Lets Talk about Road Acces

[Bugle M In]

Talking with other members either here or privately, I find there are some differing of opinions.
I find some views a bit alarming.

We all know there is "too much easy access" littered all over the place.
Example would be the Kammy area etc.

It seems some hunters feel "Road Closures" should be put in place.
That's scare me because I have seen that road closures don't work.
Yes, it stops the legal hunter.
But it does not stop any other "Outdoor Users"!
It does not stop hiker and mtn bikers or ORV users , back packers and snowmobilers.
And if the Restriction was extended to them, I guarantee you that the Ministry of Tourism would get some "blow back" to not let that happen!

Also, by asking for road closure restrictions, it again give the government an "Easy Out"!
All it takes is a couple of printed words in the Regs and a few signs hung up.

Also, we have seen, and there is a lot of proof, these restrictions "Do Not Apply to FN".
And we have seen enough to see that they take advantage of their traditional ways.

In other words, all road restrictions due is "kick Resident Hunters" out of the areas.
No one Else!!

Solution is to really go after the government to have "Roads Torn Up"!!
This stops everyone from gaining access!
This gives the game the "break" they need from pressure from all users of the back country.
It limits what poachers and FN can due to access these areas.

I wish everyone would start to think this way.
Drop the road restriction signs requests and fight to have roads just "ripped up"!
Otherwise we are just giving the government an "easy out" and they don't have to go to the
logging industry to tell them they have to waste some of their profits on road destruction!

Honestly, if this meant lumber would cost me a bit more, to save our habitat from such easy access,
I would be willing to pay for that.

We have to limit everyone to get in the back country.
Not just hunters, or we will be sadly disappointed by the results.
I have seen how dismal a 40 plus year road restriction for the use of hunting has resulted in
"0" gain by having that implemented!

There are other factors that have caused the dismal return of game.
Some of it again is over logging (imo) and preds.
What form of poaching is going on, I cant say.
But the opportunity is there, because the roads are there!
Get rid of the roads, and we limit "everyone"!!

Have at it.

[Island Idiots]

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.

[Mulehahn]

I fully agree with you, and so does almost everyone I talk to. I think the problem lies in common vernacular. When I talk to people and they said road closure I will often ask if they mean road deactivation, or ripping up as you call it, and in almost every case they do.

I don't see how it would cost lumber to go up. In most cases harvesters are required to replant. They can just replant right down the middle of the road. It is amazing how fast mother nature will reclaim an area if left alone. I know that if I don't keep the trail around my property cleared twice year it turns into a nightmare

[Bugle M In]

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.

I think you over reaction is due to some "misunderstanding" of what I was saying.
Maybe I should have been a little more detailed.
I am not talking main FSR's.
I am talking about all those roads that branch off all over the place due to logging/timber extraction.
Truth is, some areas, you only have to walk 5 minutes to hit another road!
And I mean that, one after the other, for hours while walking, to the point you can almost get seriously turned around in and get lost!

Also, I have friends with ATV's, so don't get on my case about "not understanding atv users".
I give them full respect, because they practice respect for the roads themselves!
They don't go off road.
Yet, they agree, they can get everywhere, and it is "too much"!!
And if they can, so can others, outside the hunting season!
I get ATVs being a cheaper alternative, and not ruining the more expensive trucks etc.
This is not an ATV thread.
This is an ACCESS THREAD.

Having said that, some ATV users take advantage of the whole situation.
Going wherever they can, road , trail , or just finding their own path!
That's where it goes "too far", imo, and I will stick to it!

Look at the Aschcroft Reserve Fire (elephant hill for politically correct folks!).
Now you cant use them!!
But some others can!!

Get my drift now???
I am talking about many of the "off shoot/spur roads".
And yes, there should be a "no off raid atv policy"...if you want to go there!

[dakoda62]

I fully agree with you, and so does almost everyone I talk to. I think the problem lies in common vernacular. When I talk to people and they said road closure I will often ask if they mean road deactivation, or ripping up as you call it, and in almost every case they do.

