FSR Deactivation Kootenay Lake Area

[nelsonob1]

I was out grizzly hunting north of Riondel on the east shore of Kootenay Lake and bumped into a road crew doing some work on the FSR. Foreman told me that they are planning to come in later this spring and remove all the tributary logging roads going into all the drainages, including any ATV trails. He claimed that you wont be able to get a mule in there once they are done.

When we asked him why, he cited the usual nonsense about liability and maintenance cost. We pointed out that absolutely none of the spur trails have been maintained in the last decade we have hunted in there except as a byproduct of logging, and that it also seemed a waste of money since those roads would be used again once the trees grow back. We also pointed out that those trails were used by a large number of recreational users including hunters.

It will be a shame to lose that access.

[Liveforthehunt]

Yes as much access as there is here In the okanagan and West koots they have already done this on numerous fsrs not main road but spurs up to 20 kms long probably a few hundred kms I have seen completely thrashed. Which is kind of bs not taking it back to its natural state as said no horse would enjoy the way they leave the roads. It's not just a deactivation they chew the road up for a km or 2. On the up side limiting access should help the elk pops out that way.

[Wrayzer]

Sounds like it could create some great hunting opportunities in the area in the next few years.

[HarryToolips]

Yes as much access as there is here In the okanagan and West koots they have already done this on numerous fsrs not main road but spurs up to 20 kms long probably a few hundred kms I have seen completely thrashed. Which is kind of bs not taking it back to its natural state as said no horse would enjoy the way they leave the roads. It's not just a deactivation they chew the road up for a km or 2. On the up side limiting access should help the elk pops out that way.
That's too bad there Nelson, I would imagine that's inconvienient for Ya among others, but I would think in a few years that's where the elk will be..The main FSR's and lake roads, trapline roads etc it's good to keep open, I believe, but it would be awesome if they de-activated more spur roads that don't lead to anywhere but bush around the Okanagan area like he said..how else are we going to limit harvest by First Nations...

[nelsonob1]

That's too bad there Nelson, I would imagine that's inconvienient for Ya among others, but I would think in a few years that's where the elk will be..The main FSR's and lake roads, trapline roads etc it's good to keep open, I believe, but it would be awesome if they de-activated more spur roads that don't lead to anywhere but bush around the Okanagan area like he said..how else are we going to limit harvest by First Nations...

That's a good way of looking at it. Still kind of odd way to spend money. You would think that they could just disengage the first kilometer or so. Not the full 10-15 kms of every spur.

[HarryToolips]

I find any de activation around my area is not nearly that thorough, quads usually find a way through, and before Ya know it, a trail is started..

[Fisher-Dude]

On the up side limiting access should help the elk pops out that way.

How does a six point elk season affect populations?

[Liveforthehunt]

How does a six point elk season affect populations?
:?:
Hmm is that what I sayed FD I think not.. let me elaborate since you tend to continue the elk argument on yet another thread. No access with motorized vehicles will give certain areas that have been pounded with vehicles destroying prime habitat a chance to grow back to its natural state with less stress on the animals. Are you an eco biologist? Do you have many extensive years of elk studies with collected data that you haven't taken off the net? Didn't think so. If 300 6 point bulls get killed a year in the koots do you honestly think that doesn't have even the slightest impact on the elk? Sure there are many other factors wolves the cow season years ago. And the list goes on and on. Sorry to high jack the thread but I thought someone already shut you up with your one track mind on elk pops

[Fisher-Dude]

:?:
Hmm is that what I sayed FD I think not.. let me elaborate since you tend to continue the elk argument on yet another thread. No access with motorized vehicles will give certain areas that have been pounded with vehicles destroying prime habitat a chance to grow back to its natural state with less stress on the animals. Are you an eco biologist? Do you have many extensive years of elk studies with collected data that you haven't taken off the net? Didn't think so. If 300 6 point bulls get killed a year in the koots do you honestly think that doesn't have even the slightest impact on the elk? Sure there are many other factors wolves the cow season years ago. And the list goes on and on. Sorry to high jack the thread but I thought someone already shut you up with your one track mind on elk pops

Lots of links have been posted on elk studies both here and from other jurisdictions.

Bull harvest from a six point season will not affect elk numbers. Calf recruitment is the driving factor. You can shoot every six point and still have the same number of elk the next year.

If you want to do something for elk populations, it's best to put your efforts toward something that will make a difference. Putting a bandaid on your forehead when you're having a heart attack really doesn't help.

[.300WSMImpact!]

GPS locations please, I will keep an eye on this area for you for the next few years and let you know what it looks like

[Liveforthehunt]

Lots of links have been posted on elk studies both here and from other jurisdictions.

Bull harvest from a six point season will not affect elk numbers. Calf recruitment is the driving factor. You can shoot every six point and still have the same number of elk the next year.

If you want to do something for elk populations, it's best to put your efforts toward something that will make a difference. Putting a bandaid on your forehead when you're having a heart attack really doesn't help. your telling me if every 6 point was shot calf recruitment would be unchanged the following year ? I have read a lot on here regarding the koots elk pop and I'm sorry I can't wrap my head around that. Same goes with moose pops. Your saying access isn't In anyway effecting the elk pops your nuts. 40 years ago half the fsrs are around that are here today and the elk were strong then. What has changed ?:hmmm :roll:

[Fisher-Dude]

your telling me if every 6 point was shot calf recruitment would be unchanged the following year ? I have read a lot on here regarding the koots elk pop and I'm sorry I can't wrap my head around that. Same goes with moose pops. Your saying access isn't In anyway effecting the elk pops your nuts. 40 years ago half the fsrs are around that are here today and the elk were strong then. What has changed ?:hmmm :roll:


Yes, you can shoot every six point and calf recruitment would be the same.

