shockey...."OK, back to the show"

I have lived in NB, QC, ON, MB and now in AB. There is no controversy anywhere that I've lived in wrt atv's like there is in southern Alberta. I don't know what it is, too many people in the area with not enough crown land, more ecologically sensitive, watershed, mindset,.....I don't know? But I can assure you that people don't cringe in places where I've lived in the past when they watch those commercials. That's pretty much how it is. I know that people that have never known any different are going to think that it's outrageous but that's how it is elsewhere.

[HoytCRX32]

I have lived in NB, QC, ON, MB and now in AB. There is no controversy anywhere that I've lived in wrt atv's like there is in southern Alberta. I don't know what it is, too many people in the area with not enough crown land, more ecologically sensitive, watershed, mindset,.....I don't know? But I can assure you that people don't cringe in places where I've lived in the past when they watch those commercials. That's pretty much how it is. I know that people that have never known any different are going to think that it's outrageous but that's how it is elsewhere.

Good points...I know out East they have massive trail systems that accommodate atv's in the summer and sleds in the winter, even going town to town...nothing close to that here in SW Alberta

[Bushrat]

I have lived in NB, QC, ON, MB and now in AB. There is no controversy anywhere that I've lived in wrt atv's like there is in southern Alberta. I don't know what it is, too many people in the area with not enough crown land, more ecologically sensitive, watershed, mindset,.....I don't know? But I can assure you that people don't cringe in places where I've lived in the past when they watch those commercials. That's pretty much how it is. I know that people that have never known any different are going to think that it's outrageous but that's how it is elsewhere.

There is less controversy in most of those places mainly because in those eastern provinces OHV people are organized, they have trail systems with various skill levels required, designated stream crossings, bridges, parking areas, staging areas, campgrounds, monitored and policed. Also used by snowmobiles in winter that are groomed. Basically they have a system of OHV highways and trails that go everywhere in the province anybody would want to go. They have designated areas where guys are allowed to go nutz and rip and tear as much as they want. Yes they still have people going rogue and tearing up the swamps etc where they shouldn't, but not like Alberta where there is little for organized associations and where everyone from all over the province migrates and concentrates in heavy numbers in the small area of foothills and eastern slopes of this province. I'm guessing the density of OHV's used in this area is probably far greater than probably any other non monitored, non enforced public land area in Canada. So yes there is an issue to be addressed. The OHV community needs to lead an initiative to deal with this or they will be regulated by government.

[Bighorn River]

With a few notable exceptions, Alberta doesn't have a motorized trail system. It has a historic mess of winter cutlines that are unsuitable for summer use. Up to a few years ago, it wasn't even illegal to rip up creeks etc, and given that most places don't even have designated trails there is nothing to enforce.

More rules, mean fewer sustainable trails, which are really expensive to maintain and keep in good condition. Who is going to pay for it. I don't think if even all ATV registration fees went to trails it would be enough to support a system.

[normstad]

There are way too many, including some voices I've read on this board, that use or excuse OHV use that is irresponsible. The question I wonder is why? Why does anyone think it is there right to tear up the landscape, and then try and defend that action?

I just don't get it.

[Walleyedude]

With a few notable exceptions, Alberta doesn't have a motorized trail system. It has a historic mess of winter cutlines that are unsuitable for summer use. Up to a few years ago, it wasn't even illegal to rip up creeks etc, and given that most places don't even have designated trails there is nothing to enforce.

More rules, mean fewer sustainable trails, which are really expensive to maintain and keep in good condition. Who is going to pay for it. I don't think if even all ATV registration fees went to trails it would be enough to support a system.

This is BS.

Alberta has an amazing network of trails, many of them former seismic lines and forestry cuts, which make for world class OHV trails. They just need to be evaluated and designated accordingly, and then maintained. It doesn't happen overnight, it takes education, awareness and funding but the regulations are in place, they just need to be enforced and expanded.

It's also BS that trails are somehow too expensive to maintain. There are numerous examples all over North America of trail systems that are beautifully maintained and become focal points of sustainable recreation and tourism. There are numerous funding models that have proven very effective and that include both user pay and government funding.

