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/uploads/2017/05/SR49-Access-Management.pdf
2015 report

[wideopenthrottle]

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/timber-tenures/fibre-recovery/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.

[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.

https://i.imgur.com/2gQFxfN.png

[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.

[walks with deer]

Ourea no shit no where for the moose to hide in your photo exactly the kind of area i am talking about ripping apart

[ACE]

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.

​Care to clarify your statement ?

[Would Rather Be Fishing]

There is an interesting parallel to the SCUBA diving world, where divers directly and indirectly contribute to the devastation of coral reefs. I hear similar arguments as above (e.g. we need more people to experience the underwater ecosystems so they understand and appreciate, etc, why should I pay a premium to dive or why do you want to restrict my ability to dive, oceans should belong to everyone, etc etc)

I know it's not exactly the same situation, but please allow me to point out that, in several cases studies, a restriction (note: NOT elimination) of human access to e.g. coral reefs have shown significant improvements to these ecosystems in surprisingly short periods of time ("years" rather than "decades". On a related note, quite similar effects have been shown by teaching and enforcing responsible (dive) practices within these ecosystems.

Again, I know it's not exactly the same, but still.... worth mentioning.

[338win mag]

The forest companies can pay for the deactivation.
Actually there is alot of deactivaton going on recently and I saw immediate results in game sightings over a 2 year period, it helps alot.
I see Island idiots point too, I think that if the mains are left open and many of the spurs deactivated we could reach a very desirable balance.
The argument about leaving roads open so we can get at a fire easier doesn't wash considering human activity causes most of the fires today...and putting them out is a big part of the problem.
Access is great but do we need this many roads?? the roads are there for resource extraction, thats about it, you can think of your favorite lake to fish 30-40 years ago, you used to have to walk in there and the fishing was good, then a road was built and now the fishing is poor....too much pressure.
Its not about being selfish, its about cutting the bs.

[CranePete]

I can tell you that some of the spurs off the back of Scotty Creek were deactivated by a dozer pulling an enormous chain bridle with large “anchors”. Tore the crap out of everything. Work done on behalf of Tolko.
CranePete

[Bugle M In]

My point wasn't to Keep hunters out.
My point was, if we only apply the "Motor Vehicle Restriction" to hunters, others can go in.
And they do create damage as well, depending on activity.
On top of that, only the "law abiding hunter" is restricted, were as "other hunters" (if you want to call them that), will
just go in, regardless of the law, or because they say they have "the right to" (don't remember them creating traditional roads....do you???).

On top of that, some areas just have "way too many"!
Nothing can hide, or should I say, move without being seen.

And has anyone ever stopped to wonder why so much of the game has become "Nocturnal"!!???
I am sure part of it is all the daytime traffic.

Again, I am a hunter, and use roads to get into some beautiful areas, and do rely on them.
But, "how much is too much"???
And, ripping up the roads compared to vehicle restrictions ensures "everyone stays out"...not just some.
Iland Idiout, if you are an "ethical/law abiding hunter", there are areas right now that are not allowed to hunt!
You do realize some in the hunting community are advocating for more "hunting vehicle restrictions"???
(which, fyi, means you cant go there anyways)

Also, how do you like the no ATV restriction in some MU's of R3 (if you go there)??
You do realize some still can with atv, just not you, unless you are status??

And correct me, I think there are some areas now off limit to vehicles of all types in some of the R5 fires (I could be wrong), but, not everyone is banned!
Get my drift???
Not trying to be selfish....trying to be fair.
And trying to be fair to the game we pursue also.

[Bugle M In]

I can tell you that some of the spurs off the back of Scotty Creek were deactivated by a dozer pulling an enormous chain bridle with large “anchors”. Tore the crap out of everything. Work done on behalf of Tolko.
CranePete

Great to hear!
That is one of the areas I was definitely thinking of when I started this thread.
Also can tell you I see how vehicle closures only "don't help" like in R4.

[Pemby_mess]

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 think you're taking a bit of an unfair beating on your comments. I see your perspective, but only carried out to a very limited extent. Let me ask a couple of honest question to help clarify where you're coming from on this, and how they could actually inform recreational land use policy:

Do you think your status as "disabled", should entitle you to a "right of motorized access" to all alpine areas in the province?

