Bighorn country park

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

Why does it have to be a choice between restricting access or enforcement?

What is so wrong with increasing enforcement in the areas ATV's are allowed, while at the same time creating a few more areas set aside for rustic recreation where a guy can hike or ride or bike without the constant whine of engines?

.

There is a ton of "rustic" areas where ATV's are not allowed. Look at a map

[RZR]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

Why does it have to be a choice between restricting access or enforcement?

What is so wrong with increasing enforcement in the areas ATV's are allowed, while at the same time creating a few more areas set aside for rustic recreation where a guy can hike or ride or bike without the constant whine of engines?

Leave certain areas for guys like you and Mark who like to ride around looking for animals and leave other areas accessible to non-motorized users. You could even choose to park the quad and hunt those too if you wanted. I don't judge a guy for wanting to legally hunt from his ATV (I own one too), but the reality is that unlike horses, foot access, paddlers, etc. motorized users effect everyone else's experience in a way that other users don't simply by the noise they make. I believe in a multiple use concept, but that does not mean that reasonable restrictions cannot be established. There are more and more people in the province every decade and many of us own ATVs. As development and access is opened up the ability to access formerly remote country will become easier (it already has). Whether you are young, old, fat, healthy, fit, lazy, disabled etc. everyone will be able to get back there. That may sound egalitarian, but it comes with many unintended consequences (habitat destruction, tag allocations etc.). I disagreed with much of the NDP proposal (particularly back-country development in the Castle and Bighorn), but I hope the Conservatives don't throw the baby out with the bath water either. The status quo is not sustainable, and I often question the agendas of individuals (pro or con ATV restriction) who can't take a nuanced approach to a nuanced issue.

Have you heard of kananaskis country or wilmore. They are already restricted

[OL_JR]

I'm glad to see the current framework remain in place. I really don't see the argument for restricting OHV access any further. There is a good balance in place already and from a sheep hunters perspective it helps level the playing field in areas where OHV's are allowed between the horse folks and those taking home in on their back. Anyone who actually hunts the area will know what I mean. If you don't like OHV's at all that is fine there is PLENTY of places that hold sheep where you will never have to hear a motor. Grab a PLUZ map, study it, and then try and tell me that there is an excessive amount of OHV use allowed.

Sheep numbers are still strong and the mature animals are there for those willing to put the work in. Funny how after the big OHV restrictions put in place in the mid 2000's the elk haven't exploded like they should have according to the anti motor crowd. The biggest enemy to our backcountry ungulate populations runs on four legs, not four wheels.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by RZR

Have you heard of kananaskis country or wilmore. They are already restricted

A majority of the Bighorn is ATV free from the front range in. There seems to be a good number of folk that don't realize how much area is actually shut down to atv access. Too far to walk and see I guess

[Joe Black]

"I hope they further reduce/restrict access/manage access because it makes for better hunting. Some guys like you and RZR like riding around more than great hunting, so you want less restrictive access. Different points of view.[/QUOTE]"

So your idea of "manage" access is to reduce and restrict it?

As long as they don't restrict it for you and your boot leather right? Must be nice to be an x man.

Trust me. There will come a day when your boot leather will no longer get you where you want to go.

Till then, continue to try to convince everyone that your way of hunting is the only pure way to enjoy the sport. We all need heros.

[Buckhorn2]

To me if your hearing atvs you are not very far from an atv trail. Which means you didnt hike very far. I dont go hunt in waiparous or ghost area then get all riled up when i hear a quad. Its all about enforcement. If i were actually 4-5kms away from an “approved” trail and see an atv come breaking trail, then id be a bit cranky. Alot of guys think they hike a long ways from a “trail” but in reality you need to hike pretty far to get away from “easy access” in majority of the areas around. For those saying the game are being pushed? Go hunt where the game are pushed to. Let the quad guys ride they may not even be hunters but as long as they are on approved areas they have every right to be there just like you have every right to hunt there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Huk]

Originally Posted by RZR

Have you heard of kananaskis country or wilmore. They are already restricted

Have you heard of the entire WMUs where OHVs are not? What's your point?

