BHA Alberta Chapter

[alta270]

Originally Posted by bdub

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.

There has to be a Like button here somewhere!

Oh wait, found it:

[fargineyesore]

Originally Posted by bdub

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.

Oh what a bunch of BS!! You are not spouting FACTS, just your ill-informed biased opinion!!

Guys like you see a quad trail and think the world is falling while IGNORING the other causes of harm to wildlife and the environment. Maybe it's time to ban fishing and hunting as there are way too many idiots out there that can't properly release a fish, wound game, trespass, poach, keep to many fish, keep undersized fish, ETC, ETC, ETC.

Again I'll say it, the hypocrisy on here is thick.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

Oh what a bunch of BS!! You are not spouting FACTS, just your ill-informed biased opinion!!

Guys like you see a quad trail and think the world is falling while IGNORING the other causes of harm to wildlife and the environment. Maybe it's time to ban fishing and hunting as there are way too many idiots out there that can't properly release a fish, wound game, trespass, poach, keep to many fish, keep undersized fish, ETC, ETC, ETC.

Again I'll say it, the hypocrisy on here is thick.

Fail to see your point. There is laws in place that prohibit fishing and hunting in certain areas and there is definitely laws in place that prohibit poaching and trespassing. Just because 1 area is closed to quadding does not equate to a total ban of the activity.

I love quadding with the family and long weekend camping in May and September. I have also seen some messed up areas in creeks and streams due to the amount of traffic during those camping trips. I have stayed on the trail and have probably contributed to the damage by just driving through. If there is an identified area at risk and restrictions are put in place to preserve a specific area then I will move on.

Like the firearms licensing debate, you have about 10% anti, 10% for and 80%in middle that just don't want to pay more taxes. The government will try to keep the 80% happy and listen to the 10% that screams the loudest.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

If there is an identified area at risk and restrictions are put in place to preserve a specific area then I will move on.

It's nice to see you never put up a fight, and just do as you are told, whether it is justified or not.

[Pekan]

Isn't it interesting how all the anger about the Castle s directed at an organization which had absolutley no involvement in the ohv ban and park creation?
BHA has existed in Alberta for 2 months! Sounds like BHA is a convenient scapegoat on this website.

What's up with that?

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Newview01

It's nice to see you never put up a fight, and just do as you are told, whether it is justified or not.

I am not a environmental scientist so I have no useful data to combat the decision 1 way or the other. And from the looks of this thread never did many other ATV users.

If the government wanted exactly zero environmental impact then they would close the area to any human presence including grazing leases. But, that is not the case here, they still want humans to be able to enjoy the outdoors. They have determined the area can still be enjoyed without the use of ATV's and by banning them, they are eliminating 1 of the major negative contributing factors to the environment. As I said, I am no scientist, but the logic behind the decision seems fairly simple.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

I am not a environmental scientist so I have no useful data to combat the decision 1 way or the other. And from the looks of this thread never did many other ATV users.

If the government wanted exactly zero environmental impact then they would close the area to any human presence including grazing leases. But, that is not the case here, they still want humans to be able to enjoy the outdoors. They have determined the area can still be enjoyed without the use of ATV's and by banning them, they are eliminating 1 of the major negative contributing factors to the environment. As I said, I am no scientist, but the logic behind the decision seems fairly simple.

Without looking deeper into the situation, you would be right.

But dig into Shannon Phillips' past a bit. She is hardcore. We know Notley actively protested pipelines.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Pekan

Isn't it interesting how all the anger about the Castle s directed at an organization which had absolutley no involvement in the ohv ban and park creation?
BHA has existed in Alberta for 2 months! Sounds like BHA is a convenient scapegoat on this website.

What's up with that?

You missed some threads.

In addition, BHA is providing supporting statements to the ban.

[fargineyesore]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

I am not a environmental scientist so I have no useful data to combat the decision 1 way or the other. And from the looks of this thread never did many other ATV users.

If the government wanted exactly zero environmental impact then they would close the area to any human presence including grazing leases. But, that is not the case here, they still want humans to be able to enjoy the outdoors. They have determined the area can still be enjoyed without the use of ATV's and by banning them, they are eliminating 1 of the major negative contributing factors to the environment. As I said, I am no scientist, but the logic behind the decision seems fairly simple.

"Negative contributing factors to the environment" man you just parroted Shannon Phillips and her extremist buddies almost verbatim.

Good job sheeple.

[Grump]

Man there's a **** ton of banter in here. I just came to say that I'm glad to see another conservation group stepping into the area. I'll be checking out BHA in near future and doing my homework.

Back at it gentlemen.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

"Negative contributing factors to the environment" man you just parroted Shannon Phillips and her extremist buddies almost verbatim.

Good job sheeple.

So anyone that doesn't fall inline with way of thinking is a "sheeple". Might want to take a look in the mirror the next time you are about use the word extremist!

[Jimbob.303]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

I don't see divide and conquer. I hunt and fish, I have nothing in common with those that tear the crap out of our wild spaces. Nothing. I feel no obligation to support them, as much as they like to play the we are in this together. They destroy or support those that destroy, it has nothing to do with me and is at odds with my goal, which is to preserve wild places for my grandchildren.

I support OHV's in a controlled environment. I would absolutely support a big park for them to rip and tear to their hearts content. But turn them loose on Albertas wild spaces, no thanks. And I don't believe I am in the minority, I believe most Albertan's feel this way.