Once in the alpine, does your status as "disabled" ensure that you should have access to everywhere in the alpine? Or just the one designated road you used to access?

[Island Idiots]

My right to access the bush is no different than anyone else's. I would use a road to get there, and no I would not leave that road. I would hunt as near as I can and enjoy the area just like anyone else. To remove access to the bush by disabling side roads would remove my ability to access the back woods. It would however, provide access to those that can hike in.
This is discriminatory. My access will be removed, but others will still have the ability to access where I cannot go.

If you really want to limit access, then do it to everyone. Deactivate the roads, and POST the area NO TRESSPASSING.
Then we can all hunt the area your closures left me in. You can walk up and down the main roads and I will drive my ORV.
I am sure the wildlife will recover quickly if we all make the same sacrifices in the name of wildlife.

[walks with deer]

stay on your island please

[Ourea]

Some more data to chew on.....

Mule deer and access
Behaviour changes What it shows
Habitat selection by mule deer during migration: effects of landscape structure and natural-gas development, (Lendrum et al 2012)
Animals move faster through areas of roads, select habitat away from disturbance
Winter habitat selection of mule deer before and during development of a natural gas field (Sawyer et al, 2006)
Reduced/altered habitat use by mule deer out to 3km from site of disturbance
Migrating Mule Deer: Effects of Anthropogenic ally Altered Landscapes (Lendrum et al, 2013)
Development alters movement rate during migration, implications on arrival times, departure times, birthing areas, locomotion cost
Elk and access
Behavioural changes What it shows
Distribution of Mule Deer and Elk in Relation to Roads (Gregory, 1979)

Avoid areas of high road density and high traffic volume. Effect of Forest Roads and Habitat Use by Roosevelt Elk (Witmer 1985) Avoidance of 250, on either side of paved roads, 125m from forestry spur roads and no avoidance of roads closed to motor vehicles. Thresholds in landscape connectivity and mortality risks in response to growing road networks (Frair et al, 2008) As road density increases elk avoid usage of habitat and increased displacement of elk occurs as they potentially seek more secure habitat. Effects of Roads on Elk: Implications for Management in Forested Ecosystmes (Rowland et al, 2005) Avoid 250m on either side of a road, animals lived in smaller herds to avoid detection, more tolerate of disturbance when appropriate cover is available.
Why stress matters
Research Literature What it shows Condition, Survival, and Cause- Specific Mortality of Adult Female Mule Deer in North-Central New Mexico(Bender et al, 2007)
Mule deer with high fat and body condition scores had higher winter survival rates
Effect of Enhanced Nutrition on Mule Deer Population Rate of Change (Bishop et al, 2009)
Increased nutritional quality did not increase pregnancy but did increase winter survival and neonate survival. Relations between nutritional condition and survival of North American elk Cervus elaphus (Bender et al, 2006)
Showed increased risk of non-human caused mortality with reduced body fat and increased muscle metabolized.
Species have road density thresholds
Species Road density Literature
Large ungulates
0.6 km/km2 (apparent threshold value for naturally functioning landscape)

Ecological effects of roads: towards three summary indices an overview for north America. (Foreman et al, 1997) Moose 0.2-0.4 km/km2 apparent threshold of moose in summer and winter respectively

Functional responses, seasonal variation and thresholds in behavioural responses of moose to road density (Hawthorne et al, 2013) Elk 1.0-1.5 km/km2 increased habitat avoidance and emigration of elk seeking secure habitat

Thresholds in landscape connectivity and mortality risks in response to growing road networks (Frairs et al, 2008) Elk 1.9 km/km2 (Density Standard for habitat effectiveness
Wolves and access
Behavioral responses of wolves to roads: scale-dependent ambivalence (Zimmermann et al, 2014)
Wolves use roads to travel 2x as fast. Develop cryptic behaviour to utilize roads without increased visibility
How linear features alter predator movement and the functional response (McKenzie et al, 2012)