Any bull can breed a cow, it doesn't have to be a six point. Sperm supply is all that counts. There's no conservation concern over pregnancy rates until we get down to 5 - 8 bulls per 100 cows, and we're over 20 throughout the Koots.

What has changed from 40 years ago? Predators that feast on elk calves. And hunting regulations - we had a 2 1/2 month long 3 point bull season 40 years ago, back when elk pops were strong. How well has greatly restricting elk seasons helped elk pops?

[Moose63]

Hunters may have get out of their vehicles and walk....

[Wild one]

Personally have a love hate for deactivations

Yes it screws up my access to some locations

I would say it is beneficial to the wildlife as it gives them a place where they are less disturbed, and harder for poachers to reach. I also find you are more likely to find larger animals in areas with limited access and would say those will to work for it is more likely to find that 6 point hiding in areas like this.

I don't believe 6pt season hurts game numbers but areas with greater access 6pts are more likely to get shot than in areas with limited access

[hardnocks]

in a forestry point of view . deactivation gains a lot of area for growing more trees. and their is really no point in keeping the old roads next time they log who know what methods will be used.

[Walking Buffalo]

Getting rid of roads (complete removal) will reduce wolf efficiency in killing large prey. I suspect some might consider this to be a good thing....

[Fisher-Dude]

Getting rid of roads (complete removal) will reduce wolf efficiency in killing large prey. I suspect some might consider this to be a good thing....

Far cheaper and easier to just get rid of some wolves.

[BCrams]

Far cheaper and easier to just get rid of some wolves.

^^ this

The costs of full road reclamation / deactivation is astronomical and time consuming and most forest companies won't pay for that kind of deactivation. Better solution is strategic deactivation at certain points if the goal is to reduce traffic.

[Walking Buffalo]

Far cheaper and easier to just get rid of some wolves.

Is it far cheaper and easier to keep or remove the roads?

Long term costs of Effective wolf culling strategies and associated costs of social views/political management , anti-hunting sentiment, road liability, management, maintenance and enforcement of various regulations. Who pays and from which government departments? What programs are sacrificed to pay for these costs?

Or established road decommission cost structure into the value of forest products?

[Fisher-Dude]

If there are extensive road decommissioning activities built into a stumpage appraisal, the stumpage rate is reduced accordingly to compensate for the licensee's increased costs.

Thus, government loses considerable stumpage revenue. That means less money from the resource, including less money for fish & wildlife management.

Money lost from a single cutting permit due to a lower stumpage appraisal could easily amount to far more than any wolf control program in the area.

[Clint_S]

Wish they'd do way more deac.

[Seeker]

I was out grizzly hunting north of Riondel on the east shore of Kootenay Lake and bumped into a road crew doing some work on the FSR. Foreman told me that they are planning to come in later this spring and remove all the tributary logging roads going into all the drainages, including any ATV trails. He claimed that you wont be able to get a mule in there once they are done.

When we asked him why, he cited the usual nonsense about liability and maintenance cost. We pointed out that absolutely none of the spur trails have been maintained in the last decade we have hunted in there except as a byproduct of logging, and that it also seemed a waste of money since those roads would be used again once the trees grow back. We also pointed out that those trails were used by a large number of recreational users including hunters.

It will be a shame to lose that access.


There are fewer valleys by the day that are void of the human presence.

To you it is a loss of access, to me and other like minded individuals, it is the gain of a hunting area that is less interrupted by human interference. There are plenty of roads to ride your quad on, go and use some of those. Any remnant of a road is used by sledders in the winter and once that trail is set, the possibility of predator (in particular the wolf) infiltration is definitely more likely, thus contributing to ungulate population declines. Deactivation limits not only humans, but wolves and also provides a reduced stress environment for ungulates to live and hopefully increase in number. These valley's where the roads are deactivated provide hunting opportunities that from my experience are more natural with less spooky animals. I truly believe that there will be more six point bulls in such areas and I am willing to get out and walk. There is nothing I hate more than sitting in the outdoors, enjoying nature only to have my day ruined by "put-put-put"...... so leave us grumpy old guys that don't like quads some areas where we can get away from the noise pollution. Deactivate away;-)

I don't think that wolf control using a helicopter at $1000/day for how many days each year for eternity (necessary in order to keep wolf populations suppressed) is more cost effective than a once in decades road decommissioning. Let's see how much the wolf cull up north is going to cost in the long run to keep the wolf populations down at the level they need to be in order to protect the caribou. I'm thinking the road decommissioning is going to look like a good deal.

[jtred]

To my way of thinking there more than enough roads out there for guys to cruise around on. Personally I like road closures and deactivation, I like to hike. As I age though I may view deactivation in a different light, I often wonder what hunting will be like for me if I am no longer able to hike the backcountry? Will I still enjoy hunting or will I lose interest? Right now however I like when access is limited.