I don't see how it would cost lumber to go up. In most cases harvesters are required to replant. They can just replant right down the middle of the road. It is amazing how fast mother nature will reclaim an area if left alone. I know that if I don't keep the trail around my property cleared twice year it turns into a nightmare

I have seen a few areas now that use augers to plant trees, it would be effective way of deactivation, the piles are created would bottom out most vehicles.

[whitlers]

I am half and half on this subject. I am all for hunter opportunity on both sides. Those who are to old or disabled to hike endless miles will not benefit from this. On the flip side, those who enjoy hiking and hunting on foot would benefit. I agree that it may give the government a platform to further their anti hunting agenda. I can agree with deactivating smaller overgrown spur roads to an extent. I also like the elevation restriction on vehicles. There are some places in region 3 where you could drive right up into the alpine if you wanted to.

Bottom line I support hunter access to crown land but I can agree that so many new roads be it by logging or fire is or can impact wildlife in a negative way.

[Bugle M In]

I am half and half on this subject. I am all for hunter opportunity on both sides. Those who are to old or disabled to hike endless miles will not benefit from this. On the flip side, those who enjoy hiking and hunting on foot would benefit. I agree that it may give the government a platform to further their anti hunting agenda. I can agree with deactivating smaller overgrown spur roads to an extent. I also like the elevation restriction on vehicles. There are some places in region 3 where you could drive right up into the alpine if you wanted to.

Bottom line I support hunter access to crown land but I can agree that so many new roads be it by logging or fire is or can impact wildlife in a negative way.

I am a total hunter opportunity advocate.
And I know all too well about getting old with serious disabilities.
Don't get me wrong here folks.
Road Access isn't the "big issue" many make it to be.
There are other issues that need to be addressed far before this subject, imo.

BUT, there are others (not me) who do think this is "one of the big ones"!
And many of them "would settle for more road restrictions"!!
And what I am saying is:
"Forget road restrictions" as it would only end up applying to hunters, and hunters only!
If you think there are "too many roads"...…
Then "Think Road Removal" is all.
That restricts "EVERYONE".

If game can come back, by implementing all the things we need to have done in the province, then many of us old guys
will not need to access every inch by vehicle, as game will cross paths with us on the areas where vehicles can still get.

By getting older, us old guys have to accept that we wont get into every spot any longer, and yes, this means we wont get
the elusive 200+ scored buck, because we just don't have the ability.
But if game is more plentiful, there is always chance for one, if even by luck!

But we have to decide how we get game to become more plentiful.
We have to look at previous road restrictions to see "they don't really work"!
But it is an issue that needs to be addressed in some manner.

But as a hunter, I am not willing to pay the price if that means others can still abuse it.

[wideopenthrottle]

https://www.bcfpb.ca/wp-content/uplo...Management.pdf
2015 report

[wideopenthrottle]

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/fa...y/tr2018n7.pdf
another interesting document

[Island Idiots]

I think you over reaction is due to some "misunderstanding" of what I was saying.
Maybe I should have been a little more detailed.
I am not talking main FSR's.
I am talking about all those roads that branch off all over the place due to logging/timber extraction.
Truth is, some areas, you only have to walk 5 minutes to hit another road!
And I mean that, one after the other, for hours while walking, to the point you can almost get seriously turned around in and get lost!

Also, I have friends with ATV's, so don't get on my case about "not understanding atv users".
I give them full respect, because they practice respect for the roads themselves!
They don't go off road.
Yet, they agree, they can get everywhere, and it is "too much"!!
And if they can, so can others, outside the hunting season!
I get ATVs being a cheaper alternative, and not ruining the more expensive trucks etc.
This is not an ATV thread.
This is an ACCESS THREAD.

Having said that, some ATV users take advantage of the whole situation.
Going wherever they can, road , trail , or just finding their own path!
That's where it goes "too far", imo, and I will stick to it!

Look at the Aschcroft Reserve Fire (elephant hill for politically correct folks!).
Now you cant use them!!
But some others can!!

Get my drift now???
I am talking about many of the "off shoot/spur roads".
And yes, there should be a "no off raid atv policy"...if you want to go there!

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.