55% of Albertans want more restrictions on ATVs

[1899b]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

55% of Albertan's probably have never rode an ATV.

I used to. We were pulling moose out of the bush in McMurray with three wheeled Honda ATC's back in the day that left very little footprint. Graduated to 4 wheelers and my last quad was a 2002 Yamaha Kodiak that I used to pull my last bull moose out of WMU530. The area is now known as CNRL formerly Albian Oilsands. Lost some good moose country when the mine went in. Thats the price of economic progress I guess. As for the progression of ATV's and the absolutely stupid ground churning power they produce nowadays, I Am definitely for ATV land use restrictions. The misses and I put on 18kms on our boots yesterday out by Robb. Beauty day out. Have a nice big doe hanging in the garage today. I love the outdoors and we don't need ATV's to enjoy it.

[colt-44]

Originally Posted by 270person

Why not? We defend the bad apple idiot hunters that make it harder to hunt private land every year that passes. No different.

The some will always have an effect on the all.

good point and you're right about the vocal minority

[Joe Black]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

I don't think you have to have been on a ATV to recognize the damage they do.

I don’t think you need to be a rancher to see the damage horses and cattle do on the environment

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

I don’t think you need to be a rancher to see the damage horses and cattle do on the environment

You really believe the two are comparable?

[Joe Black]

I was just trying to make and analogy as ridiculous as yours, best I could come up with.

And as for which is worse, I’m sure you know what 100 head of cattle can do to a stream bed over a summer if it’s the only water around.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

I was just trying to make and analogy as ridiculous as yours, best I could come up with.

And as for which is worse, I’m sure you know what 100 head of cattle can do to a stream bed over a summer if it’s the only water around.

What analogy, I said you don't have to have ridden a ATV to recognize the damage they do.

[honda450]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

You really believe the two are comparable?

Your right cattle are worse.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I should have been more specific - the results may be accurate, but the sample group is probably biased - would that cause the results to be inaccurate?

I would like to see more information on who was polled.

http://www.lethbridgecollege.ca/site...hv-camping.pdf

Demographic breakdown is on the last page. Looks like they were fairly careful to try to match poll to provincial demographics.



A few random interesting points from in there, though:

- Support for greater restrictions looks to be a lot higher in the north (and in Edmonton, but that's less surprising).

- Young, uneducated males are least in favour of restrictions.

- Green party supporters are less likely than Conservative supporters to want increased restrictions

[Joe Black]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

What analogy, I said you don't have to have ridden a ATV to recognize the damage they do.

Analogy. A thing that IS comparible in significant respects.

My ridiculous analogy was:

“you don’t have to be a rancher to see the damage cattle and horses can do to the environment”

Because it IS NOT comparible in significant respects.

That’s all.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

Analogy. A thing that IS comparible in significant respects.

My ridiculous analogy was:

“you don’t have to be a rancher to see the damage cattle and horses can do to the environment”

Because it IS NOT comparible in significant respects.

That’s all.

You made the analogy, I didn't. That's all. LOL

[3blade]

Originally Posted by Bighorn River

Yup, interested in conservation and land use issues so we have good habitat so me and my kids can hunt and fish.

Perhaps you should start an Alberta Outdoorsmen Against Conservation club if you are threatened about talking about relevant things here.

Or, lets purge talk of conservation off this board so there's more room for articles about Trump and muslims. Now thats relevant.

Sorry, won't be around for next while as I've got a few days off and want to fill my supplemental WT tag.

Thanks for setting your hunter purity test though.

We talk plenty about land use management. What we also talk about is how preservationists, naturalists, lying biologists, and animal rights radicals are infiltrating AEP and conservation groups in order to end licensed hunting.

Case in point. You and your group have co-opted an organization with the name "Backcountry Hunters and Anglers" yet you make no effort to support licensed hunting, because you don't care if we get to hunt the castle, or anywhere. All you care about is banning ATVs and creating more parks, which is the Y2Y anti-human agenda. If/when the park goes status-only hunting next year, you'll just shrug and make excuses about habitat. Just like your precious national status-only hunting preserves in Jasper and Banff.

More protected habitat without licensed hunting is not an acceptable end goal.

Enjoy your trip, bet your latest user name is in banned camp before you get back.

Poor Kevin, he gets so grumpy when he's not in charge

[colt-44]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

http://www.lethbridgecollege.ca/site...hv-camping.pdf

Demographic breakdown is on the last page. Looks like they were fairly careful to try to match poll to provincial demographics.



A few random interesting points from in there, though:

- Support for greater restrictions looks to be a lot higher in the north (and in Edmonton, but that's less surprising).