Forget all the other reasons I've given. 400 is a major migratory corridor for elk. That's a good enough reason to restrict OHV access.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

"I hope they further reduce/restrict access/manage access because it makes for better hunting. Some guys like you and RZR like riding around more than great hunting, so you want less restrictive access. Different points of view.

"



So your idea of "manage" access is to reduce and restrict it?



As long as they don't restrict it for you and your boot leather right? Must be nice to be an x man.



Trust me. There will come a day when your boot leather will no longer get you where you want to go.



Till then, continue to try to convince everyone that your way of hunting is the only pure way to enjoy the sport. We all need heros.[/QUOTE]No question there will be a time when the hills get too tall and the horizon seems too far....but I will gladly hobble into a tree stand or a blind close to home with a smile on my face if it means that there are still truly wild places for my children...or your grandchildren to go experience. I would hope that many of hunters and anglers take the same view.

To suggest that ppl who advocate for reasonable restrictions on ATV access are simple self centered and shortsighted is off base. I think most folks look at expansion of ATV access since they showed up on the scene and can extrapolate to what that means in the coming decades. I would argue we should set a few more Whilmores aside now while we can (without $750,000 backcountry huts or 40 million in development). even if that means we create a few more Mclean Creeks in the process. I think it is reasonable to have both.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

[Reinchampion]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

Why does it have to be a choice between restricting access or enforcement?

What is so wrong with increasing enforcement in the areas ATV's are allowed, while at the same time creating a few more areas set aside for rustic recreation where a guy can hike or ride or bike without the constant whine of engines?

Leave certain areas for guys like you and Mark who like to ride around looking for animals and leave other areas accessible to non-motorized users. You could even choose to park the quad and hunt those too if you wanted. I don't judge a guy for wanting to legally hunt from his ATV (I own one too), but the reality is that unlike horses, foot access, paddlers, etc. motorized users effect everyone else's experience in a way that other users don't simply by the noise they make. I believe in a multiple use concept, but that does not mean that reasonable restrictions cannot be established. There are more and more people in the province every decade and many of us own ATVs. As development and access is opened up the ability to access formerly remote country will become easier (it already has). Whether you are young, old, fat, healthy, fit, lazy, disabled etc. everyone will be able to get back there. That may sound egalitarian, but it comes with many unintended consequences (habitat destruction, tag allocations etc.). I disagreed with much of the NDP proposal (particularly back-country development in the Castle and Bighorn), but I hope the Conservatives don't throw the baby out with the bath water either. The status quo is not sustainable, and I often question the agendas of individuals (pro or con ATV restriction) who can't take a nuanced approach to a nuanced issue.

My thoughts exactly. "The status quo is not sustainable, and I often question the agendas of individuals (pro or con ATV restriction) who can't take a nuanced approach to a nuanced issue.[/QUOTE]" X 2

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

To suggest that ppl who advocate for reasonable restrictions on ATV access are simple self centered and shortsighted is off base. I think most folks look at expansion of ATV access since they showed up on the scene and can extrapolate to what that means in the coming decades. I would argue we should set a few more Whilmores aside now while we can (without $750,000 backcountry huts or 40 million in development). even if that means we create a few more Mclean Creeks in the process. I think it is reasonable to have both.

Sent from my SM-N9200 using Tapatalk

This is the problem with the NDP proposal - 40 million in development and backcountry huts along with "park" status. That whole plan stunk of commercializing the wilderness. A far cry from Willmore.