Wolves select for travel on seismic lines, increased rate of travel, increase encounter rate. Prey are at higher vulnerability when in areas of high density Caribou encounters with wolves increase near roads and trails: a time- to-event approach (Whittington et al, 2011) Risk of encounter greater around trails
Movement responses by wolves to industrial linear features and their effect on woodland Caribou in Northeastern Alberta. (Latham et al, 2011)
Concluded seismic lines increase wolf predation risk for caribou resulting in avoidance behaviour of caribou Faster and farther: wolf movement on linear features and implications of hunting behaviour (Dickie et al, 2016)
Wolves move up to 3x faster, farther, higher search rate associated with linear features.

[Ourea]

https://i.imgur.com/EVolk2m.png

[Island Idiots]

stay on your island please

Sorry to disappoint. I live in the Koots!

[Ourea]

https://i.imgur.com/x8gUpVu.png

[Bugle M In]

My right to access the bush is no different than anyone else's. I would use a road to get there, and no I would not leave that road. I would hunt as near as I can and enjoy the area just like anyone else. To remove access to the bush by disabling side roads would remove my ability to access the back woods. It would however, provide access to those that can hike in.
This is discriminatory. My access will be removed, but others will still have the ability to access where I cannot go.

If you really want to limit access, then do it to everyone. Deactivate the roads, and POST the area NO TRESSPASSING.
Then we can all hunt the area your closures left me in. You can walk up and down the main roads and I will drive my ORV.
I am sure the wildlife will recover quickly if we all make the same sacrifices in the name of wildlife.

I understand you.
Believe me, I do.
My dad has quite a bit of disability going on, and I see his frustration, and it hurts me to see him like that.
Yes, he is 80, but has the heart of 25 year old avid hunter.
I too, am facing some serious disabilities that will limit my experience too, on foot.

But, I think in the end (maybe not for us, and our age..i don't know where you are in that stage of the game),
that given time, and if we take other steps to improve habitat, that making these changes to road access might in fact
make the hunting experience better, because I believe it might actually create more game again, or, should I say,
allow game to come back.
And to a point where maybe we see them standing on the side of the road where we can drive.
Ripping up the roads stops everyone.
IF you want to bush wack, then have at it.
But, I think you and I also have to come to the realization, like my dad is, there is a time where some things are beyond
our physical limits, due to age and the body falling apart.

If you find a cure for that one...let me know, as I could use some of that help.

[Jordan f.]

I'm with you Bugle!

Road density needs restrictions. Dig em up, plant trees on em, turn em back into nature.


Island Idiots, you would still have roads to drive. Just a few less. Unfortunately, it's desperately needed in some areas that have gotten out of control.

[Onesock]

I also agree on road deactivation not just closure.

[Jordan f.]

Is there any data showing the effects of "replanted trees" on deactivated roads, and wolf numbers/success?

[Keta1969]

I'm all in favor of nuking side roads and I don't feel it discriminates against anyone. I'm 65 and definitely don't hike into places I did when I was younger and it doesn't bother me that some still do. I try to stay reasonably fit and still enjoy my time in the bush but time waits for no one. As we age there's lots of things we don't do as much as we did when we were young. Personally I think no atv's period should be in the alpine or moose meadows or any sensitive lands and the only way to stop it is to nuke the roads and set stiff fines for unauthorized trail building. Now to Island Idiots, I mean really if the roads hadn't been built would you be lobbying for someone to build them. They were built for a purpose(not hunting or sightseeing) and they should be nuked after that purpose has been full filled

[Island Idiots]

For the record I am not against managing access. Restrictions should be in place where they are required. Road right of way and habitat go hand in hand. Spraying to control plant growth is nonsense. Where road density surpasses a certain limit or impacts wildlife road closures may be required.

There has to be an accepted volume of road access that allows reasonable access for all. Seasonal, and altitude restrictions may also be effective.

