BHA interview-cue the haters!

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by alta270

In other words, you can't answer the questions either. Stick to the point and quit sidetracking and deflecting.

In other words, I was right. The answers are there if you look. But, keep trolling, your mind was made up on Y2Y long ago.

I have dealt with Y2Y in the past, first hand. I know exactly what they are about and what they stand for. Any Hunter that thinks that jumping in to bed with them is a good idea is an idiot.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by alta270

I guess you don't understand the need for a healthy habitat with a comment like that. If you don't have a conservation ethic, and are in it only for your self, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

No, my point is that so many of you "conservationists" are happy to give up the rights of others. And just because I'm not fighting for OHV bans it doesn't mean I'm not a conservationist. For what it's worth, I don't own an OHV, and I prefer to walk when I hunt.

[Okotokian]

nevermind. edited.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Newview01

No, my point is that so many of you "conservationists" are happy to give up the rights of others. And just because I'm not fighting for OHV bans it doesn't mean I'm not a conservationist. For what it's worth, I don't own an OHV, and I prefer to walk when I hunt.

More than a few people think that saying I'm a conservationist makes it so. Not true. Outdoorsmen used to lead the charge, not so anymore, all we seem to be interested in is what we can kill. No thought for the future.

[boah]

Originally Posted by alta270

Yet we have plenty of pictures and videos where OHV users avoid the bridges, and run right through the streams. Or making new trails. Our headwaters, streams and wetlands can't take the impact.

This is where the enforcement and education part of my post would come into play.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by boah

This is where the enforcement and education part of my post would come into play.

That would be doable, IF OHV riders would stay on designated trails. Good luck with that one. Fact is, even if they do, the cumulative impact of them is unsustainable.

When we do the gather on the ranch, we use both horses and OHVs. Those riding OHVs are under strict orders to never follow the other's tracks, due to compaction. How much compaction do you think occurs when one after another after another OHV pounds on the terrain?

[alta270]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

More than a few people think that saying I'm a conservationist makes it so. Not true. Outdoorsmen used to lead the charge, not so anymore, all we seem to be interested in is what we can kill. No thought for the future.

This is a sad truth, shown by way too many on these pages. When outdoorsmen speak up about conservation issues, there is a cacophony of noise telling them that they are wrong, 'liberals', stepping on rights (since when was OHV use ever a right?) and all sorts of insults hurled at them.

Sad.

[boah]

Originally Posted by alta270

That would be doable, IF OHV riders would stay on designated trails. Good luck with that one. Fact is, even if they do, the cumulative impact of them is unsustainable.

When we do the gather on the ranch, we use both horses and OHVs. Those riding OHVs are under strict orders to never follow the other's tracks, due to compaction. How much compaction do you think occurs when one after another after another OHV pounds on the terrain?

The trails are there already. They have been for 50 or more years. They are compacted. Good reason to stay on them.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by alta270

This is a sad truth, shown by way too many on these pages. When outdoorsmen speak up about conservation issues, there is a cacophony of noise telling them that they are wrong, 'liberals', stepping on rights (since when was OHV use ever a right?) and all sorts of insults hurled at them.

Sad.

I can't roll my eyes enough.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by alta270

This is a sad truth, shown by way too many on these pages. When outdoorsmen speak up about conservation issues, there is a cacophony of noise telling them that they are wrong, 'liberals', stepping on rights (since when was OHV use ever a right?) and all sorts of insults hurled at them.

Sad.

Originally Posted by Newview01

I can't roll my eyes enough.

Like I said, sad. We hunters (and anglers) used to care about the outdoors, and the critters that live in it. Now it seems there is a large percentage that is just all about "me".

When did that happen, and more importantly, why did it?

[boah]

Originally Posted by alta270

Now it seems there is a large percentage that is just all about "me".

When did that happen, and more importantly, why did it?

I have really noticed this lately also. Mostly from some of the people on the BHA ACB.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by boah

I have really noticed this lately also. Mostly from some of the people on the BHA BOD.