- Young, uneducated males are least in favour of restrictions.

- Green party supporters are less likely than Conservative supporters to want increased restrictions

nothing more than ...neat name lol....slim

[Joe Black]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

You made the analogy, I didn't. That's all. LOL

Ok. As long as you think you’re right, that’s really all that matters.

[CF8889]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

Ok. As long as you think you’re right, that’s really all that matters.

He never made an analogy to begin with.. he just said you don't have to ride atv's to understand the damage they cause.. that is not an analogy.

[Joe Black]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

You made the analogy, I didn't. That's all. LOL

Ok. So let me get this straight, I didn’t make an analogy either when I said

“you don’t need to be a rancher to see the damage horses and cattle do on the environment” ?

Could we call it an observation then? I think we can all agree on that.

[treeroot]

Originally Posted by Bighorn River

I don't think you understand how scientific polls work. Make a sample of calls to all areas of Alberta weighted by population, and you get a scientifically accurate breakdown of the whole population. If you live in an echo chamber where everyone you know thinks there are no issues with ATVs on public land, you probably need to get out more, because its not the mainstream view.

Politicians are doing this all the time privately to see what the public thinks of proposed policies.

On average, it means that if they implement more restrictions, it will be more popular than if they don't and shows that the responsible ATV groups need to do a lot more work to isolate the bad apples if they want public support for their support.

And yes, all Albertans do get say in how we manage our public lands.

I understand how scientific polls work. But this article gives no information about sample size, sample demographics etc. It does not leave me feeling like I am confident with the sample of people. Which leads me to be suspect.

This is absolutely not a properly reported report. There could be a larger report with the information about the sample, but it's just not included in the article.

I went to university and did assignments and research projects like this one. I just don't trust it without more information.

It is very easy to mislead with survey's if you really want to mislead.

[treeroot]

I also don't believe the average citizens should always be consulted (in a survey manner especially) when it comes to laws.

Someone who has never rode a ATV, doesn't even know the current laws etc should NEVER be allowed to give input or opinion.

Personally I know nothing about motorcycles. I've never ridden one, I don't know the laws concerning them, I don't know the stats about accidents involving them, I don't know the pro's and con's of driving one etc.. Therefore I should NEVER be asked if I think the laws on motorcycles should be tightened up. This question is best left to people who know the information, have driven one, know the stats etc..

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by treeroot

I also don't believe the average citizens should always be consulted (in a survey manner especially) when it comes to laws.

Someone who has never rode a ATV, doesn't even know the current laws etc should NEVER be allowed to give input or opinion.

Personally I know nothing about motorcycles. I've never ridden one, I don't know the laws concerning them, I don't know the stats about accidents involving them, I don't know the pro's and con's of driving one etc.. Therefore I should NEVER be asked if I think the laws on motorcycles should be tightened up. This question is best left to people who know the information, have driven one, know the stats etc..

I didn't want to quote both your posts but I put a link to the actual poll earlier in the thread. Pretty thoroughly done.

I agree that broad public opinion is not useful when we're creating laws but it is absolutely worthwhile to understand what people think - and which people think what - on any given topic.

[Big Racks]

Originally Posted by 1899b

I used to. We were pulling moose out of the bush in McMurray with three wheeled Honda ATC's back in the day that left very little footprint. Graduated to 4 wheelers and my last quad was a 2002 Yamaha Kodiak that I used to pull my last bull moose out of WMU530. The area is now known as CNRL formerly Albian Oilsands. Lost some good moose country when the mine went in. Thats the price of economic progress I guess. As for the progression of ATV's and the absolutely stupid ground churning power they produce nowadays, I Am definitely for ATV land use restrictions. The misses and I put on 18kms on our boots yesterday out by Robb. Beauty day out. Have a nice big doe hanging in the garage today. I love the outdoors and we don't need ATV's to enjoy it.

That's a slippery slope. That's great that you and the missus had a great hike and it was a productive hunt, love to hear those stories. You might not need atv's to enjoy the outdoors , fair enough. A bow hunter might say the same thing about rifles though. As far as restrictions on use, I'm all for it, as long as it's done in consultation with all stakeholders. Who better to help police the idiots than the responsible ATV riders? As mentioned, similar to the poacher comment made above.

[michaelmicallef]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Just the city dwellers.

We prefer to be called tree huggers or fun wreckers.

[Big Racks]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

I don't think you have to have been on a ATV to recognize the damage they do.

Begs the question, is it the ATV or is it the rider? Like a firearm, the ATV in of itself is just a tool and does no damage if left to its own devices.