[nelsonob1]

Its a shame that these threads lead to so much hunting style judgment and presumption. If you actually knew anything of the area you would know that the vast majority of these trails, with the exception of Portman, do not take you into road hunting areas. They access drainages which are heavily timbered and often very steep, but provide more points from which to hike into the higher alpine. There is virtually no easy hunting in these areas by road south of Cambell Creek and the bridge was washed out there two years ago.

Many of the drainages are populated by grizzly (hence why I am there), and unless you are the type to pack out elk several kilometers through prime grizzly territory then its going to close the opportunity. I hunt with two kids aged ten and twelve - they simply cannot make it in that terrain. The loss of Portman access road will add an extra 12 kms to the hike for Mt Loki as the trail head is at the end of the road. Many families and outdoor recreational enthusiasts enjoy that hike in summer and fall.

There is virtually nothing of interest to snow mobiles in any of those roads. Forest is everywhere around you and the valley floors are littered with avalanche debris.

[Mikey Rafiki]

If there are extensive road decommissioning activities built into a stumpage appraisal, the stumpage rate is reduced accordingly to compensate for the licensee's increased costs.

Thus, government loses considerable stumpage revenue. That means less money from the resource, including less money for fish & wildlife management.

Money lost from a single cutting permit due to a lower stumpage appraisal could easily amount to far more than any wolf control program in the area.

What percentage of that revenue actually goes directly to wildlife? If those savings went directly to shooting wolves out of a helicopter I would agree but knowing how the government works I suspect that revenue gets sent to Victoria and becomes part of the pie where wildlife and natural resources are just a sliver.

[Fisher-Dude]

What percentage of that revenue actually goes directly to wildlife? If those savings went directly to shooting wolves out of a helicopter I would agree but knowing how the government works I suspect that revenue gets sent to Victoria and becomes part of the pie where wildlife and natural resources are just a sliver.

One day you might need to use a hospital or send your kids to school. Don't get sidetracked by the specifics I quoted.

There's more to life than the narrow slice we focus on here. Getting the best return for taxpayers from our natural resources is most important.

[Fisher-Dude]

Its a shame that these threads lead to so much hunting style judgment and presumption. If you actually knew anything of the area you would know that the vast majority of these trails, with the exception of Portman, do not take you into road hunting areas. They access drainages which are heavily timbered and often very steep, but provide more points from which to hike into the higher alpine. There is virtually no easy hunting in these areas by road south of Cambell Creek and the bridge was washed out there two years ago.

Many of the drainages are populated by grizzly (hence why I am there), and unless you are the type to pack out elk several kilometers through prime grizzly territory then its going to close the opportunity. I hunt with two kids aged ten and twelve - they simply cannot make it in that terrain. The loss of Portman access road will add an extra 12 kms to the hike for Mt Loki as the trail head is at the end of the road. Many families and outdoor recreational enthusiasts enjoy that hike in summer and fall.

There is virtually nothing of interest to snow mobiles in any of those roads. Forest is everywhere around you and the valley floors are littered with avalanche debris.

Bingo!

People make some broad assumptions that there are hunting nirvanas when access is curtailed. Huge animals everywhere!

Reality is that closures such as you have mentioned take away the backcountry for all but the most wealthy commercial interests, leaving you and your kids locked out from enjoying those areas.

[btridge]

When we built the Powder Creek FSR, it opened up access to a large area that up until that time had VERY limited access. Campbell and Murphy creeks drainages had to be accessed from kootenay lake. While we were building, I saw limited numbers of wildlife, in fact the largest herd I saw was Not Elk, but Caribou. After a few years of logging, the numbers of Deer and Elk and bear, started to noticably increase. The fact that the logging in some of the areas is now finished, gives the ministry the opportunity to take access levels back to a level more in line with past access. This WILL effect me, as I am not as young as I once was, but in my opinion this is the right thing to do for the wildlife.

[Fisher-Dude]

When we built the Powder Creek FSR, it opened up access to a large area that up until that time had VERY limited access. Campbell and Murphy creeks drainages had to be accessed from kootenay lake. While we were building, I saw limited numbers of wildlife, in fact the largest herd I saw was Not Elk, but Caribou. After a few years of logging, the numbers of Deer and Elk and bear, started to noticably increase. The fact that the logging in some of the areas is now finished, gives the ministry the opportunity to take access levels back to a level more in line with past access. This WILL effect me, as I am not as young as I once was, but in my opinion this is the right thing to do for the wildlife.

Was there a wildlife harvest concern with 4 point mule deer and 6 point elk seasons?

What are the buck:doe and bull:cow ratios in the area? Have they dropped below target management levels of 20:100?

[6point]

Was there a wildlife harvest concern with 4 point mule deer and 6 point elk seasons?

What are the buck:doe and bull:cow ratios in the area? Have they dropped below target management levels of 20:100?

Whats wrong with you? where you bullied too much in school?

[Fisher-Dude]

Apparently, some don't like being asked the questions that relate directly to scientific management of our wildlife resources, and would rather stick to social management issues instead.

[KodiakHntr]

When we built the Powder Creek FSR, it opened up access to a large area that up until that time had VERY limited access. Campbell and Murphy creeks drainages had to be accessed from kootenay lake. While we were building, I saw limited numbers of wildlife, in fact the largest herd I saw was Not Elk, but Caribou. After a few years of logging, the numbers of Deer and Elk and bear, started to noticably increase. The fact that the logging in some of the areas is now finished, gives the ministry the opportunity to take access levels back to a level more in line with past access. This WILL effect me, as I am not as young as I once was, but in my opinion this is the right thing to do for the wildlife.