I feel that way!
40-50 years ago, few ATV's existed. Outdoorsman still managed to get their game or fish home. That was part of the whole experience. If you got an animal deep in the bush, you carried it out. It built camaraderie, as you and your buds sweated to get your meat out. Few lazy hunters back in the day.

my 2 cents

[Echo-Gecko]

Hi all
For those interested, there will be a BHA pint night on the 24th.
"May 24, Last Best Brewing, 6:30 PM - 8 PM"
I'll see you chaps there!

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by Jimbob.303

I feel that way!
40-50 years ago, few ATV's existed. Outdoorsman still managed to get their game or fish home. That was part of the whole experience. If you got an animal deep in the bush, you carried it out. It built camaraderie, as you and your buds sweated to get your meat out. Few lazy hunters back in the day.

my 2 cents

Not totally true!! Cause back in the day people used to pound trucks deep into the back country and if you don't think that happened you are only fooling yourself.

[alpineguy]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

Not totally true!! Cause back in the day people used to pound trucks deep into the back country and if you don't think that happened you are only fooling yourself.

Yup and the best thing that happened for those backcountry areas was that those activities got shut down. Now those areas are healing and are quiet and beautiful once again.

[boah]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

Not totally true!! Cause back in the day people used to pound trucks deep into the back country and if you don't think that happened you are only fooling yourself.

Agreed. 95% of the ATV trails were once used by full sized trucks. So most "damage" done was already there. ATV's are being used as a scapegoat.

[brendan's dad]

Did someone run a Membership drive????? I can't believe how many new Members we had join in April and May 2017 with so much to add to the conversation.. AWESOME!

[fargineyesore]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

So anyone that doesn't fall inline with way of thinking is a "sheeple". Might want to take a look in the mirror the next time you are about use the word extremist!

Anyone that thinks a quad trail in the bush is ruining the environment, is an extremist.

[Echo-Gecko]

I think that those for, those opposed and those on the fence regarding the use of ATV's will have to agree to disagree on the issue.

This thread has degenerated into a insult hurling contest and nothing is going to be achieved by that.

The ATV issue aside, could we all at least agree that protecting public land and access to that land is a worthy cause?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Echo-Gecko

The ATV issue aside, could we all at least agree that protecting public land and access to that land is a worthy cause?

More importantly, can we agree that if there is access, it should be available to everyone?

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Echo-Gecko

I think that those for, those opposed and those on the fence regarding the use of ATV's will have to agree to disagree on the issue.

This thread has degenerated into a insult hurling contest and nothing is going to be achieved by that.

The ATV issue aside, could we all at least agree that protecting public land and access to that land is a worthy cause?

The first priority is to protect public land. Secondly, reasonable access by that public is of utmost importance. I'm not one of those that think protecting public lands means no use by anyone for all time makes sense, but we do need to recognize that there are restrictions that need to occur in sensitive areas.

Originally Posted by Newview01

More importantly, can we agree that if there is access, it should be available to everyone?

You bet. Everyone should be able to use the quads they were born with to access that land.

[Echo-Gecko]

More importantly, can we agree that if there is access, it should be available to everyone?

Absolutely but if the method you use to access the land could possibly have a detrimental effect on a sensitive area or in this case fish species then is it not worthwhile to stop accessing the land using that method? This would not mean access to the land stops for you, it just means you have to access the land in a different way.

[fargineyesore]

You bet. Everyone should be able to use the quads they were born with to access that land.[/QUOTE]

So I guess that means no horses eh?

[Echo-Gecko]

So I guess that means no horses eh?

Come on mate, you know what he meant.
Being petty is not constructive at all.

[fargineyesore]

I know exactly what he meant, no OHVs on public land.

So then if walking is so much better than OHVs, why not just walk and not have horses out there either? Isn't that what his argument was?

The reason I asked the question is that guys like him claim to be all "reasonable" and try to say that "I'm not for banning anything" then when you probe with questions, the truth actually comes out.

[Echo-Gecko]

So then if walking is so much better than OHVs, why not just walk and not have horses out there either? Isn't that what his argument was?

Who said anything about horses?

[fargineyesore]

You do understand that the "quads" he is referring to are our own legs, right?

So if we should just use our own legs to access public land, does that not eliminate horse riding on public lands as horses are not our own "quads".

Just applying his thinking to other pursuits.

[HIGHLANDER HUNTING]

Hey guys. We just had Neil from the Alberta BHA chapter as a guest on our podcast. Search "Highlander Hunting" on ITunes or google play. His interview will. E out next Tuesday.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

You do understand that the "quads" he is referring to are our own legs, right?

So if we should just use our own legs to access public land, does that not eliminate horse riding on public lands as horses are not our own "quads".

Just applying his thinking to other pursuits.

Then listen to all the hypocrites cry if that were to happen!!!

[sledn]

Originally Posted by Echo-Gecko

I think that those for, those opposed and those on the fence regarding the use of ATV's will have to agree to disagree on the issue.

This thread has degenerated into a insult hurling contest and nothing is going to be achieved by that.

The ATV issue aside, could we all at least agree that protecting public land and access to that land is a worthy cause?

Can't support any group with this attitude. Quads and random camping will become a thing of the past. Only allowed in approved compounds and trails... Not the way I want to enjoy the outdoors. Can't stand how much we are being stripped of our lives with these people and the new rules.