BHA Alberta Chapter

[Myles]

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by nube

I always hear this talk of OHV disrupting fish while people ride through a creek. I find this BS. How many times does it rain and leak mud into a creek a year? More so than any quad crossing a stream. I don't buy it.
Some say it may be the oil or gas washing off the quad..... if that were the case the North Saskatchewan river would be void of any fish.
There are no more fish in any stream now that has been shut down than there has been in past days when you could cross the odd stream here and there.

Especially when oil is lighter than water

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by nube

I always hear this talk of OHV disrupting fish while people ride through a creek. I find this BS. How many times does it rain and leak mud into a creek a year? More so than any quad crossing a stream. I don't buy it.
Some say it may be the oil or gas washing off the quad..... if that were the case the North Saskatchewan river would be void of any fish.
There are no more fish in any stream now that has been shut down than there has been in past days when you could cross the odd stream here and there.

Whether or not you buy it is irrelevant. There's a significant amount of research and there's a pretty strong consensus.

What's maybe more troubling is that you're not making the connection between destruction of riparian vegetation and increased run off during rains.

Quads crossing streams means more mud during rain. It's linked, it's not one or the other.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

This is where you are wrong. Fishermen and hunters are disturbing the headwaters as well, any time you step in a creek to fish it or cross a creek you are disturbing and damaging the habitat. Leaving garbage in the forest is just as bad.

Do you know what a redd is? OHV do a significant amount of damage to them. Not conjecture, but a reality.

[Taco]

Originally Posted by Myles

Nice signs! Nobody tried to hide'm yet

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Taco

Nice signs! Nobody tried to hide'm yet

Looks like responsible OHV users are out in force. Cool!

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Taco

Nice signs! Nobody tried to hide'm yet

Looks like vandals have been at one of them.

[elkmakemecrazy]

Originally Posted by Taco

Nice pictures. Here's a few more for you.








I can't believe these types of non OHV activities go on considering the environmental impact they have.

How about this. Here is the future of our public land.



I fully agree that OHV use needs to be regulated and the current laws need to be enforced. Some people will say they can't be enforced because where will the money come from. Hmmm how much is this park going to cost us? That would pay for a lot of enforcement.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by alta270

Do you know what a redd is? OHV do a significant amount of damage to them. Not conjecture, but a reality.

Hardly... you sound like someone else under a different user name?

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by alta270

Do you know what a redd is? OHV do a significant amount of damage to them. Not conjecture, but a reality.

Not nearly as much as fly fisherman wading up and down streams

[Passthru]

Why do some people point fingers at other activities, other than there own, to justify what they are doing? Own up to the damages caused, regardless of the activity, and try and to make things better. There are impacts no matter what you like to do, try to minimize them. Saying a quad does just as much damage as a fly fisherman is a bit of an exaggeration, though, and this is coming from somebody that does both. Next thing I'll read is that " oh but the logging industry is causing such a mess, it's not my quad!" Stop pointing fingers.

There are also responsible people on all sides that are mindful of the issues but unfortunately it's the bad apples that cause the stink. Own up

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by elkmakemecrazy

How about this. Here is the future of our public land.



I fully agree that OHV use needs to be regulated and the current laws need to be enforced. Some people will say they can't be enforced because where will the money come from. Hmmm how much is this park going to cost us? That would pay for a lot of enforcement.

Can you anti-ohv folks take a good look at this.

[tonnage]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Can you anti-ohv folks take a good look at this.

Because this is exactly where we are headed and right in step with the Y2Y agenda. Can't believe some of you don't see that?

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Can you anti-ohv folks take a good look at this.

A trail in the city, and OHV tearing up wild places, what am I missing?

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Not nearly as much as fly fisherman wading up and down streams

Of course fishing is banned on most streams during spawning...

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Of course fishing is banned on most streams during spawning...

What about the rest of the year! And just for your info, there are still rivers open all year long as well....

[Don_Parsons]

Lots of OHV groups fix and repair trails as the private sponsor group funds come in.

