Atv's closed beginning of the end

[dana]

Bighornbob is very correct. You guys are confusing 2 diferrent rules. The rule in the regs is indeed for hunting purposes. It is a result of hunters behaving badly in areas like the Barriere Burn. Those road restrictions have been in place since the fall of 03. Don't recall a bunch of whinning about how we were losing our hunting rights then. This has nothing to do with losing hunting rights and everything to do with trying to give critters an edge and not get killed by every tom, dick and harry on a quad. It is soley about Conservation, which all hunters should fully support. Without conservation in burns you open your herds up to overharvest. It is very much needed. We have seen our herds depleted by predators over the last few years. If they are going to be able to rebound with these new burns, they are going to need us back off and not pressure them so hard. The new rules are about maintaining and growing our deer and moose numbers so that we might actually have something to hunt in the future.

[338win mag]

Bighornbob is very correct. You guys are confusing 2 diferrent rules. The rule in the regs is indeed for hunting purposes. It is a result of hunters behaving badly in areas like the Barriere Burn. Those road restrictions have been in place since the fall of 03. Don't recall a bunch of whinning about how we were losing our hunting rights then. This has nothing to do with losing hunting rights and everything to do with trying to give critters an edge and not get killed by every tom, dick and harry on a quad. It is soley about Conservation, which all hunters should fully support. Without conservation in burns you open your herds up to overharvest. It is very much needed. We have seen our herds depleted by predators over the last few years. If they are going to be able to rebound with these new burns, they are going to need us back off and not pressure them so hard. The new rules are about maintaining and growing our deer and moose numbers so that we might actually have something to hunt in the future.

Well said ^^^^^^
and there should of been orv bans on a number of other fires I can think of, too bad as the game never had a chance to recover and flourish under the new conditions created.

[JIL_24/7]

Here is the thing I am wrestling with. I use a side by side. I made that choice for two reasons. First, I have a daily driver that I don't want to punish on dirt roads. Second, I have a daily driver that is hard on gas. I have honestly NEVER taken my side by side off of an established road. I simply use it to take the punishment of the dirt road and to save a lot of gas. Why are these bans in place for all ATV/UTV use and not just on all vehicles going off of established roads. I use by side by side to get to the area I will hike into. I shouldn't be kept from doing that in my opinion. It is not a hunting advantage over a Jeep or a Sidekick or a Mini-truck or any other vehicle people take on forest service roads. Why should someone be punished for choosing a vehicle better designed for dirt/rocky roads?

[Jelvis]

Members I don't want to redirect this great thread, which by the way makes questions arise yet brings in some ideas to deal with this actual issue happened already.
Not going to change it now no matter what we do as atv drivers.
----My opinion is the ministry on all sides wants Kamloops protected from grass growers after October 17th pot is legal, and people will be using Kammy --MU 3-28 to reach it's very close to Kamloops, Nor shore is in MU 3-28
Jel -- not just because of hunting, but because now anyone can be outed, so this is a very well thought out thing before the final countdown to now!
---------------- MU 3-28 - 3-29 and 3-30 all made way more secure for the wildlife and fire protection -- C.O's will see any atv now!

[panhead]

I've often wondered what the odds in the LEH would be in the areas that don't allow off road vehicles for hunting if it was allowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Us old foxes are trapshy ... especially when the bait goes to chasing us

[steel_ram]

I've often wondered what the odds in the LEH would be in the areas that don't allow off road vehicles for hunting if it was allowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Us old foxes are trapshy ... especially when the bait goes to chasing us

Many wouldn't need LEH if hunters were forced to walk in.

[Jelvis]

-- > MU 3-28 is perfectly situated topographically and has the right temperatures and faces the south dead on and hits the south east south west, perfect for mule deer and pot growing.
-- Kamloops is second for the weed industry next to almighty Kelowna, the Feds and Province say Kelowna is weed City for growing for the governments supply.
Kamloops will have a huge weed growing place out by the Airport -- Former Mayor of Kammy and former RCMP boss together already on it wrapped up!
So no need for private growers running all over our mule deer and bighorn sheep creeks and water ways with atv's period, and is being monitored already by local people.
Jel -- this will stop Kamloops from being a grow in the hills type of City, we don't need it as hunters of mule deer and as lovers of the mule deer --

[Beachcomber]

Do you support my right to hunt sheep from a helicopter? Yes or no? If no, than why are you attacking the interests of hunters?

I appreciate you started down this road on the premise that "Acknowledgement and subsequent discussion of the differing perspectives between hunters should be seen as healthy, not harmful." I agree with that view, but not the example you have chosen to illustrate it. Viewed through the lens of "fair chase", helicopters/drones are beyond the pale. ATVs may be objectionable to some, but there is a general consensus that their use is not unsporting. Extrapolating the argument to include a means of transport that is outside of the law (helicopters), and widely regarded as being rightly so, is not a logical extension of hunters vs hunters where debating the application of different legal means is constructive. It is taking an example from a separate set altogether (illegal/unethical) and superimposing it on a legitimate debate. The use of helicopters is illegal as are other methods of hunting, such as baiting in some circumstances. Opposing those who argue in favour of these methods is not an extension of the issue of hunters opposing hunters any more than say, KIA drivers opposing Ferrari drivers travelling at 150 mph in a school zone is a case of drivers opposing drivers.

And if that is not entirely clear I will open another bottle of wine and try again!

[Jelvis]

The Beachcomber rocks and rolls folks hay, the beach ain't out of reach, he combs the beach and the hair but beware, he ain't afraid ah no ghosts --
Jelly Beach

[HappyJack]

Bighornbob is very correct. You guys are confusing 2 diferrent rules. The rule in the regs is indeed for hunting purposes. It is a result of hunters behaving badly in areas like the Barriere Burn. Those road restrictions have been in place since the fall of 03. Don't recall a bunch of whinning about how we were losing our hunting rights then. This has nothing to do with losing hunting rights and everything to do with trying to give critters an edge and not get killed by every tom, dick and harry on a quad. It is soley about Conservation, which all hunters should fully support. Without conservation in burns you open your herds up to overharvest. It is very much needed. We have seen our herds depleted by predators over the last few years. If they are going to be able to rebound with these new burns, they are going to need us back off and not pressure them so hard. The new rules are about maintaining and growing our deer and moose numbers so that we might actually have something to hunt in the future.

Would save more deer if everyone under 55 couldn't hunt in there. Just sayin.