Careful you don't bite down on that tongue that is so firmly planted in your cheek.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by alta270

Like I said, sad. We hunters (and anglers) used to care about the outdoors, and the critters that live in it. Now it seems there is a large percentage that is just all about "me".

When did that happen, and more importantly, why did it?

I agree BTW, a lot of hunters don't care about OHV users and want the land to themselves.

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by alta270

Like I said, sad. We hunters (and anglers) used to care about the outdoors, and the critters that live in it. Now it seems there is a large percentage that is just all about "me".

When did that happen, and more importantly, why did it?

Speak for yourself as a hunter (and angler). Seems to me there are a lot more that care about the outdoors than you know. Maybe pick better friends.

Don't think it did happen. If it has happened it is because of groups like y2y promoting their agenda.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

Speak for yourself as a hunter (and angler). Seems to me there are a lot more that care about the outdoors than you know. Maybe pick better friends.

Don't think it did happen. If it has happened it is because of groups like y2y promoting their agenda.

I was referring to the attitudes that many show here (although I suspect, there are many more who do not feel that way). How many rail against conservation groups? How many feel that OHV use is "their right"?

It is not, and it is not your right to use OHVs in sensitive areas. Rather than coming across as a bunch of recalcitrant yahoos, I would suggest it would serve us as hunters far better to promote protection from destruction of headwaters and wetlands in the eastern slopes.

Don't forget, we are only a small percentage of the population that is becoming increasingly urban. Our ability to hunt is dependent on the majority continuing to accept our activities. Too many think wildlife is what they see on Disney, and it would not take much to turn the neutral majority into anti's if we as hunters continue to want unfettered access by any means any where and place.

I asked the question before, why is it that the AFGA, ACA, DU and Nature Conservatory allow hunting or fishing on their lands, but only by foot access? We all know that answer, so why should sensitive eastern slopes be any different?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by alta270

I was referring to the attitudes that many show here (although I suspect, there are many more who do not feel that way). How many rail against conservation groups? How many feel that OHV use is "their right"?

It is not, and it is not your right to use OHVs in sensitive areas. Rather than coming across as a bunch of recalcitrant yahoos, I would suggest it would serve us as hunters far better to promote protection from destruction of headwaters and wetlands in the eastern slopes.

Don't forget, we are only a small percentage of the population that is becoming increasingly urban. Our ability to hunt is dependent on the majority continuing to accept our activities. Too many think wildlife is what they see on Disney, and it would not take much to turn the neutral majority into anti's if we as hunters continue to want unfettered access by any means any where and place.

I asked the question before, why is it that the AFGA, ACA, DU and Nature Conservatory allow hunting or fishing on their lands, but only by foot access? We all know that answer, so why should sensitive eastern slopes be any different?

This entire statement clearly shows your stance, you want foot access only.

What defines an area as sensitive? That term gets thrown around pretty carelessly among your kind.

As for the groups that allow foot access only, is it not a different story than crown land? I agree with ACA etc sites being foot access only, but when it comes to changing large swaths of crown land arbitrarily, there is a problem.

[boah]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

Kevin, is that you?

I believe you are correct.

[dmcbride]

Any body been on any of the high traffic foot trails or high traffic Atv trails in other provinces? All let you in on a secret, they look the same if they are maintained and users stay on the trail.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Newview01

This entire statement clearly shows your stance, you want foot access only.

Not at all. However, where the landscape is sensitive, if we as hunters are going to continue to enjoy access, we need to back off insisting that all methods need to be allowed. There are plenty of areas that OHV use will not impact the habitat critters depend on. Let's leave their use there.

What defines an area as sensitive? That term gets thrown around pretty carelessly among your kind.

Not sure what "your kind" means, but if it means people who understand that the animals we hunt and fish need a place to eat, a place to procreate and a place to retreat to, then I guess I am one of those.

Sensitive areas can be many things. In the east slopes, headwaters certainly, streams certainly, and wetlands certainly. Montane regions are critical for wintering ungulates.