And NO, IMO we do not need another Willmore. The structure is in place to place restrictions on ATV use already - of note to that is the trail closures that already exist in the Bighorn. What is needed is an active management plan to monitor areas and usage - opening trails where can be done and closing others where it is warranted. Along with that it requires adequate monitoring and enforcement to ensure that all users are being respectful of the rules and environment.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

There is a ton of "rustic" areas where ATV's are not allowed. Look at a map

I agree! There’s Tons of rustic experiences
Go to jasper and Banff if you don’t want to hear a atv

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

I agree! There’s Tons of rustic experiences
Go to jasper and Banff if you don’t want to hear a atv

Head for K-country, Willmore, Panther river, Red deer river, Clearwater river, Ram river......the list continues. Does anybody even look at maps?

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

I agree! There’s Tons of rustic experiences
Go to jasper and Banff if you don’t want to hear a atv

Another well reasoned and articulate response from Mark.

I think you need to re-calibrate, pal. Guys like me are not your enemy. I use my quad too, but I also see the impacts that I, you, others have. Suggesting that guys like me should go to Banff or Jasper because we believe in reasonable restrictions in certain areas suggests to me you care more about your own personal enjoyment of the land and resources than the future of them. That kind of mindset troubles me because if enough guys take that view it paints hunters as "takers" rather than contributors to conservation and wildlife management. We often like to pat ourselves on the back with respect to our role in the recovery and sustainability of North American wildlife (often rightfully so), but we live in a what have you done for me lately world, and I worry that a vocal portion of hunter's is undermining our ability to stand up and say hunter's are leading the conservation charge. Moving forward it is going to be increasingly difficult to argue to a non-hunting public that hunting continues to have a role to play in modern society if are actions don't match our conservation rhetoric.

[silver lab]

Originally Posted by Huk

Have you heard of the entire WMUs where OHVs are not? What's your point?

Forget all the other reasons I've given. 400 is a major migratory corridor for elk. That's a good enough reason to restrict OHV access.

Again, look at a map, even a old WMU 400 map. WMU 400 had a pile of areas off limits for atv’s and even more areas restricted for there use. That’s why only REAL enforcement was required.
Simple people come up with simple solutions like “just shut everything down”.

[slough shark]

It’s a little silly to me that there is such a focus on the atv’s as the main threat to access, the no random camping was by far the bigger threat. How do you propose doing anything more than day hunts when you can’t stay anywhere? I’ve seen very few campgrounds open past September. I don’t know about you but I’ve seen very few instances where rights are given back once taken away and governments seem to have a fascination with expanding control. If this park had happened I suspect it wouldn’t have been long before the only camping one would be able to do would be back country (at least 1 km off road) after campgrounds closed in September. I don’t know about you but November in the mountains can be cold and snowy and the fact that people wouldn’t be able to use trailers or haul outfitters tents far enough it would impact most people.

[baticus]

Originally Posted by Huk

Have you heard of the entire WMUs where OHVs are not? What's your point?

Forget all the other reasons I've given. 400 is a major migratory corridor for elk. That's a good enough reason to restrict OHV access.

Used to be. If you've spent any time in that zone in the last 10 years that wouldn't be a statement. The elk population has dropped significantly. And the issues as to why have nothing to do with ohv access. Over grown timber, and a healthy increase in predation are the two major contributing factors.

Also plenty of areas away from main trails you could get your quiet time...

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

Another well reasoned and articulate response from Mark.

I think you need to re-calibrate, pal. Guys like me are not your enemy. I use my quad too, but I also see the impacts that I, you, others have. Suggesting that guys like me should go to Banff or Jasper because we believe in reasonable restrictions in certain areas suggests to me you care more about your own personal enjoyment of the land and resources than the future of them. That kind of mindset troubles me because if enough guys take that view it paints hunters as "takers" rather than contributors to conservation and wildlife management. We often like to pat ourselves on the back with respect to our role in the recovery and sustainability of North American wildlife (often rightfully so), but we live in a what have you done for me lately world, and I worry that a vocal portion of hunter's is undermining our ability to stand up and say hunter's are leading the conservation charge. Moving forward it is going to be increasingly difficult to argue to a non-hunting public that hunting continues to have a role to play in modern society if are actions don't match our conservation rhetoric.

