More eastern slopes changes

[Taco]

Originally Posted by RZR

Yes I did read it, too bad you want certain things banned though. The government tried to stop fishing in most of the waters in the eastern slopes this spring as well and retracted that when there was an uproar. My point is we should all stand together as a whole user group. You have bad apples in every user group as well

Not most of the waters.... some headwater streams, less than 1% of the fishable high country streams and closure ain't off the table yet. Stream closures WILL happen if the decline of pure strain native fish species continues unabated.

[lead chucker]

Originally Posted by oldgutpile

Last fall I made a 1 day trip into 400. There was as many enforcement vehicles there as there was recreation users. Possible more!
If we had put half of that resource to work five years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess. I am solidly with the ENFORCEMENT vote. Crack down on the abusers and leave some access. Who the hell are we preserving this for if we close everything down? And you FOOT ACCESS ONLY crowd can wave your banners all you want, but get to the age where your mobility is limited, and you can sit on the outside looking in, like the rest of us! I am still far from the age of retiring, and I have enough back issues that even the thought of doing another back-pack hunt hurts. I remember my parents and grandparents enjoying this country in their retirement, and I would like to do the same. Not just looking at the back-country with a spotting scope.
Dont give the Y2Y crowd and the politicians free reign to "preserve" this as they see fit without a fight.
My summer camping trip this past year with the grandkids was an absolute slap in the face. Our new Castle Park area and the restrictions that came with it; No bb guns, bows, slingshots, etc., etc, etc......The list of "no's" was endless. This type of park designation is maybe what all you foot-only advocates are looking for.
Our camping area that was normally thriving with people, was deserted, as more informed campers had deserted the area to go where they could do things they enjoy. At the end of the day, who are we preserving this for? All the Y2Y sponsors out of the U.S. who can now sit back and relish the thought that they have saved us from ourselves?!
Let's see some resources put forth for enforcement, rather than a blanket wide closure of activities.

This is a great statement...thankyou

[jungleboy]

I find it very interesting when members on here cheer on the idea of banning a certain demographic (atvr's) and have a good laugh at the idea, that someone else's pastime should be banned outright at every opportunity.
At the same time, bemoan the fact that hunters and firearms owners are not putting up a united front against the government's ever increasing restrictions on gun owners to the eventual end that will be outright bans on a sport I assume everyone on here cherishes.

All I can say to those self serving types is , harvest time is coming .... Reap it.

[artie]

Originally Posted by RZR

They have rerouted the trails in the castle area and yet the government still closed it. Spent how much on new bridges a such for what

You are correct the quad squad did a very good job of establishing trails but the government of the time turned a blind eye to it. But we cannot give up the fight and if we can show we are organized and willing to preserve what we have then a future government might give us some consideration. As others have pointed out the big floods a few years back took out many existing quad/exploration/ logging roads. Some will use this to cry fowl but it is up to us to reestablish roads that meet environmental standards.

[SlimChance]

There are a lot of voices in this thread complaining that those supporting the land use agreements are being selfish - and yet these same people are the ones refusing to change their behaviour to keep these lands in hood shape. Keeping these areas ecologically healthy is more important than hunting, fishing, quadding or any of our pastimes.

More enforcement isn't necessarily the answer either. As others have noted, every user has an impact to varying degrees. It's death by a thousand cuts and even responsible users cut a little bit. To keep access open to everybody we're going to have to accept that we can't all have the impact that we used to.

This isn't an attack on atv's. I think there's a legitimate place for them on the eastern slopes but the reality is that if we want to keep access for any activity we need to minimize the impact that each user has.

[boah]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

There are a lot of voices in this thread complaining that those supporting the land use agreements are being selfish - and yet these same people are the ones refusing to change their behaviour to keep these lands in hood shape. Keeping these areas ecologically healthy is more important than hunting, fishing, quadding or any of our pastimes.

More enforcement isn't necessarily the answer either. As others have noted, every user has an impact to varying degrees. It's death by a thousand cuts and even responsible users cut a little bit. To keep access open to everybody we're going to have to accept that we can't all have the impact that we used to.

