Bobs creek ATV closure

LKILR · #1 10-13-2016, 07:16 AM

Our goverment decided to temporarily close the atv trails in Bobs Creek for whatever reason. Well looks like the closure isn't working because there are fresh atv tracks in the snow up there and two camps in place already. These people / rule breakers are Gona end up screwing things up for everyone else. I will be reporting it to the CO's

lead chucker · #2 10-13-2016, 07:43 AM

Imagine that. Every time I head back in the castle there's atv and dirt bike tracks all over the road closures. Our own worst enemy. Sad

Albertadiver · #3 10-13-2016, 07:51 AM

I strongly question the closure in the first place. The motives and rationale are very sketchy. Screams of the Y2Y agenda which is the worst possible scenario for all outdoor users, whether they use ATV's, hike, horseback, etc. This has been discussed on the other recent thread.

That being said, having violators won't help things.

lead chucker · #4 10-13-2016, 08:36 AM

Is the closure in bob creek just for this year? Or a permanent closure?

Don_Parsons · #5 10-13-2016, 08:52 AM

Are those tracks from the trapers back there?

Albertadiver · #6 10-13-2016, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lead chucker

Is the closure in bob creek just for this year? Or a permanent closure?

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=297414

http://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xI...7827DE8149BBED

LKILR · #7 10-13-2016, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don_Parsons

Are those tracks from the trapers back there?

Nope. I know Don the trapper. He's a member on here. It's not him. It's hunters. And I have a good idea who it is.

LKILR · #8 10-13-2016, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albertadiver

I strongly question the closure in the first place. The motives and rationale are very sketchy. Screams of the Y2Y agenda which is the worst possible scenario for all outdoor users, whether they use ATV's, hike, horseback, etc. This has been discussed on the other recent thread.

That being said, having violators won't help things.

The closure has nothing to do with Y toY. It's to evaluate the impact on the fish. You have to cross white creek about 20 times if you access from 402. The trail should be closed Its gotta be hard on the trout when a hundred atvs cross the creek 20 times.

Jalan · #9 10-13-2016, 10:19 AM

I really like this area and think the set up of the area should be a model adopted elsewhere. The mixture of ATV and non ATV area is great.

Problem is the people. You can easily see ATV ruts all over hills that are not on the trail.

I think we should focus more on how do we catch the people breaking the rules rather than adding more rules.

Unfortunately, the answer is probably more money, which means more taxes which people wouldn't like. I'd like to see fines raised enough to pay for officers to check and patrol areas.

I've noticed at Sheep River Park there are big signs about $115 fines for unleashed dogs. Unfortunately, they only get caught if they do that in the parking lot.

alpineguy · #10 10-13-2016, 10:55 AM

From reports I have had it was an extremely dry summer there with many springs and small creeks drying up or having flow rates dramatically reduced. I'm thinking that the powers in charge may have based the closure on this fact.
The trout would likely be stressed based on the lower flow rates and warmer water temperatures.
Just my thoughts.

Albertadiver · #11 10-13-2016, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpineguy

From reports I have had it was an extremely dry summer there with many springs and small creeks drying up or having flow rates dramatically reduced. I'm thinking that the powers in charge may have based the closure on this fact.
The trout would likely be stressed based on the lower flow rates and warmer water temperatures.
Just my thoughts.

That would make sense. I haven't been out yet this year to see.

I get all antsy about the Y2Y stuff because it often starts off with a temp closure, or a trial basis, like this and then once they gain a foothold it's tougher to stop them.

But if it's truly a habitat issue, then absolutely a temporary closure would be needed. If people are ignoring the temporary closure, then it just makes a case for the environmentalists to turn it into a permanent situation, which I'm sure nobody wants.

I haven't gone as far in as White Creek as I generally stay in the eastern / central part of the park as I'm always foot access.

Joe Black · #12 10-13-2016, 03:54 PM

LKILR i sent you a PM on this. Anyone seeing OHV's in this area while it is closed, get a plate number off of them, or plate numbers off their vehicles. If you see camps set up and suspect they were brought in by OHV's report it to the Pincher Creek CO office giving a location. I'll be contacting the CO's as well to ensure they are doing patrols ASAP, as they and government(parks) people are the only ones allowed in their with OHV's. The more users we have ensuring rule breakers are caught, the better.

PS. Movement seems to be occurring. There is a company doing a trail assessment for parks. Lets hope they are impartial in their views on various users for that area. I'll be following up with them.

LKILR · #13 10-13-2016, 05:51 PM

I have a call in to F&W. Hope to hear something back soon. The Claresholm office is closed this week for some reason. I wanted to report some other activity but no one there. I wish we had more resources when it comes to this stuff. Hard to report people when there is no one to hear your complaint.