Nothing you said has anything to do with this subject

Limiting access in any form shouldn’t be acceptable
It’s public land! Treat it with respect and abide by the rules and there is no problem. Removing access because people want a more rustic experience should be the lowest priority

As for being an ambassador, you have quite the user name... are you sure it’s ok for you to represent a trade marked and copy written name? Unless your name is Clark or jay you might want to change it. And if you are Clark or jay then you know who I am and we don’t really have to argue

[Scott N]

I didn't catch who they were interviewing on 770 today on the news, but they said that the government was going to be "reviewing" the Castle changes.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by mountainti

a majority of the bighorn is atv free from the front range in. There seems to be a good number of folk that don't realize how much area is actually shut down to atv access. too far to walk and see i guess

Kapoww.
Bazinga.

[colvert]

ATV are a nuisance for the environment and give a bad name to real hunting which should be non motorized. Restricting access to ATV means more undisturbed habitat for wildlife and better opportunities for all . I am in favor of restrictions in the Foothills and the Irrigation Districts of the Prairies.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

Nothing you said has anything to do with this subject

Limiting access in any form shouldn’t be acceptable
It’s public land! Treat it with respect and abide by the rules and there is no problem. Removing access because people want a more rustic experience should be the lowest priority

As for being an ambassador, you have quite the user name... are you sure it’s ok for you to represent a trade marked and copy written name? Unless your name is Clark or jay you might want to change it. And if you are Clark or jay then you know who I am and we don’t really have to argue

The discussion is about the rules we have to abide by in different public land areas. The idea that we should tread carefully before we as a hunting collective decide to be for or against (or partially for or partially against) any ATV or development restrictions is clearly relevant to the conversation. If the restrictions are for the benefit of wildlife populations or habitat and hunters collectively rally against them we risk losing the conservation high-ground we have historically enjoyed when dealing with the non or anti-hunting public. What you don't seem to acknowledge is that there is potentially more at stake here than whether you can ride your quad in a particular area or not.

With respect to irrelevant comment on my user name I don't know Clark or Jay or Bobby or Suzie from Canada, but I am sure they are very nice...you absolute goof.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by Scott N

I didn't catch who they were interviewing on 770 today on the news, but they said that the government was going to be "reviewing" the Castle changes.

I sincerely hope they walk back the back-country huts.

[Chuck_Wagon]

Originally Posted by colvert

ATV are a nuisance for the environment and give a bad name to real hunting which should be non motorized. Restricting access to ATV means more undisturbed habitat for wildlife and better opportunities for all . I am in favor of restrictions in the Foothills and the Irrigation Districts of the Prairies.

Who are you to pass judgement on what the definition of "real hunting" is?
Sounds rather egotistical and elitist to me.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by colvert

ATV are a nuisance for the environment and give a bad name to real hunting which should be non motorized. Restricting access to ATV means more undisturbed habitat for wildlife and better opportunities for all . I am in favor of restrictions in the Foothills and the Irrigation Districts of the Prairies.

I'm guessing that tall horse you are riding would also be a nuisance for the environment?

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

If the restrictions are for the benefit of wildlife populations or habitat and hunters collectively rally against them we risk losing the conservation high-ground we have historically enjoyed when dealing with the non or anti-hunting public.

In the non/anti hunting crowds eyes, what would be of greater benefit to wildlife populations? Getting rid of ATV's or just getting rid of _______ altogether?
You fill in the blank. Tread lightly
Divide and conquer......

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

In the non/anti hunting crowds eyes, what would be of greater benefit to wildlife populations? Getting rid of ATV's or just getting rid of _______ altogether?
You fill in the blank. Tread lightly
Divide and conquer......