This isn't an attack on atv's. I think there's a legitimate place for them on the eastern slopes but the reality is that if we want to keep access for any activity we need to minimize the impact that each user has.

Minimizing impact is very good. Closing an area is not the solution. It has been proven that closing an area just overpopulated other areas and ends up a snowball effect.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by boah

Minimizing impact is very good. Closing an area is not the solution. It has been proven that closing an area just overpopulated other areas and ends up a snowball effect.

It does. Closures are kind of a last resort though - they only go through when enough people support the idea that no amount of future minimization is going to be sufficient. Then you just get a second snowball of closures following the increased usage. Without that change in behaviour you end up with closures all over, eventually.

My reading of the livingstone-porcupine draft plan isn't a closure, anyway. My initial reading is that they're pushing to change some usage, but trying to accomodate all usage groups.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by RZR

I remember in the 70’s when west of Longview highway 40 was just a washed out trail. Used to take a truck in there to sheep hunt. Another place was mill creek, it was just as washed back in the 70’s as it is now. There hasn’t been any Off highway use in there for over 20 yrs. Mother Nature can be a beotch!

I hunted that area in the 70’s as well...I can’t recall the road to Highwood House ever being washed out...was a good main forestry road. Perhaps you’re thinking of some of the hunting trails...Trap Creek, Cat Creek etc

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

There are a lot of voices in this thread complaining that those supporting the land use agreements are being selfish - and yet these same people are the ones refusing to change their behaviour to keep these lands in good shape.

Who on here has poor behavior in terms of environmental destruction? Now you are just throwing out accusations.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Who on here has poor behavior in terms of environmental destruction? Now you are just throwing out accusations.

Read the second paragraph.

As others have noted, every user has an impact to varying degrees. It's death by a thousand cuts and even responsible users cut a little bit. To keep access open to everybody we're going to have to accept that we can't all have the impact that we used to.

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

There are a lot of voices in this thread complaining that those supporting the land use agreements are being selfish - and yet these same people are the ones refusing to change their behaviour to keep these lands in hood shape. Keeping these areas ecologically healthy is more important than hunting, fishing, quadding or any of our pastimes.

More enforcement isn't necessarily the answer either. As others have noted, every user has an impact to varying degrees. It's death by a thousand cuts and even responsible users cut a little bit. To keep access open to everybody we're going to have to accept that we can't all have the impact that we used to.

This isn't an attack on atv's. I think there's a legitimate place for them on the eastern slopes but the reality is that if we want to keep access for any activity we need to minimize the impact that each user has.

I am pretty sure those who voicing their concerns about cherry picking the low lying fruit (ATV's) are not the idiots who don't use respect.

Enforcement is the answer, plain and simple... No different than any other privilege we human enjoy... I won't derail this subject but enforcement of current laws is key.

Actually it is a blatant attack on one user group, the ATV crowd as 95% of the population could care less about restrictions or removal from the landscape. Very similar percentages to our hunting community...

Why don't we start discussing some other user groups which many have similar or worse impacts on the area.... There is thousands of cattle grazed each and ever year, the same issues are present with cattle... Forestry and mining or mineral extraction as well leaves a footprint.

The article referenced by Taco states in 1950 the crossing were 177, then 2001 they were 2803, then estimated to be 4000 today... What is interesting is the ATV "boom" was the past couple decades, prior to this these machines were not as popular, powerful, ext..... We can deduce that between 1950 and 2001 that industry contributed to a large portion of the problem.... Food for thought.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Sledhead71

I am pretty sure those who voicing their concerns about cherry picking the low lying fruit (ATV's) are not the idiots who don't use respect.

Enforcement is the answer, plain and simple... No different than any other privilege we human enjoy... I won't derail this subject but enforcement of current laws is key.

Actually it is a blatant attack on one user group, the ATV crowd as 95% of the population could care less about restrictions or removal from the landscape. Very similar percentages to our hunting community...