Was there a wildlife harvest concern with 4 point mule deer and 6 point elk seasons?

What are the buck:doe and bull:cow ratios in the area? Have they dropped below target management levels of 20:100?

Not sure how your question is applicable to the observations btridge made when that mainline was built?

Incidentally, I absolutely concur with his observations, as I was a touch involved in the development of that area....Pre harvest there wasn't much for habitat other than a few slides. Post harvest deer and elk numbers increased due to habitat creation.

Now the licencee in the area and the MoFNRL want to reduce liability of sedimentation. Seems simple, roads appraised as short term, short term is over. Time to deactivate.

[Fisher-Dude]

Now the licencee in the area and the MoFNRL want to reduce liability of sedimentation. Seems simple, roads appraised as short term, short term is over. Time to deactivate.

Sedimentation didn't seem to bother anyone when the timber was being harvested. Seems that the licensee and the province should take some responsibility for maintaining social license rather than covering their asses on improbable "liability" issues all the time.

[KodiakHntr]

Sedimentation didn't seem to bother anyone when the timber was being harvested. Seems that the licensee and the province should take some responsibility for maintaining social license rather than covering their asses on improbable "liability" issues all the time.

I take offense at that remark. Sedimentation absolutely is of utmost importance when working in the forest. For you to suggest otherwise is inflammatory at best, and certainly ignorant.

There is a difference though, and even you have to admit this, between active harvest in a drainage, and a valley having its cut completed. If you have people logging in a valley, and they are there every day, or at the least 5 or 6 days a week, and a culvert plugs up after a major rainfall event, how soon will it be caught and rectified by a logger?

How long will it take to catch it and fix it, if there is a silviculture survey scheduled there next August 30th? How much damage could potentially be done by a blocked culvert overnight? How much damage could be done by that same blocked culvert over a few months?

Having spent an inordinate amount of time on that road system back in the day, I can say with utmost certainty that there are a lot of sections of road back there, that need to have permanent water control measures in place.

[Fisher-Dude]

I take offense at that remark. Sedimentation absolutely is of utmost importance when working in the forest. For you to suggest otherwise is inflammatory at best, and certainly ignorant.

There is a difference though, and even you have to admit this, between active harvest in a drainage, and a valley having its cut completed. If you have people logging in a valley, and they are there every day, or at the least 5 or 6 days a week, and a culvert plugs up after a major rainfall event, how soon will it be caught and rectified by a logger?

How long will it take to catch it and fix it, if there is a silviculture survey scheduled there next August 30th? How much damage could potentially be done by a blocked culvert overnight? How much damage could be done by that same blocked culvert over a few months?

Having spent an inordinate amount of time on that road system back in the day, I can say with utmost certainty that there are a lot of sections of road back there, that need to have permanent water control measures in place.

Forest companies never used to deactivate roads with 3 foot-deep ditches. They took responsibility for them and bothered to patrol them during freshet. I was in the industry during that time and we extended our responsibility past the cut-n-run times we have now.

We rarely had culvert blow-outs. We maintained our road systems. We put something back into the community and had social license to operate. We held open houses to solicit input from other user groups, and involved them in our planning processes.

These days, there seems to be little regard for other users of the forest. Bulldoze in, high grade, burn the piles, plant everything in pl to get the fastest green-up, rip the roads apart, and bail out.

[KodiakHntr]

And again, enough with the misinformation.... Just because you used to be in the industry doesn't mean you know anything at all about it now.
The one constant in life, is change. People learn from past experiences, and that is a good thing. Those of us still in the industry have learned how fragile the ecosystem can truly be, and operate with a lighter foot print than we did a decade or two ago when you were involved.

And yes, deactivation is much more focused now than ever before. And that is due in a very large part by what the people of the province feel is acceptable as permanent access structures across the landscape. If we are allowed to have a percetage of the land base as road, when companies are done harvesting in that area, they are mandated to deactivate.

Harvesting will continue, and with that we need roads to access and haul timber. A lot of roads simply are not planned to be long term access structures. And they are appraised as such, with the understanding between government and the licencee that when harvesting is complete, those roads will be deactivated to ensure that the natural drainage patterns are maintained.

Long gone are the days of triple wide haul roads that you can drive your big ol' diesel down to road hunt for days on end without running into another person. Roads aren't built to the same standard now. Plain and simple. And there is no need for them to built to that standard. They are a blight on the landscape.

Having a high grade, gravel surfaced road running into a 20 ha cut block serves exactly the same purpose, as a road that is pushed in with a D8 in a matter of hours where the stumps are simply pushed out of the way. The biggest difference is that on a temporary road, only a few meters of width won't grow trees back, as opposed to 20m plus on the permanent road.....

Which would you rather have? Forest land, and a forest industry for your children, or big ol' roads you can shoot spike muley's off of from the hood of your duramax?

[btridge]

Sedimentation didn't seem to bother anyone when the timber was being harvested. Seems that the licensee and the province should take some responsibility for maintaining social license rather than covering their asses on improbable "liability" issues all the time.