Joe Black · #14 10-28-2016, 10:14 AM

So was down for opening day, and as i thought, guys showing up on the weekend and that day looking to pull in with a WTF look on their faces. I'm thinking the contacts listed on the signage there had a busy weekend/day.

while there on Tuesday, i saw a quad buzzing around the hillsides in the temporary closed area, and not on the designated trails. it was about 400 yards away from me so i wasn't able to see who it was, but they did have a border collie running with them. i phoned it in on Wednesday, and got a call back yesterday. spoke with a parks person, and he clearly reiterated what the CO i talked to earlier in the month said, that the area is closed to "all RECREATIONAL users", and that the person i saw was probably a rancher. after a bit of questioning on exactly what that meant, here is what i found out. it is closed for quad travel for everybody except:

Ranchers(oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind on the hills as some people have mentioned, don't they have horses to do that sort of things????? oh wait, they do use them on their own land, not on leased land)

Trappers((oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind off trail and on the hills as some people have mentioned)

Parks People((oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind off trail and on the hills as some people have mentioned)

Government biologists, et (oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind off trail and on the hills as some people have mentioned)

MD of Ranchlands doing weed control(oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind off trail and on the hills as some people have mentioned)

Government contractors(oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind off trail and on the hills as some people have mentioned)

CO officers((oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind off trail and on the hills as some people have mentioned)

So it appears that pretty much everybody other that tax paying hunters are allowed access to that public land with their quads. As well, i guess the above groups are not causing any damage to the streams as Parks is stating is occurring. As for the tracks seen near white creek earlier this season, he confirmed it was investigated and is being monitored. PS, there is an outfitter that is working out of that area. I'm wondering if there is maybe another user group i did not list above gets special privileges,,,,,,,,,

so another example of Hunters of Alberta getting the shaft. If you are a user of that area, or what to voice you comments on the above, here are some contacts, and if you are in the area and see anybody on a quad, call it in.

Peter Swain, Regional Parks Director, 403-382-4100, peter.swain@gov.ab.ca

Pincher creek parks office: 403-627-1165

Albertadiver · #15 10-28-2016, 10:34 AM

Just as I thought.... Thanks for the update

turbo mulcher · #16 10-28-2016, 12:25 PM

I know the trapper and I also trap in there, we stick to the main trails and have built bridges over the springs and and small seeps. The cattle are doing more damage and soil erosion that the trapper or co.I met up with a couple and they told the guy up White pulled out and they turned back because of the mud, did want to cause are more damage ! Good on them. If any of you have met Ken he is an great guy and has given his leg to trapping, he was trapped under his quad for a few days . He still traps and helps greatly in reducing the wolf numbers he's up to 50 wolves since he lost his leg so for his great effort you might say Hi and thank him for the wolf reduction

Pekan · #17 10-28-2016, 01:31 PM

Wonder how the closure will effect hunter harvests?
I know a guy who put in for a md draw in 308, specifically wantinh to hunt bob cr. Was a 6 year wait.

personally, the ban doesnt effect me. I dont use a ohv. Id say the cattle make a bigger mess of the water in bob creek than ohv users tho.

Albertadiver · #18 10-28-2016, 01:42 PM

Lots of places in Bob's creek to get in by foot.

With the closure I imagine the foot access areas will be more crowded though.

Klondike · #19 10-30-2016, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Black

So was down for opening day, and as i thought, guys showing up on the weekend and that day looking to pull in with a WTF look on their faces. I'm thinking the contacts listed on the signage there had a busy weekend/day.

while there on Tuesday, i saw a quad buzzing around the hillsides in the temporary closed area, and not on the designated trails. it was about 400 yards away from me so i wasn't able to see who it was, but they did have a border collie running with them. i phoned it in on Wednesday, and got a call back yesterday. spoke with a parks person, and he clearly reiterated what the CO i talked to earlier in the month said, that the area is closed to "all RECREATIONAL users", and that the person i saw was probably a rancher. after a bit of questioning on exactly what that meant, here is what i found out. it is closed for quad travel for everybody except:

Ranchers(oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind on the hills as some people have mentioned, don't they have horses to do that sort of things????? oh wait, they do use them on their own land, not on leased land)

Trappers((oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind off trail and on the hills as some people have mentioned)

Parks People((oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind off trail and on the hills as some people have mentioned)

Government biologists, et (oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind off trail and on the hills as some people have mentioned)

MD of Ranchlands doing weed control(oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind off trail and on the hills as some people have mentioned)