Why don't we start discussing some other user groups which many have similar or worse impacts on the area.... There is thousands of cattle grazed each and ever year, the same issues are present with cattle... Forestry and mining or mineral extraction as well leaves a footprint.

The article referenced by Taco states in 1950 the crossing were 177, then 2001 they were 2803, then estimated to be 4000 today... What is interesting is the ATV "boom" was the past couple decades, prior to this these machines were not as popular, powerful, ext..... We can deduce that between 1950 and 2001 that industry contributed to a large portion of the problem.... Food for thought.

The draft plan does address those other user groups.

There's a section laying out maximum road densities for industrial use.

There's a further six pages detailing management plans for various industries.

There is one single mention off atv/ohv/off highway vehicles is the entire 48 pages. And despite that, this document os a blatant attack on them?


If the problem is too many industry roads and we have no current regulation on the number of industry roads how can enforcement of current regulations possibly make things better?

[Sundancefisher]

Fact is some off road users whether 4X4, dirt bike or quad are not explorers but rather destroyers. Removing signage, creating mud bogs, destroying trails, riding in creeks etc.

Three options seem to come to mind.

1. Outright ban in some areas of concern.
2. Special licensing or usage fees 100% paid for by users. User money pays for restoration, repairs, maintenance of trails, as well as enforcement with all fines going to offsetting fees and improving user services.
3. Continued unabated destruction of the area by the few problem people than encourage some other weak minded people to make it even worse.

Maybe it won't happen but some 1 & 2 seems to make sense.

[ESOXangler]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Typical of the left / ban camp.

Cherry picking evidence, pushing a self serving agenda.

95% of what you call "damage" is cause by 5% of the users.

And because of that you wish to ban OHV users?

Is there no room for environmentalism on the right or middle?

As an Quadder myself I see more destruction then I care to admit. It’s 100% a lack of enforcement but how will we ever be able to enforce it? More tax money to supporting the F&W I suppose. But you’d find a way to complain about that too

So what’s your solution? I am truly interested.

Currently my opinion is that although I really enjoy riding, I value the nature more and want to share it with my kids. Even if it means we have to hoofer in there! Just means I have to get healthier.

[RACKER]

What interests me is that how many ohv users say that there is just a small amount of people ruining it for everyone?If there are so many law abiding people out there enjoying the backcountry on machines why is it that they dont try to control it more themselves.It seems to be always the other guys or goverments fault.I dont think that there is too many people out on trails without cell phones these days that can take excellent photos and videos.If more users would ban together and turn in the bad apples it would certainly lead to less problems out there.I myself have turned in photos of machines and trucks they came in with to local authorities.It seems that people have a fear that they will have to be part of an investigation and dont want that but they are the first ones to complain as soon as closures happen.No you cant stop idiots from wrecking our land but strength in numbers of good people can make a difference.

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by RACKER

What interests me is that how many ohv users say that there is just a small amount of people ruining it for everyone?If there are so many law abiding people out there enjoying the backcountry on machines why is it that they dont try to control it more themselves.It seems to be always the other guys or goverments fault.I dont think that there is too many people out on trails without cell phones these days that can take excellent photos and videos.If more users would ban together and turn in the bad apples it would certainly lead to less problems out there.I myself have turned in photos of machines and trucks they came in with to local authorities.It seems that people have a fear that they will have to be part of an investigation and dont want that but they are the first ones to complain as soon as closures happen.No you cant stop idiots from wrecking our land but strength in numbers of good people can make a difference.

The problem with your theory is that most people tend to hang out with like minded people. When my wife and I take the side by side for a weekend it is usually with another couple and we don't particularly like to get in the mud so we stick to the hard pack and rarely see another atv. The people that want to rip and tear tend to do it with their friends who want to do the same, so the idea of turning in an idiot is highly unlikely.