[HunterDave]

What's the difference between "Public Use Areas" and crown land? Are those the same as designated PLUZ areas? I've never heard Crown Land called that up this way and I'm thinking that it's a Southern Alberta thing.

Am I missing a page from the survey or were these the only questions asked?


Questions

To better protect the province's wilderness and park areas, the Alberta government has announced it will restrict or ban off-highway vehicles and random camping in the newly created Castle provincial park, and possibly other public use areas over the next three to five years.

a) Beginning with off-highway vehicles, also known as OHVs, please tell me if you think there should be more or less restrictions on OHVs in public use areas. Would you say OHVs should be...
Additional Information if requested) Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs) are often referred to as All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and include quads, motorcycles, dirt bikes, side-by-sides, and snowmobiles.

b) Thinking now about random camping. Random camping occurs when people camp outside of designated campgrounds. Please tell me if you think there should be more or less restrictions on random camping in Alberta's public use areas. Would you say random camping should be...

• Banned in all public places
• More restricted
• No more/less restricted
• Less restricted
• No restrictions at all
• don’t know (unprompted)
• refused (unprompted)

[Freddy]

And this article says different things.
http://www.lethbridgenewsnow.com/art...v-restrictions

[kedive]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

Gotta admit, though some polls are fairly reliable I find this one suspect.
Put on by a university class (and the average university student is of the liberal bent), I have a hard time feeling their was not an agenda, that they proved by only placing their phone calls to specific locals.

Ha this was done by Lethbridge College. Most of the kids at that school are farm kids or small town kids from southern Alberta. I wouldn't bet on them being overly Liberal bent.

Edit: As I finish reading through the comments. I'd also like to say I'm not sure why people are getting bent out of shape over an unofficial poll done by a community college class.

[1899b]

Originally Posted by Big Racks

That's a slippery slope. That's great that you and the missus had a great hike and it was a productive hunt, love to hear those stories. You might not need atv's to enjoy the outdoors , fair enough. A bow hunter might say the same thing about rifles though. As far as restrictions on use, I'm all for it, as long as it's done in consultation with all stakeholders. Who better to help police the idiots than the responsible ATV riders? As mentioned, similar to the poacher comment made above.

I agree with you. Life would be boring without slippery slopes lol....

[seven0eight]

Originally Posted by jednastka

I find it interesting that our hunting community has drawn a very clear line between poaching and licensed hunting, and speaks out often and loud about the abuses by poachers, calls for stiffer penalties, and really gets upset (rightfully) that they are occasionally called hunters by the uninformed press.

To my knowledge, no such distinction has been drawn between the law-abiding ATV users and those that are trashing our public land. The uninformed public does not see a difference, and the law-abiding ATV users have not actively campaigned to draw a distinction. Therefore, whenever the question of restrictions on ATV users arises, the law-abiding ATV user groups rise in anger, and do not recognize the source of the problem.

We all need to help in addressing the problem of those trashing our public lands. Maybe we need a word like "poacher" to describe them, and a "Report A Poacher"-like hotline for their excesses.

THIS. Don't defend or protect these a-holes. Out them.

[Chuck_Wagon]

The college students did three polls at once when they did this atv one, with phone numbers given to them from InfoGroup. Their business is to provide contacts to target specific customer-centric requests. Meaning, they can give contact numbers to businesses to target a specific audience.

http://www.lethbridgecollege.ca/abou...pinion-studies

They did these 3 polls at once by phone contacts provided by InfoGroup:
2017 Reports
-Alberta Provincial Politics: Carbon Levy and Rebate Program
-Alberta Provincial Politics: Public Use Areas Protection Plans - OHV and Random Camping Restrictions
-Alberta Federal Politics: Vote Intention

[colt-44]

................

[Don_Parsons]

Dam, that's the craps as I just bought a Mule and named him Albert Theodore Valentine or (ATV) for short.

I'm dun founded why 55% of the people that have never meet Albert want to band him.

Oh Boy, whats the world coming to.

Don

[slickwilly]

I can't believe I am seeing this on the AO forum, but it seems like some people are giving their opinion without having read the actual data. Colour me shocked.

You can read the breakdown here:
http://www.lethbridgecollege.ca/site...hv-camping.pdf

The study was conducted by university students, they talked to a random slice of the population. 1400 is a pretty big slice as far as public opinion surveys go.

Public opinion is a scary thing when you are in a minority group. ATVers, hunters, all of us are in the minority of the whole population. We live in a democracy, so what the majority wants is what happens. If the public opinion starts turning against a minority, its the job of the minority to convince the majority that what they are doing isn't a negative. Even if the majority is uninformed, or lives in a different area, or *gasp* votes a different way.