You really have NO idea what is involved in maintaining a logging road. I and many others have worked hard over the past years, to maintain the ditches, culverts and road surface to control sedimentation on the mainline and licencee spur roads. The spur roads by Mt Loki, were put in by the ministry as short term roads for the timber sales in that area. Once the timber sale and reforestation is complete, there is nobody looking after those spurs. Those spurs were not designed or built to be there forever, it's time for the ministry to complete the plan and do the required deactivations.

[Fisher-Dude]

You're right that there is nobody looking after those spurs. That's because we've gone from a system of looking after them to a system of abandoning our social responsibilities to do so.

Cut-n-run. Maximum dollars in a few pockets. Social responsibilities = zero.

Think there's no social responsibilities to look after things in the longer term? Re-read the first post of this thread. The public is asking what happened - it's time for industry and government to answer to the owners of public resources.

[Fisher-Dude]

Which would you rather have? Forest land, and a forest industry for your children, or big ol' roads you can shoot spike muley's off of from the hood of your duramax?

That's the holier-than-thou attitude of those charged with the professional responsibility to manage our public resources - all other users are spike muley killers that road hunt, to be looked down on, apparently.

The first post of this thread is what the owners of the resource want. Best you pay attention to them, and not assume that they demand you do what you are doing.

[mikeman20]

Ripping up the roads will make it tougher for wolves

What's more important? Healthy populations or easy hunting for your convenience

[Fisher-Dude]

Ripping up the roads will make it tougher for wolves

What's more important? Healthy populations or easy hunting for your convenience

Shooting wolves will make it tougher for them, without restricting a large portion of the public from accessing the land that they own.

What's more important, keeping user groups out of the bush or managing our resources in the public interest?

[Wild one]

Shooting wolves will make it tougher for them, without restricting a large portion of the public from accessing the land that they own.

What's more important, keeping user groups out of the bush or managing our resources in the public interest?

Not enough hunters shooting wolves to make an impact vs. deactivating the road.

This is really about you want to keep road access nothing more. The only negative impact deactivation has is on motor vehicle access for the public and at times a hurdle for those fighting forest fires if 1 happens in the area.

Permeant impact on habitat or temporary in exchange for road access is what it comes down to. No lack of FSR in BC so I can live with spurs being deactivated

[speycaster]

I don't think that wolf control using a helicopter at $1000/day for how many days each year for eternity (necessary in order to keep wolf populations suppressed) is more cost effective than a once in decades road decommissioning. Let's see how much the wolf cull up north is going to cost in the long run to keep the wolf populations down at the level they need to be in order to protect the caribou. I'm thinking the road decommissioning is going to look like a good deal.[/QUOTE]

I don't know anywhere that you can get a whirly bird for a thousand bucks a day, unless you are only going to fly for an hour.

[mikeman20]

Shooting wolves will make it tougher for them, without restricting a large portion of the public from accessing the land that they own.

What's more important, keeping user groups out of the bush or managing our resources in the public interest?

multiple studies have shown that hunting wolves causes them to breed faster because of stress. unless you kill a very large number of them, piecemeal wolf hunting will do nothing.

[Fisher-Dude]

Not enough hunters shooting wolves to make an impact vs. deactivating the road.

This is really about you want to keep road access nothing more. The only negative impact deactivation has is on motor vehicle access for the public and at times a hurdle for those fighting forest fires if 1 happens in the area.

Permeant impact on habitat or temporary in exchange for road access is what it comes down to. No lack of FSR in BC so I can live with spurs being deactivated

No, I'm not talking about hunters shooting wolves. Should have been more clear.

I'm talking about wolf control, which can occur to help ungulates and maintain the public's access to the backcountry at the same time.

Saying that we are deactivating roads because it stops wolves from killing is a red herring. A 500 ha cutblock with a moose in the middle of it surrounded by wolves is the real problem with habitat alteration, not a spur road that wolves can travel. That moose in a huge cutblock with no escape cover is as good as dead when the wolves find him.

Sure, the wolves can cover ground more quickly with roads, but perhaps it's good to keep them moving, spreading their impact and not having local areas of extirpation of ungulates.

People should have road access, and I'll fight to keep it for them. Hunter demographics in this province are heavily skewed to the older generation, and it's imperative that we maintain opportunity for those hunters.

John Thornton even identified access constraints as a big problem in his Hunter Retention and Recruitment Strategy paper:

Access to hunting areas is a problem throughout many parts of British Columbia.
Deactivated roads, active logging, liability and other issues all conspire to limit hunting
access. In many cases, there is little or anything that the Fish and Wildlife Branch can do
to change this, but information can be made available. Access information can be made
available in regulations synopses and on the Branch website.
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n :
Provide access information in regulations synopses and on the Branch
web site. Contact information for Ministry of Forests district offices
and logging companies should be provided. Link this information to
the on-line mapping tool mentioned earlier in this document.
Access problems especially frustrate hunters after lengthy waits for Limited Entry Hunting
opportunities. A hunter that is finally drawn after years of waiting may be very angry
or even feel betrayed if access is severely limited without prior warning.

[Whonnock Boy]

Sure, it would be nice if we could keep roads open and activated but, wolves and unregulated harvest are resident hunters main competition. Reclaiming them kills two birds with one stone. There are so many roads out in the forests today that I'm sure we could handle a few of them to be completely deactivated. ;)

[Fisher-Dude]

So rather than make more suitable habitat and thus more wildlife, and gun some wolves, we should be regulating/restricting hunters (native and others) even more? How well has that strategy worked for the past 40 years, WB?