[jungleboy]

Those that want to ban something ? How about you go to the source and outlaw the mega aggressive tires that can dig a 12" trench at the touch of the throttle. You want to get creative , go after the super modded race bikes and atvs that have to rip the ground in order to move. Or how about factory stock machines only on public land. We limit the amount of modifications on street vehicles why not off road? You want to see a self funding fish and wildlife force, give them the tools to go out and set up roadblocks on trails and ticket people for violations , with point's against your drivers licence.I bet you they would raise lots of cash and likely confiscate a lot of atvs.

Helmet laws
Insurance
Drinking and driving/open liquor
Willful destruction of public property
Littering
Underage operators
unsafe operation (too many passengers)

Add to this the tires and mods etc you have a cash cow without ruining it for those that ride responsibly

[ESOXangler]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

Those that want to ban something ? How about you go to the source and outlaw the mega aggressive tires that can dig a 12" trench at the touch of the throttle. You want to get creative , go after the super modded race bikes and atvs that have to rip the ground in order to move. Or how about factory stock machines only on public land. We limit the amount of modifications on street vehicles why not off road? You want to see a self funding fish and wildlife force, give them the tools to go out and set up roadblocks on trails and ticket people for violations , with point's against your drivers licence.I bet you they would raise lots of cash and likely confiscate a lot of atvs.

Helmet laws
Insurance
Drinking and driving/open liquor
Willful destruction of public property
Littering
Underage operators
unsafe operation (too many passengers)

Add to this the tires and mods etc you have a cash cow without ruining it for those that ride responsibly

This is actually a pretty common sense approach. Good ideas.

[damaltor]

I feel that industry throughout our eastern slopes, is the prime reason for destruction and degradation of habitat and the eco-system. There needs to be very strict and enforced guidelines, regarding industry within the slopes, it just can’t continue unchecked.

Unfortunately, due to industrial activity, more and more area is being opened up to irresponsible OHV activity, which substantially adds to more loss and degradation. It occurs to me, that members on this forum are NOT part of this problem. It is not the hunters, trappers, anglers, etc. using OHV’s irresponsibly. They/we have a keen awareness of the outdoors and do everything possible to lessen our impact on our environment. It is the recreational OHVer, whose numbers, over the years, has swelled to become the vast majority. They do not seem to have the knowledge, understanding or care to lessen their impact on the eco-system within the eastern slopes. Their only thought, appears to be, going out every weekend and playing with their OHV’s, I get this, but it can’t continue to go unchecked.

I assure you I am not anti-OHV, really I’m not, I want all users to be able to partake in the activities that they enjoy and put smiles on their faces. I’ve ridden OHV’s for the majority of my life and have very close friends that continue to do so responsibly. But it has become a major problem and has to be addressed, hopefully not with total bans? I think the major OHV manufactures need to step up with educational campaigns and funds, tighter and enforced restrictions on usage, dollars need to be generated for maintenance and restoration, this would hopefully be a start.

Overall the situation in our eastern slopes cannot continue to go unchecked, if it does the outcome will be bleak.

[artie]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

The problem with your theory is that most people tend to hang out with like minded people. When my wife and I take the side by side for a weekend it is usually with another couple and we don't particularly like to get in the mud so we stick to the hard pack and rarely see another atv. The people that want to rip and tear tend to do it with their friends who want to do the same, so the idea of turning in an idiot is highly unlikely.

Places that do trail grooming for snow machines want you to buy a season pass to pay for the grooming. I think most people are fine with that and the season pass tends to give you some ownership so you will look after what you have. I would be interested to see if the same thing could happen with ATV machines. Season pass to help with trail maintenance and policing. If you want to destroy the environment then go somewhere else.

[damaltor]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

Those that want to ban something ? How about you go to the source and outlaw the mega aggressive tires that can dig a 12" trench at the touch of the throttle. You want to get creative , go after the super modded race bikes and atvs that have to rip the ground in order to move. Or how about factory stock machines only on public land. We limit the amount of modifications on street vehicles why not off road? You want to see a self funding fish and wildlife force, give them the tools to go out and set up roadblocks on trails and ticket people for violations , with point's against your drivers licence.I bet you they would raise lots of cash and likely confiscate a lot of atvs.