I think you miss an important distinction. Most non-hunting folks are not anti (even in the big ol' city!), but they can be swayed that way if we are not careful. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of those neutral parties and our anti-hunting opponents have an emotional message that plays really well to the uninformed. Where we are fortunate is that most folks eat meat and can (generally) see the hypocrisy in being anti-hunting while carving into a steak. We have also historically enjoyed the advantage of being the greatest contributors to most conservation initiatives in North America. If we as a group rally against any conservation initiatives we come across as "takers" that give little back. Politically we say we value wildlife and habitat but our actions don't support that. We risk coming across as the machine drivin', gun tot'n, hillbillies that want to tear up the land to hell with the consequences. If hunting doesn't support conservation then what relevance does it have in a modern world that is increasingly hostile to the whack'em and stack'em mindset? If our starting point is that we as hunters have to blindly support each (fill in the blank) activity without regard to what is best for habitat and wildlife then we are ultimately lost.

[Joe Black]

You are dreaming.

Your saying the ndp urban crowd is ok with hunting? Then why the no game hanging in camp rule for all of the castle park area?

Dream on brother. They dispise hunters just a little less than ohv's users, but more that fisherman.

Wake up.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

The discussion is about the rules we have to abide by in different public land areas. The idea that we should tread carefully before we as a hunting collective decide to be for or against (or partially for or partially against) any ATV or development restrictions is clearly relevant to the conversation. If the restrictions are for the benefit of wildlife populations or habitat and hunters collectively rally against them we risk losing the conservation high-ground we have historically enjoyed when dealing with the non or anti-hunting public. What you don't seem to acknowledge is that there is potentially more at stake here than whether you can ride your quad in a particular area or not.

With respect to irrelevant comment on my user name I don't know Clark or Jay or Bobby or Suzie from Canada, but I am sure they are very nice...you absolute goof.

Have you ever been under a rock for the last few years?
The days of waiting idly by as decisions are made and not standing up to be heard are long gone. There needs to be a united front to oppose these changes. As hunters and being a large stake holder in these areas there was zero consideration as to how this would effect us. Which is total BS! If you want to be ashamed of being a hunter, go right ahead. I never will. I like to shoot critters. I like the hunt more than I like the meat, and I really do like the meat. I support the SCI, DSC, WSF, AF&G, and WSSOBC. And anyone else who is out there trying to ensure that we do not lose any more hunting opportunities. This isn’t a matter of if it’s something I want to do. It’s something to support because others may be losing out on something. The fact is, taking away ohv access in these areas, reduces the amount of hunters able to use it.

As for you name. Those 2 guys are the ones that own the rights to that name. Some people are creative and come up with some fantastic ideas. Others are sheep that try and capitalize off others hard work

[Huk]

Originally Posted by silver lab

Again, look at a map, even a old WMU 400 map. WMU 400 had a pile of areas off limits for atv’s and even more areas restricted for there use. That’s why only REAL enforcement was required.
Simple people come up with simple solutions like “just shut everything down”.

If you'd bothered to read my several posts my suggestion was never to shut everything down. And thank you, I have spent significant time in 400 and am familiar with the previous maps. I just think the new trail restrictions are an improvement. Make me king for a day I'd probably shut more down. And I'd wholeheartedly agree that more enforcement was needed as nobody seemed to be following the rules.

[Huk]

Originally Posted by baticus

Used to be. If you've spent any time in that zone in the last 10 years that wouldn't be a statement. The elk population has dropped significantly. And the issues as to why have nothing to do with ohv access. Over grown timber, and a healthy increase in predation are the two major contributing factors.

Also plenty of areas away from main trails you could get your quiet time...

I've spent lots of time in the zone, far away from trails thank you. You seem to think you know a lot about me.

I know all about the predation issues and overgrown timber. I also know the best elk habitat has all the trails through it. If you think all that OHV activity doesn't push elk around and exacerbate the predation and habitat issues you're a lost cause.