[mikeman20]

So rather than make more suitable habitat and thus more wildlife, and gun some wolves, we should be regulating/restricting hunters (native and others) even more? How well has that strategy worked for the past 40 years, WB?

That's not even close to what he said, and deactivating the excessive number of roads IS creating better habitat

There is no increase in regulation or restrictions, did you even bother to read the comment?

[btridge]

You're right that there is nobody looking after those spurs. That's because we've gone from a system of looking after them to a system of abandoning our social responsibilities to do so.

Cut-n-run. Maximum dollars in a few pockets. Social responsibilities = zero.

Think there's no social responsibilities to look after things in the longer term? Re-read the first post of this thread. The public is asking what happened - it's time for industry and government to answer to the owners of public resources.
You might want to re-read the original post and then my answers. AS far as social responsibilities= zero....bull shit! The harvest plan was developed through a public consultation proccess by the ministry, it reflects the wishs of the public that bothered to show up for consultation. Following the plan, including the deactivations, IS a social responsibility. To say that this is a Cut-n-run, Maximum dollars in pocket policy is just flat out wrong, deactivation and reclamation is very expensive. The world has changed, it is our responsibility to leave the land in a condition that mother nature can take over and grow new forests and wildlife, This is the new reality of our social resposibility.

[Fisher-Dude]

That's not even close to what he said, and deactivating the excessive number of roads IS creating better habitat

There is no increase in regulation or restrictions, did you even bother to read the comment?

We've had 40 years of increasing regulations, my friend. 4 point, 6 point, spike fork, road closures, shorter seasons, weapons restrictions, it goes on and on.

Oddly, that coincides with 40 years of declining game populations and declining hunter numbers.

Let's connect the dots and see where it leads us. Let's see if blaming ourselves for being hunters is helping anything.

[Whonnock Boy]

I think we should do it all. Helicopter gun ships, burns the hills, obliterate some roads, and maintain seasons. Win, win, win, win.....

You do realize you are contradicting yourself regarding scientific wildlife management and social based management? Scientifically manage wildlife, yet accommodate resident hunters by maintaining fsr's for social reasons.

Don't get your panties in a knot FD. I see the points your are trying to make, and the validity of them. However, you must admit, completely deactivating roads can do nothing but help wildlife. Odoule's??? :)

So rather than make more suitable habitat and thus more wildlife, and gun some wolves, we should be regulating/restricting hunters (native and others) even more? How well has that strategy worked for the past 40 years, WB?

[Wild one]

We've had 40 years of increasing regulations, my friend. 4 point, 6 point, spike fork, road closures, shorter seasons, weapons restrictions, it goes on and on.

Oddly, that coincides with 40 years of declining game populations and declining hunter numbers.

Let's connect the dots and see where it leads us. Let's see if blaming ourselves for being hunters is helping anything.

In 40 years we have also had a huge increase in access from an increase in FSR and the common use of ATVs

I don't think regulated hunting has caused the decline do to access but unregulated and increased travel routs for the wolves from it did in my opinion.

Personally I like to have these access roads and don't at the same time. I will take the benefits of deactivations over the lose of access.

Not all hunters are against deactivation and there are many that benefit from it as well.

You preach habitat yet you have an issue with deactivating roads which get reclaimed by the forest. Also before the forest closes these roads in completely small meadows of grass form on the old landing on these roads and stretches that get good sun light. Find the right age class of these deactivations and you find game on them.

If it was complete FSR access lost I would see your point but this is far from the case. You are only looking at 1 negative the loss of motorized access instead of looking at how hunters can benefit from this practice

[Fisher-Dude]

You preach habitat yet you have an issue with deactivating roads which get reclaimed by the forest. Also before the forest closes these roads in completely small meadows of grass form on the old landing on these roads and stretches that get good sun light. Find the right age class of these deactivations and you find game on them.


Road rights-of-way are excellent food sources for game. Turning that back into a canopied forest for fibre production would be detrimental to habitat, would it not?

[Fisher-Dude]

I think we should do it all. Helicopter gun ships, burns the hills, obliterate some roads, and maintain seasons. Win, win, win, win.....

You do realize you are contradicting yourself regarding scientific wildlife management and social based management? Scientifically manage wildlife, yet accommodate resident hunters by maintaining fsr's for social reasons.

Don't get your panties in a knot FD. I see the points your are trying to make, and the validity of them. However, you must admit, completely deactivating roads can do nothing but help wildlife. Odoule's??? :)

If there were instances of over-harvest, then access could be restricted. That's what we started doing 40 years ago when we had 3 month long any bull elk or 3 point bull seasons, and 3 month long any bull moose seasons, GOS cow moose, etc.

However, the validity of access restrictions blew out the door the day we went to short seasons and antler point restrictions.

We also killed off half our hunters, and that trend is just starting to reverse itself, with 75,000 more to go just to get where we were in 1982.

We have 6 point elk seasons that can withstand every legal bull being shot every year without reducing the population, yet somehow you think we'll grow more game by restricting access and not shooting a few 6 points?

If our government put resources into predator management, the road argument for wolves is moot.

Ripping roads is not a panacea for game management. Habitat enhancement and predator control is.

[Wild one]

Road rights-of-way are excellent food sources for game. Turning that back into a canopied forest for fibre production would be detrimental to habitat, would it not?