Helmet laws
Insurance
Drinking and driving/open liquor
Willful destruction of public property
Littering
Underage operators
unsafe operation (too many passengers)

Add to this the tires and mods etc you have a cash cow without ruining it for those that ride responsibly

Yes, definitely a step in the right direction.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by ESOXangler

This is actually a pretty common sense approach. Good ideas.

X2

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

Those that want to ban something ? How about you go to the source and outlaw the mega aggressive tires that can dig a 12" trench at the touch of the throttle. You want to get creative , go after the super modded race bikes and atvs that have to rip the ground in order to move. Or how about factory stock machines only on public land. We limit the amount of modifications on street vehicles why not off road? You want to see a self funding fish and wildlife force, give them the tools to go out and set up roadblocks on trails and ticket people for violations , with point's against your drivers licence.I bet you they would raise lots of cash and likely confiscate a lot of atvs.

Helmet laws
Insurance
Drinking and driving/open liquor
Willful destruction of public property
Littering
Underage operators
unsafe operation (too many passengers)

Add to this the tires and mods etc you have a cash cow without ruining it for those that ride responsibly

Nice post

[muledriver]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Typical of the left / ban camp.

Cherry picking evidence, pushing a self serving agenda.

95% of what you call "damage" is cause by 5% of the users.

And because of that you wish to ban OHV users?

But you agree... The damage is real. You don't even have to have abusers on the landscape. All you need is too many users.

How would you curtail this?

[muledriver]

Originally Posted by oldgutpile

And people without the use of horses, seniors and mobility impaired people, can still sit on the outside looking in. Just like in the old days!
.

I'm 67, my hunting partner is 72. We walk, pack in and pack out. Don't use us as an excuse for OHVs.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by muledriver

But you agree... The damage is real. You don't even have to have abusers on the landscape. All you need is too many users.

How would you curtail this?

I used the " " as a point that what some people call damage is merely a trail.

There are a lot of subjective accusations being thrown out.

[ESOXangler]

Originally Posted by muledriver

I'm 67, my hunting partner is 72. We walk, pack in and pack out. Don't use us as an excuse for OHVs.

You’re a role model to us Sir!

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by muledriver

I'm 67, my hunting partner is 72. We walk, pack in and pack out. Don't use us as an excuse for OHVs.

Actually age has nothing to do with it. Mobility issues are not age specific.

[buck]

shut er all down keep everyone one out
let the first nations have it all to them selves
and all will be good
if you agree one group should be banned then
this is what should happen in my opinion it seems with all the
closures happening and the talk of more tye only consitatant thing
is the first nations will still have full access to these areas
people say stop quadding as i don’t quad there well there is people that don’t fish there so they say oh well stop fishing access also who cares to me the antis
don’t have much work to do to keep closing areas as outdoorsmen we all are divided
way to much and if we can’t or won’t support all the different outdoor sports
we will keep losing more and more areas certain groups will be shut out and will cease to be there to support others when needed. They have closed areas taken hunts away drastically changed fishing rules and so far have gotten away with it it’s only going to get worse and with all of us divided we only have ourselves to blame

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by buck

Shut er all down, keep everyone one out .
Let the first nations have it all to them selves
and all will be good .
If you agree one group should be banned, then
this is what should happen in my opinion. It seems with all the
closures happening and the talk of more, the only consistent thing,
is the first nations will still have full access to these areas.
People say stop quading, as I don’t quad there.Well there are people that don’t fish there so they say ,"oh well stop fishing access also", who cares. To me, the antis don’t have much work to do to keep closing areas because, as outdoorsmen we all are divided way to much.
If we can’t or won’t support all the different outdoor sports ,
we will keep losing more and more areas. Certain groups will be shut out and will cease to be there to support others when needed. They have closed areas, taken hunts away, drastically changed fishing rules and so far have gotten away with it. It’s only going to get worse and with all of us divided we only have ourselves to blame.

Fixed it for you.