Why do I care? Because I want to ensure that my kids and grandkids have as much access as I have had, and that there are healthy, huntable and fishable populations of all manner of species for them. Why is that a bad thing?

As for the groups that allow foot access only, is it not a different story than crown land? I agree with ACA etc sites being foot access only, but when it comes to changing large swaths of crown land arbitrarily, there is a problem.

Why is it a problem to have non-motorized access restrictions? What is wrong with walking, canoeing, or riding in by horseback? Not only does it make for less impact on the landscape, but it makes for a better hunt, at least in my experience.

[boah]

Originally Posted by alta270

Why is it a problem to have non-motorized access restrictions? What is wrong with walking, canoeing, or riding in by horseback? Not only does it make for less impact on the landscape, but it makes for a better hunt, at least in my experience.

Nothing wrong with restrictions. There is a problem with a total ban though. Close the trails that are in " sensitive areas" . Most sensitive areas are creek beds and wetlands, jmho. You're idea of sensitive areas would be anywhere an ATV has been, or may be able to go.
Nothing wrong with the other ways to hunt either, but banning ohv's restrict access to MANY outdoorsmen. Just because you can hike or ride a horse, doesn't mean everyone can.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by boah

Nothing wrong with restrictions. There is a problem with a total ban though. Close the trails that are in " sensitive areas" . Most sensitive areas are creek beds and wetlands, jmho. You're idea of sensitive areas would be anywhere an ATV has been, or may be able to go.

As I stated, there are plenty of areas in Alberta that OHV use would be OK, but the east slopes are not one of them. Although many a hunt has been impacted by an OHV racing by, often oblivious that I am there back in the boreal forest. I know many others have had that same negative experience. I see a use for them to set up a camp, and retrieve game, but that is my own personal prejudice. Regardless, they need to be kept out of those sensitive areas we at least partially agree on.

Nothing wrong with the other ways to hunt either, but banning ohv's restrict access to MANY outdoorsmen. Just because you can hike or ride a horse, doesn't mean everyone can.

Yes, I worry about those that are older than me for sure. But then, at 66, I don't think the way they do.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by alta270

As I stated, there are plenty of areas in Alberta that OHV use would be OK, but the east slopes are not one of them. Although many a hunt has been impacted by an OHV racing by, often oblivious that I am there back in the boreal forest. I know many others have had that same negative experience. I see a use for them to set up a camp, and retrieve game, but that is my own personal prejudice. Regardless, they need to be kept out of those sensitive areas we at least partially agree on.



Yes, I worry about those that are older than me for sure. But then, at 66, I don't think the way they do.

If your hunt has been negatively affected by an OHV ripping by, why don't you hike in a little deeper? And did you use an OHV trail to get where you are hunting?

Your arguments don't hold water. To support a ban on OHV use across the eastern slopes is ridiculous at best. You are one of the people that don't understand that OHV trails impact a very small fraction of a percent of the land area. And again, what makes the eastern slopes "sensitive" that does not make the prairies "sensitive"? What are your thoughts on farmers ripping up native prairie grasses to start a farm? What about deeper in the mountains? Are those trails ok?

A maintained trail system would have as many benefits to wildlife as drawbacks. Not sure if you were aware but yes, wildlife use the trail systems too...

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Newview01

If your hunt has been negatively affected by an OHV ripping by, why don't you hike in a little deeper? And did you use an OHV trail to get where you are hunting?

Or why don't the OHV drivers respect the 12 noon restriction in those WMUs where they apply? BTW, most trails OHVs are driven on were adopted by them, and not ever setup for them. But you knew that.

Your arguments don't hold water. To support a ban on OHV use across the eastern slopes is ridiculous at best. You are one of the people that don't understand that OHV trails impact a very small fraction of a percent of the land area

.

BUT, they impact many of the most important habitat areas for wildlife and fish. But again, you knew that.