Logging is not stopping spur roads and winter roads keep being made then deactivated. Active roads do not create the same quality of habitat deactivated roads do. The traffic on active roads prevents veg from growing like it does on deactivated roads. You cannot compare the quality of feed deactivated roads provide compared to active roads.

It is an on going cycle at this time of building roads and deactivating them. This replaces the roads that become forest again. It takes years before the canopy covers the road completely even on the coast.

Like I said the only thing you have to stand on with your issue is you want motor vehicle access there is nothing else negative to deactivating roads. The only rare exception is it restricts access during forest fires making them tougher to fight but most hunters keep saying the want fires to burn longer to improve habitat anyway.

Try to justify it any way you please but is not more than wanting these roads for access using a motor vehicle

[Red arch]

Well to point out something that I think hasn't been covered yet, the deactivation of these roads probably goes back to the Site plan created x years ago before harvest occurred. If the roads are temporary in nature and deactivation was prescribed in the site plan by the company, guess what. The company has to honour that site plan as it is essentially a contract of harvest. Leaving those roads could lead to a massive loss of money through a breach of terms.

Further I would hazard to guess they are being deactivated now as whatever is up there has reached Free to grow status, and as such they can leave it for the next 50 years due to meeting re-stocking criteria.

[Whonnock Boy]

Nope, I implied that if we completely deactivate roads, the benefits of limiting wolf and unregulated harvest will hopefully aid in growing more wildlife. Stop putting words into my mouth. lol



We have 6 point elk seasons that can withstand every legal bull being shot every year without reducing the population, yet somehow you think we'll grow more game by restricting access and not shooting a few 6 points?

[Liveforthehunt]

I gave up on FD along time ago .... he's one of those "one upper " guys anything you say or do hunting related he did a backflip cartwheel then pulled the trigger. No matter how much you know he is wrong in some aspects he won't give up its a lost cause. Everybody pile into the kootneys even more than the elk crazed season already is and don't leave until every 10 man camp has their 6 point. Lol ;)

[The Dawg]

Social or science based management.

Which one benefits wildlife the most?

[nelsonob1]

The ministry is deactivating the roads not the logging company.

The bridge at Campbell Creek has been down for a couple of years and unless you have a amphibious vehicle, all of the terrain north of there is blocked except for remote boat access.

Powder Creek is a densely forested atv trail with a typical view of ten feet.

Bernard is pretty much the same.

Portman is the only spur road that takes you into open cut blocks with some truck hunting opportunity.

Loki is at best a thirty yard view and a 15% hike.

As pointed out earlier - this really is not a truck hunting area after the loss of the bridge at Campell shut down everything North of there.

Also as for sedimentation - Kootenay Lake has a turbidity of between 0.05 increasing to 0.3 in spring run off. Possibly one of the lowest turbidity bodies of water in the world. Consequently, one of the lowest nutrient lakes in Canada that cannot sustain a fish population without artificial fertilization.

[Wild one]

Social or science based management.

Which one benefits wildlife the most?

Wanting all roads left open and maintained would be social as this is only about a want for motorized access. This has little to no benefit to wildlife.

Deactivation has more scientific benefits to habitat and wildlife but does come at the expense of motorized access.

In my honest opinion it sucks for hunters to loose the motorized access in some areas but the benefits the wildlife gain from it is worth the expense.

[J_T]

Always interesting how FD can transition a discussion on FSR deactivation to a discussion of social vs science, or 6pt elk.

FYI, from a 'science-based' wildlife management perspective, there is a very real concern that with the substantial habitat of the WK a 2 year old can be a 6 pt. This raises questions to the sustainability of a 6 pt hunt. Leaving your yearlings to do the breeding could lead to later birthing and that could place calves in a new vulnerability.

[Fisher-Dude]

Always interesting how FD can transition a discussion on FSR deactivation to a discussion of social vs science, or 6pt elk.

FYI, from a 'science-based' wildlife management perspective, there is a very real concern that with the substantial habitat of the WK a 2 year old can be a 6 pt. This raises questions to the sustainability of a 6 pt hunt. Leaving your yearlings to do the breeding could lead to later birthing and that could place calves in a new vulnerability.


If you believe your own fonting, we should be eliminating the early bow any bull season, as that archery harvest of what is mainly 2 year old bulls would raise questions as to the sustainability of an any bull archery hunt.

Far more young bulls fall to archery equipment across the Kootenays than 2 year old 6 point anomaly bulls do in the WK.

I don't think you thought that through before you hit the post button.

I don't think any of the hunts should be eliminated, but apparently you do, and the argument you've presented works directly against the very season you covet.

[Fisher-Dude]

The ministry is deactivating the roads not the logging company.

The bridge at Campbell Creek has been down for a couple of years and unless you have a amphibious vehicle, all of the terrain north of there is blocked except for remote boat access.

Powder Creek is a densely forested atv trail with a typical view of ten feet.

Bernard is pretty much the same.

Portman is the only spur road that takes you into open cut blocks with some truck hunting opportunity.

Loki is at best a thirty yard view and a 15% hike.

As pointed out earlier - this really is not a truck hunting area after the loss of the bridge at Campell shut down everything North of there.

Also as for sedimentation - Kootenay Lake has a turbidity of between 0.05 increasing to 0.3 in spring run off. Possibly one of the lowest turbidity bodies of water in the world. Consequently, one of the lowest nutrient lakes in Canada that cannot sustain a fish population without artificial fertilization.