Castle Area and Big Horn have been doing this starting back in 2002 and on.

All user groups use these trails as they would not get these repairs if it wasn't from volunteers putting in their time too do it.

These folks get paided nothing nor my self as we fix what we can along the way so all users can use these trails.

One might not want too forget that logging and oil patch put them in years ago, our job is too keep them open for all.

At least we try our best as I'm both a OHV, mountain biking, and hiker,,, foot fishing soon this summer.

Don at a bit of everything so long as I'm lost in the wilderness.

That's all that really matters.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

What about the rest of the year! And just for your info, there are still rivers open all year long as well....

All the research I've read in relation to foot traffic impact in streams and rivers suggests that, outside of traffic through active redds, foot traffic has a fairly low impact.

Interestingly, there's some speculation among ecologists that wading has a lower impact than walking along streambanks as people are less likely to follow defined trails.

If you have, or are aware of any contradictory research I would be happy to read it.

As for your second point, I am well aware that some streams remain open. Again, if you can cite specific examples where AEP has missed opportunities to protect vulnerable redds I think that would certainly be worth looking at - and fishermen would be wise to avoid them regardless of a ban.

There is substantial research that motorized traffic is significantly more damaging than foot traffic - that is, quantifiable results, not just guys posting competing pictures and telling anecdotes on the internet.

I'm not opposed to ATV use necrssarily, but there's been at best 3 or 4 pro-ATV posts that aren't just unsubstantiated or poorly thought out anecdotes or slippery slope fallacies.

[elkmakemecrazy]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

A trail in the city, and OHV tearing up wild places, what am I missing?

Incorrect. Trail in a state park.

None of the pictures I posted were OHV related but the wild places were very torn up.
Here's another one for you.



Whats wrong with having this?

Review best practices and develop guidelines for the responsible use of OHVs. Guidelines for Park staff and users will address various management issues including the potential of permitting mechanisms, hours and seasonal limitations, code of conduct for users, etc.

[elkmakemecrazy]

Originally Posted by alta270

You won't get an argument from me, as I agree, one doesn't need an OHV to retrieve game. We've all done that in the past, but the uproar from the OHV crowd was so loud, the plan was altered.



I personally would prefer no OHV use, as the OHV users have proven that they can not act responsibly, nor police their own, nor stay on trails, nor use bridges made for crossing streams. What's wrong with keeping OHVs out of sensitive headwaters and wetlands?




OHV users ARE a special interest group. Most Albertans' who use the Eastern Slopes are not OHV owners. I agree, why should one interest group, a small interest group, get special treatment.

Best quads to use are the ones you were born with.

This policing their own argument is old and tired. It can't happen without proper enforcement. I see someone driving down the creek I go up and tell them to stop they tell me to pound sand. I call fish and wildlife. They do nothing because there is no enforcement.

How about this lets self police poaching. No enforcement just hunters enforcing the laws by themselves. How would that go?

Name one time self policing has worked without the desire of law enforcement to participate.

I think you are severely underestimating the amount of people that quad in the eastern slopes. I would go completely the other direction and say most of the users do participate in some type of OHV use. At least in the castle area. the majority of people who camp also OHV.

Don't get me wrong. Something needs to be done. I just do not think a total ban is the way to go.

Enforcement of the existing rules and stiffer penalties would be my first option.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

All the research I've read in relation to foot traffic impact in streams and rivers suggests that, outside of traffic through active redds, foot traffic has a fairly low impact.

Interestingly, there's some speculation among ecologists that wading has a lower impact than walking along streambanks as people are less likely to follow defined trails.

So tell me how many trail crossing go through active redds as apposed to people wading through them.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by elkmakemecrazy

Incorrect. Trail in a state park.

None of the pictures I posted were OHV related but the wild places were very torn up.
Here's another one for you.



Whats wrong with having this?

Review best practices and develop guidelines for the responsible use of OHVs. Guidelines for Park staff and users will address various management issues including the potential of permitting mechanisms, hours and seasonal limitations, code of conduct for users, etc.