[HunterDave]

There are way too many, including some voices I've read on this board, that use or excuse OHV use that is irresponsible. The question I wonder is why? Why does anyone think it is there right to tear up the landscape, and then try and defend that action?

I just don't get it.

It's easy to understand......Irresponsible is relative. Your irresponsible is probably not the same other people's. If you wet your pants if you see an ATV crossing a hard bottomed creek at a low speed then maybe you are not using the word irresponsible correctly.

To lobby for a province wide ban on atv's on crown land due to issues in a relatively small portion of Alberta is irresponsible to me. :)

[normstad]

It's easy to understand......Irresponsible is relative. Your irresponsible is probably not the same other people's. If you wet your pants if you see an ATV crossing a hard bottomed creek at a low speed then maybe you are not using the word irresponsible correctly.

It's illegal. Just like hunting after legal light.

http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/motorized.aspx

To lobby for a province wide ban on atv's on crown land due to issues in a relatively small portion of Alberta is irresponsible to me. :)

Not sure if anyone is lobbying for a province wide crown land ban, but certainly on sensitive lands, which most of the east slopes are.

[HunterDave]

It's illegal. Just like hunting after legal light.

http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-land/motorized.aspx.

Really?

From YOUR link:

"How should I cross a wetland, creek or river?

You may only cross wetlands, creeks or rivers at bridges or lawful crossings."

[covey ridge]

ATV users are not the only ones with a stake in Alberta’s public lands.
As an ATV user, I support dialogue on ATV use in this province. Either one is proactively addressing the situation or one is reacting to a decreed solution.

What is happening in a lot of areas cannot be tolerated nor justified.

The poll results should be a wake up call to ATV users.

agree^^

[srs123]

we should ban ATVs on public land. too much nuisance and the damage they leave behind takes years to clean up. you can't go enjoy a normal hike anymore without someone up in your business with their ATV riding in rivers , creeks and cutting down trees to make new trails from them and their hommies .

its time we ban it and give them a couple of areas where they can play. no more access to public land

[Newview01]

we should ban ATVs on public land. too much nuisance and the damage they leave behind takes years to clean up. you can't go enjoy a normal hike anymore without someone up in your business with their ATV riding in rivers , creeks and cutting down trees to make new trails from them and their hommies .

its time we ban it and give them a couple of areas where they can play. no more access to public land

I agree 100%, but we should also ban access to hikers. The amount of garbage left behind by those who don’t care is bordering on an international crisis.

Shut it all down. No questions asked.

:love0025:

[srs123]

I agree 100%, but we should also ban access to hikers. The amount of garbage left behind by those who don’t care is bordering on an international crisis.

Shut it all down. No questions asked.

:love0025:

I think you might be onto something here. EVERYONE , to your basement. grab your coloured crayons and sign and lets go riot at city hall. shut it all down

[normstad]

Really?

From YOUR link:

"How should I cross a wetland, creek or river?

You may only cross wetlands, creeks or rivers at bridges or lawful crossings."

Glad you saw the bolded, as we've all seen tons of pictures where people are crossing right beside a bridge put in.

And that is the problem. Too many, way too many, are not crossing at those bridges or lawful crossings. We all know that is the reality.

[sparky660]

we should ban ATVs on public land. too much nuisance and the damage they leave behind takes years to clean up. you can't go enjoy a normal hike anymore without someone up in your business with their ATV riding in rivers , creeks and cutting down trees to make new trails from them and their hommies .



its time we ban it and give them a couple of areas where they can play. no more access to public land



We hiked into Ribbon falls a couple of years ago and had to clean up a mess left by someone. Don't think that just because you're a hiker that you're any better or entitled to anything more than an ATVer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sparky660]

I agree 100%, but we should also ban access to hikers. The amount of garbage left behind by those who don’t care is bordering on an international crisis.



Shut it all down. No questions asked.



:love0025:



Yep, give it all back to nature. Most people are blinded by their own agenda. That's why I don't frequent this forum as much as I used to. The self entitlement of people is ever increasing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk