Lets Talk about Road Acces

[Jimbob]

I 100% agree. It is in no way selfish to think this way. I believe you are thinking about the environment and the animals first and not your own opportunities. We need to ask ourselves what is best for healthy populations.

[Bugle M In]

Let's simplify the topic.
There are some (hunters) who still consider and advocate for "Vehicle Road Restrictions For Hunting"
I am saying this is a waste of time and doesn't work.
What it does do is stop a hunter, whether it be by truck or ATV, to access the area "legally".
What it does not do is stop all sorts of other users, as well as some who poach and FN.
Nothing positive really comes from it, and game does not flourish because of it.

What would work, is "road destruction" (not just a slight deactivation).
This would limit everyone, of all user groups unless they go by horse or foot.
It does not necessarily mean game will come back, but it does stop easy access permanently, and best of all,
for everyone.

Now, the question is:
How much road destruction do we want to see?
What are we willing to give up in the way of access?

I am willing to see a percentage of spur roads removed.
But, I also would like to have some access as well.
Maybe so much roads per so much land area?
Something like that.
Definitely a debatable topic, imo.
But road vehicle restriction just stops hunters! no one else!

[Ride Red]

We need roads deactivated like they used to back in the 80’s and early 90’s.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Road density has a proven negative affect on ungulates. It’s well documented.

[Scotty76]

Let's simplify the topic.
There are some (hunters) who still consider and advocate for "Vehicle Road Restrictions For Hunting"
I am saying this is a waste of time and doesn't work.
What it does do is stop a hunter, whether it be by truck or ATV, to access the area "legally".
What it does not do is stop all sorts of other users, as well as some who poach and FN.
Nothing positive really comes from it, and game does not flourish because of it.

What would work, is "road destruction" (not just a slight deactivation).
This would limit everyone, of all user groups unless they go by horse or foot.
It does not necessarily mean game will come back, but it does stop easy access permanently, and best of all,
for everyone.

Now, the question is:
How much road destruction do we want to see?
What are we willing to give up in the way of access?

I am willing to see a percentage of spur roads removed.
But, I also would like to have some access as well.
Maybe so much roads per so much land area?
Something like that.
Definitely a debatable topic, imo.
But road vehicle restriction just stops hunters! no one else!

In my “non school educated opinion” I think a certain “area” should only have a perentage of fsr / spur roads. Example: We have a valley that has been logged to shit( like my scientific term?). It has spur roads everywhere and there isn’t much for big stands of timber. The ministry/ or whoever should come in and remove a certain amount and replant a mix of native trees and grasses, and “decommission the roads. Then the hunters who have disabilities can still hunt some spur roads, and wildlife will eventually have more habitat, and predators will have less roads to hunt on. That’s my 2 cents. But good luck implementing that.
There is a road above me that goes into a recent cutblock (2/3 years) and they have dug in huge ditches. This stops most traffic, but some atvs could still get access. I’m sure this helps a bit but now preds have a highway. A question for people who run heavy equipment, is it possible to just run a dozer And drag a “claw” behind it that would chew up the road, then replant with native seed mix? Or is that just a fantasy example in my head?

[Cabled]

It seems like every time this topic comes up I hear the opinion that closing motorized access is selfish because it limits some people’s access. While I agree that it will unfortunately limit the access of some, or even most, my question is when and why did it become our right to have this access in the first place. It seems pretty clear it has negative effects on wildlife, maybe our right to access isn’t what’s important here. I’m no expert by any means, and neither is my opinion the be all end all, but at some point we are going to have to give our wildlife a break.
Not that limiting access is the only action needed, but I’m sure it’s one of them.

[Jimbob]

I understand you perfectly. You want to restrict my access to the woods. I stand by my earlier comments.
I don’t believe preventing access is a cure for wildlife populations. If I can’t drive my orv to the Alpine I’ll never see it. You want to remove my access to the woods. You need to consider the rights of others.

I find it ironic that you are accusing someone else of being selfish. It is 100% fact that roads and road access have a huge impact on wildlife. If you do not want to agree to scientific facts than it is very hard to have a conversation.

This conversation is about protecting our wildlife. It we want to do that then we have to be willing to make sacrifices. We do not have the right to drive our vehicles/orv/utv/atv wherever we want. We also do not have the right to hunt animals to feed our families. Those are privileges we have. If we want to keep those privileges then we need to make sacrifices to ensure the wildlife is healthy and thriving. This is why we have LEH areas, hunting seasons, and various other restrictions. We need to just stop thinking about ourselves and our own opportunities and start looking at the bigger picture.

[Throwaway]

The road density we deal with in comparison to our neighbours to the south is ridiculous, in similar ecosystems I might add. And their disabled hunters seem to be getting along just fine on smaller % of public land and far less roads. Putting your (in)ability to access an area ahead of an entire local population of a species is the actual selfish stance.

[Ourea]

As an ORV enthusiast and hunter with a disability, I take offence at your comments and find them selfish in there origin. Access roads are a vital part of everyone enjoying the wilderness. In your mantra you would limit all access so wildlife populations can increase and provide you with better hunting opportunities. This is selfish in my view.

Over access can have an impact on some populations, I get it. Increased access allows those that wouldn't normally experience the bush an easy opportunity to do so. They can get into some remote places with nothing better than a smart car. This puts those who normally wouldn't experience our great outdoors in a position to understand the beauty of our province and stand up for it, to appreciate it. City dwellers need to understand nature better in order to protect it.

Access roads also provide a way for fire protection equipment to get on the scene in the event of forest fires. Blocking off access to everyone is a bad idea and I find the concept selfish, disrespectful to others, and downright ignorant of the needs of others. IMO.

How many roads does one need?
Here, in the interior, it's getting tougher to find any amount of landscape one can disappear in for a true backcountry experience.
It is only getting worse.

[walks with deer]

IslandIdiot You are the selfish one.

bugleM In your timing of this thread is perfect..

I had a coffee with the region 3 bio last week and although logging companies should be forced to do this i volunteered my brand new 220 excavator and my crew including diesel and mobe to due just this.

I also have a large crew and a bulldozer i informed him in writing afterwards if he helps get the approvals in the right locations we will help with road deactivation prescribed burns ect.

In addition i figured we could get some HBC volunteers if it was organized and given notice. I was going to contact Mark and see if we could start a habitat workers list.. I have 10,000,000 liability and wcb so with a little paper it would be a ll legal.