Government contractors(oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind off trail and on the hills as some people have mentioned)

CO officers((oh yes, and they can drive where they please. thus the tracks left behind off trail and on the hills as some people have mentioned)

So it appears that pretty much everybody other that tax paying hunters are allowed access to that public land with their quads. As well, i guess the above groups are not causing any damage to the streams as Parks is stating is occurring. As for the tracks seen near white creek earlier this season, he confirmed it was investigated and is being monitored. PS, there is an outfitter that is working out of that area. I'm wondering if there is maybe another user group i did not list above gets special privileges,,,,,,,,,

so another example of Hunters of Alberta getting the shaft. If you are a user of that area, or what to voice you comments on the above, here are some contacts, and if you are in the area and see anybody on a quad, call it in.

Peter Swain, Regional Parks Director, 403-382-4100, peter.swain@gov.ab.ca

Pincher creek parks office: 403-627-1165

Good information. I'll be sure to share this with my quadding club, thanks

Not to mention that this in no way impacts the equestrian or cattle. But then that's not the agenda of the Oldman Rivershed Council

walking buffalo · #20 10-30-2016, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Black

PS, there is an outfitter that is working out of that area. I'm wondering if there is maybe another user group i did not list above gets special privileges,,,,,,,,,

so another example of Hunters of Alberta getting the shaft. If you are a user of that area, or what to voice you comments on the above, here are some contacts, and if you are in the area and see anybody on a quad, call it in.

Peter Swain, Regional Parks Director, 403-382-4100, peter.swain@gov.ab.ca

Pincher creek parks office: 403-627-1165

Typically Outfitters can obtain motorized access on trails closed to the public as they are a commercial operation, just as the ranchers, O/G, and forestry....

Joe Black · #21 10-30-2016, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Typically Outfitters can obtain motorized access on trails closed to the public as they are a commercial operation, just as the ranchers, O/G, and forestry....

And another black eye to the typical Alberta hunter. I am still trying to confirm if it so in this case. Someone has to come clean, especially with the freedom of information act. Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss,,,,,,

SniperJ78 · #22 10-31-2016, 08:09 AM

Here is one reply our camp received from Peter. He seems to be the guy to contact re: this closure.

I have been asked to respond to your follow up email on behalf of the Minister.

With respect to the upstream fish barrier, this is actually a potentially positive outcome for West Slope Cutthroat trout as it will help maintain population genetics in the river. River spawning would continue with existing local populations and they would still be able to move downstream.

Erosional issues from river crossings have a much greater impact than just the area immediately around the crossing; sediments are carried far downstream and can have deleterious impacts far from its source. By improving the river crossings, we aim to remove this particular impact. Long term decline in fish populations (as we have seen with West Slope Cutthroat and Bull Trout) can be attributed to many different factors; only by tackling these issues can we hope to make headway in recovering their populations.

You rightly point out that cattle grazing can also have impacts on fish habitat. We do try and work with our lease and permit holders to mitigate impacts through proper range techniques and will continue to examine issues more closely where conditions warrant it. However grasslands also need the grazing provided by cattle to maintain their ecology and diversity. We will be examining options related to fencing out of cattle and off-stream watering but the very wild nature of the Bob Creek Wildland does reduce the viable options considerably.

I can also confirm that I was the one responsible for asking for the trail closure- although originally precipitated by a complaint from the public, it was our follow up assessment by staff and trail specialists that provided the information to base decisions on. ‘Fish lobbyists’ were not involved in any aspect; this is a relatively simple matter of inappropriate stream crossings in a protected area.

A trail assessment is ongoing at this point; results from it will determine the placement of stream crossings and other improvements. We hope they will be in place by next spring or summer, with funding already dedicated in this fiscal and the next to enable this.

Please feel free to contact me by email or phone if you have further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Peter

Peter Swain | Director, South Region

Alberta Parks | Alberta Environment and Parks

Room 416, 909 – 3rd Avenue N, Lethbridge Ab, T1H 0H5

P: 403-382-4100 c: 403-952-9750

| W: albertaparks.ca

Joe Black · #23 10-31-2016, 08:59 AM

thanks to everybody following up on this with Peter. It sounds like the majority of you who have contacted Parks have been civil in the way Peter has been replying to those who have contacted him(although a canned response at times). A continued emphasis on working with Parks to find a solution to this that will accommodate all is the key to getting these trails re-opened, however that may look in the future. I believe he is seeing that permanent closure of all the trails will not go over very well, and they know hunters using the trails during hunting season is not the only group causing disturbance.

Keep up the contact with Peter to ensure the process continues moving in the right direction.