I'm still not understanding your logic. You post a picture of a paved trail which is used to protect wild places and somehow this is supposed to change my mind to, alright Quaders have at it?

[Bigstone]

And clear cutting, oil and gas exploration, and livestock all get a free pass. Lots of lemmings on the atv band wagon.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Bigstone

And clear cutting, oil and gas exploration, and livestock all get a free pass. Lots of lemmings on the atv band wagon.

Clearing cutting does not get a pass, nor does O&G, although it is more regulated. Livestock can be an issue, and it would be great to see more off site watering being practiced.

But just because there are other issues out there, why should the one that has been shown to have the major impact on wetlands and headwaters be excluded from action? It is imperative to get at those that cause the most damage first. Clear cutting is right behind that, for sure.

[elkmakemecrazy]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

I'm still not understanding your logic. You post a picture of a paved trail which is used to protect wild places and somehow this is supposed to change my mind to, alright Quaders have at it?

All that I am pointing out is there are lots of ways to cause destruction in the outdoors and if we start banning all of them it will be tough to enjoy our public lands.

I don't expect to change yours or anyone's mind who is for the ban.

You are an anti and what i have found with the majority of anti's is its a complete shutdown of whatever it is. There is no reasoning or compromising with anti's.

You are saying that a complete ban is a better solution than enforcing the laws and allowing all user groups to enjoy the great outdoors. I disagree.

Too bad. One day your favourite outdoor pursuit will be on the chopping block. Hopefully people are more open to discussion and compromise than what some are showing on this issue.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by elkmakemecrazy

All that I am pointing out is there are lots of ways to cause destruction in the outdoors and if we start banning all of them it will be tough to enjoy our public lands.

I don't expect to change yours or anyone's mind who is for the ban.

You are an anti and what i have found with the majority of anti's is its a complete shutdown of whatever it is. There is no reasoning or compromising with anti's.

You are saying that a complete ban is a better solution than enforcing the laws and allowing all user groups to enjoy the great outdoors. I disagree.

Too bad. One day your favourite outdoor pursuit will be on the chopping block. Hopefully people are more open to discussion and compromise than what some are showing on this issue.

Just so we understand each other what do you assume I am an anti of.

[bdub]

The amount of outright baloney and now mudsling by the pro ATV crowd is getting pretty deep here now. The facts are that constant ATV use is destroying habitat all over the province, most ATVers are not responsible users, the damage by ATV's is far larger than any horse or foot traffic, It is harmful to fish and pushes wildlife away from the areas used by ATV's, education and enforcement do not work with the ATV crowd. Anyway you cut it, ATV's use is a negative for wildlife and the environment. I don't know how anyone can possibly believe it isn't.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by bdub

Anyway you cut it, ATV's use is a negative for wildlife and the environment. I don't know how anyone can possibly believe it isn't.

Which human activity is not negative to the environment? How do you feel about over-commercialized provincial parks that turn wilderness into pavement?

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Which human activity is not negative to the environment? How do you feel about over-commercialized provincial parks that turn wilderness into pavement?

Let's start with the obvious. OHVs have the worst impact in parks, so yes, they should be curtailed.

Now, show us which park is being over-commercialized and turned into pavement?

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Which human activity is not negative to the environment? How do you feel about over-commercialized provincial parks that turn wilderness into pavement?

The two that come quickly to mind are sustainable hunting and fishing. Comparing somebody walking to the damage caused by multiple hundreds of ATVs is a no brainer. Face it, ATVs cause massive damage. To argue otherwise is idiotic and does nothing for your cause.

I'm not a fan of provincial parks, I would much rather see no development and all motorized access curtailed like the Wildland parks such as Willmore.

As far as I am concerned the ATV crowd pretty much screwed themselves over. I have lots of friends and aquaintances who love ripping the hell out of the country so I hear that side of the story as well. The fact still remains that it is many multiple times harmful to wildlife and the environment compared to any other recreational outdoor activity that doesn't depend on mechanical horsepower that I can think of.