And again, what makes the eastern slopes "sensitive" that does not make the prairies "sensitive"? What are your thoughts on farmers ripping up native prairie grasses to start a farm? What about deeper in the mountains? Are those trails ok?

Native prairie is much more productive and drought resistant than anything that replaces it, and is one of the most endangered ecosystems we have. Most of our endangered species are prairie residents.

A maintained trail system would have as many benefits to wildlife as drawbacks. Not sure if you were aware but yes, wildlife use the trail systems too...

Yeah, wolves use them as travel corridors to get at game.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Newview01

If your hunt has been negatively affected by an OHV ripping by, why don't you hike in a little deeper? And did you use an OHV trail to get where you are hunting?

Your arguments don't hold water. To support a ban on OHV use across the eastern slopes is ridiculous at best. You are one of the people that don't understand that OHV trails impact a very small fraction of a percent of the land area. And again, what makes the eastern slopes "sensitive" that does not make the prairies "sensitive"? What are your thoughts on farmers ripping up native prairie grasses to start a farm? What about deeper in the mountains? Are those trails ok?

A maintained trail system would have as many benefits to wildlife as drawbacks. Not sure if you were aware but yes, wildlife use the trail systems too...

I have to say that this statement takes the cake for being rediculous. Most of what you have to say on this matter is pretty far out there but this statement really takes the cake. About the only thing that benefits is wolves. They love travelling those easy access routes.

[HIGHLANDER HUNTING]

Well I hope our interview with Neil from BHA was informative to Alberta hunters.

Sounds like there are some AGFA members on this forum, maybe someone can pm us a contact name at AFGA? We can get their take on this whole issue.

For those that haven't heard, it's episode 5 at Highlander Hunting Podcast.
highlanderhunting.podbean.com

[alta270]

Originally Posted by HIGHLANDER HUNTING

Well I hope our interview with Neil from BHA was informative to Alberta hunters.

Sounds like there are some AGFA members on this forum, maybe someone can pm us a contact name at AFGA? We can get their take on this whole issue.

For those that haven't heard, it's episode 5 at Highlander Hunting Podcast.
highlanderhunting.podbean.com

Try this list

http://afga.org/executive.html

[HIGHLANDER HUNTING]

Originally Posted by alta270

Try this list

http://afga.org/executive.html

Thanks.

[fargineyesore]

I guess a big part of the disagreement here is that some think that any quad trail in the Eastern Slopes (some think anywhere) is ruining the environment there, and some of us do not think that a quad trail ruins the environment.

Why is it such a stretch to allow a stream crossing on a trail? I'm not talking about people running up and down streams, they should and can enforce that, and it happens a lot less than some of you maintain. You make it sound like ALL us OHV riders wash our machines in the creeks and lakes, which is simply false.

Why do you think that your desire to use an area just the way you want it trumps others desires to ride recreationally in an area. How would you feel if the OHV group tried to get an area designated OHV only with no hunters, fishermen, horseback riders, hikers, etc. allowed? Especially if the area was an area that was used and had been used extensively by those groups in past?

You'd scream bloody murder, and tell us how unfair it is.

You talk about people thinking of only themselves, but in reality, you are the ones that are the selfish ones.

You tell us that it is just to "save the wilderness" for future generations, but I and many others can see your true intent.

We're not fooled in the least.

[fargineyesore]

Originally Posted by bdub

[/B]

I have to say that this statement takes the cake for being rediculous. Most of what you have to say on this matter is pretty far out there but this statement really takes the cake. About the only thing that benefits is wolves. They love travelling those easy access routes.

Yeah same argument that the anti use to shut down sledding in the mountains, but funny, the vast majority of the caribou die in the summer months when there is no sledding and the caribou numbers are declining in the National Parks where there is no motorized access allowed.

But don't let a few facts get in the way of your pet arguments.

[Norwest Alta]

Any group that singles out the needs and rights of another while at the same time singling out the privileges that should be taken away of others is not worth my time. I could and would support a group that promotes equal hunting/fishing rights for one and all.