Thanks for the reality check.

Your local knowledge of the area certainly puts the close everything crowd back to square one... ;)

[mikeman20]

We've had 40 years of increasing regulations, my friend. 4 point, 6 point, spike fork, road closures, shorter seasons, weapons restrictions, it goes on and on.

Oddly, that coincides with 40 years of declining game populations and declining hunter numbers.

Let's connect the dots and see where it leads us. Let's see if blaming ourselves for being hunters is helping anything.

The area will not be closed to hunting. Walk in and hunt all you want. There is not a single regulation more, and this has absolutely nothing to do with point restrictions, weapon restrictions and shorter seasons.

This has only do do with removing roads that were supposed to be removed in the first place. Roads that wolves use to decimate game.

What do you want? A road every 500m in a grid pattern so that we (and the wolves) have prefect access to every inch of the wilderness?

You keep bringing up completely irrelevant points. If it wasn't for your proper spelling and capitalization I would think you didn't have the ability to understand what you are reading.

[J_T]

If you believe your own fonting, we should be eliminating the early bow any bull season, as that archery harvest of what is mainly 2 year old bulls would raise questions as to the sustainability of an any bull archery hunt.

Far more young bulls fall to archery equipment across the Kootenays than 2 year old 6 point anomaly bulls do in the WK.

I don't think you thought that through before you hit the post button.

I don't think any of the hunts should be eliminated, but apparently you do, and the argument you've presented works directly against the very season you covet.

I did not propose anything should be eliminated. Nice spin. Once again, working hard to alienate resident hunters.

What I said was, the Wildlife biologists are monitoring the age of 6 pts as best they can, and they have expressed the concern I reiterated on here.

Yup, you are right, there are so many bulls taken with archery equipment it supports the point that we can have a quality hunt and be successful with archery equipment. Thanks for pointing that out. Once again, you help in raising awareness to bowhunting and how it can effectively be used as a management tool and support quality hunting opportunities. Do you have any idea how many bulls are taken with archery equipment?

Seriously, is it really not possible for you to drop your hate-on for other user groups.

[Walking Buffalo]

No, I'm not talking about hunters shooting wolves. Should have been more clear.

I'm talking about wolf control, which can occur to help ungulates and maintain the public's access to the backcountry at the same time.

Saying that we are deactivating roads because it stops wolves from killing is a red herring. A 500 ha cutblock with a moose in the middle of it surrounded by wolves is the real problem with habitat alteration, not a spur road that wolves can travel. That moose in a huge cutblock with no escape cover is as good as dead when the wolves find him.

Sure, the wolves can cover ground more quickly with roads, but perhaps it's good to keep them moving, spreading their impact and not having local areas of extirpation of ungulates.




Roads help spread out mortality impact reducing local extirpation. Hmmm.... Never thought of that.

Good point FD, a groundbreaking concept!

A few roadsigns ( in wolf of course) regulating One way Only, no U-turns, Right Turn only and we could have all those wolves concentrated in downtown Cranbrook. 8)

[Fisher-Dude]

we can have a quality hunt


Same words GOABC uses.

You sure you're about opportunity for hunters?

[Fisher-Dude]

Walk in and hunt all you want.

Your FB profile shows you to be a young 20-something.

Should you be able to hunt an area because an older gent of 70 can't access it? Why shouldn't he be able to hunt that drainage too?

[KodiakHntr]

Next you'll want roads and chair lifts to the mountain tops in sheep country, so that old folks can have access to the back country as well I suppose?

[mikeman20]

Your FB profile shows you to be a young 20-something.

Should you be able to hunt an area because an older gent of 70 can't access it? Why shouldn't he be able to hunt that drainage too?

I often hunt with a group of people who are all 55+, and they hike as much or more than I do.

Why don't we put moving sidewalks everywhere so that 90 year olds can all hunt? Why don't you want them to have unlimited access?

Also, stalking my Facebook profile is very creepy of you, do you really not have anything better to do?

Edit: I will likely never hunt this area in question, so any potential advantage I get by being young is irrelevant. I have no personal stake in the area and just want what is best for the animals.

[mikeman20]

Next you'll want roads and chair lifts to the mountain tops in sheep country, so that old folks can have access to the back country as well I suppose?

Chairlifts! That's an even better idea than my moving sidewalks!

If FD was logical in his thinking he will support this for sure!

[bearvalley]

It's just my observation but the deactivation of roads during this high in the wolf population cycle will do little to cut down on wolves ability to still access the back country. A pulled bridge, ditch or water bar will not stop a wolf from traveling a trail that's already become habit to him. It will take at least 20 years for the tree canopy to close in and slow down these travel corridors to any extent.
If the deactivation of roads allows game populations to increase I'm sure some will be led to believe it was because the wolves were shut out of the area. In reality the amount of regulated hunting was reduced and that was the boost that wildlife got. In the end this inaccessible to most hunters, "banked wildlife" is just a wolf turd for a later date. At this stage of the game the only way to reduce the damage wolves are doing to our big game populations is through a substantial lowering of the wolf population and that would entail a widespread cull.
We have had high predator numbers before where wildlife took a shit kicking. The difference was that there used to be the ability to deal with it. Today, too many believe it is socially unacceptable to kill a wolf or for that matter a predatory bear. This majority is totally out of touch with reality. JMO.