I don't need to access the alpine to hunt. But that doesn't mean I still don't get brought to tears every time I get close. I am worried soon the only access I will get is if I pay for a helicopter ride to some ritzy lodge for the rich and famous. You cannot imagine the sense of freedom I experience to head out alone into my favorite valley and drive up my favorite side road negotiating some bad terrain and finally getting to my favorite spot so I can be alone with my thoughts and the most beautiful country any one has ever seen.
This Spring I will do exactly that, and it will take me an hour and a half from my driveway. I am not ready to give that up.

[whitlers]

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.

I will agree with you there. Restrictions only keep honest people out.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Thanks for posting that up Ourea. A lot of that was covered on Sat during the Reg 8 biologists’presentations

[sizedoes matter]

I don’t think logging companies are going to destroy roads if they have future plans for the area. Personally don’t think destroying side/spur roads is a realistic solution. But guides and guys with horses would like it.

Not to get off topic but I think (for example) that mule deer should be on a progressive leh system like Saskatchewan. Then you have to pick one area once every three years. Make them compulsory inspection.

[scoutlt1]

Just a comment on how to deactivate a road...

How about using the wood that is piled up and burned, and spread it on the roads instead? 4 feet high maybe? No vehicle (or anyone on foot) would get through that, no appealing highways for predators, not a barrier to wildlife, suitable for quick "reforestation".....

Sorry, not necessarily a relevant comment on a decent thread, but just throwing it out there.

[Slinky Pickle]

I've mentioned it before but there really needs to be a finite amount of total road length in a given area. If you want to build another 10km of road then somewhere we need to obliterate an existing 10km. Not dig a ditch or two but completely obliterate it. Everyone should have access but the amount of access must be controlled and reduced from what we currently have.

[dapesche]

I'd like to see restrictions in place on roads as well. More specifically I'd like to see those restrictions where their best habitat is or at least the highest densities.

Would have to be science based and I'd be very curious to know if populations best recover when they grow from a dense population or if fragmented populations deal with predation better and therefore recover faster.

I'd assume dense populations would lead to improved calf/fawn survival rates. Close the roads above a certain elevation in the fall and then open them in the spring for predator hunting.

[sizedoes matter]

Elevation won’t work.

[Bugle M In]

I've mentioned it before but there really needs to be a finite amount of total road length in a given area. If you want to build another 10km of road then somewhere we need to obliterate an existing 10km. Not dig a ditch or two but completely obliterate it. Everyone should have access but the amount of access must be controlled and reduced from what we currently have.

That's kind of my thinking.
We don't have to get rid of every road.
There are some roads that lead off the main fsr, and go up into the hills, and I get some that would want to have that.
Its that adding more and more roads without taking out some at the same time, tit for tat, that I feel needs to start happening.
And a sign aren't going to stop them.
Huge log piles and what ever else will.

Hate to say this, if you just plant tress, sapling to be accurate, the quads and trucks will just run over them.
It has to be more destructive to begin with and plant saplings on top.

Also, there was mention of having the forestry industry replant/regrow the area to a more "traditional standard" as it
was before they logged.
I agree also with that, as I hate seeing the area planted to maximize it for just re-harvesting of timber down the road.
That aint helping either, imo.
Sorry, went off track on my own thread.

[Treed]

Road density is one of the biggest effects on wildlife populations. I was just talking to someone yesterday about road density around Kamloops. As a kid I could hike for hours at our cabin without coming across a road or cutblock. Now when I hike, i have to choose my route to avoid them. Island Idiot, you talk about how closing access would impact you when you couldn’t drive to your favourite place, well the roads have severely degraded my places and I was there before them. But that is a purely selfish view. We should rip roads out because we have too many and they are negatively affecting habitat. If we don’t have the habitat, we don’t have the animals (read the southern mulie population thread), which means hunting opportunity is reduced. Our lack of road management is a perfect example of Rape of the Commons used to teach land use planning 101.

[RobU]

[QUOTE=Bugle M In;2077552]That's kind of my thinking.
We don't have to get rid of every road.
There are some roads that lead off the main fsr, and go up into the hills, and I get some that would want to have that.
Its that adding more and more roads without taking out some at the same time, tit for tat, that I feel needs to start happening.
And a sign aren't going to stop them.
Huge log piles and what ever else will.

Hate to say this, if you just plant tress, sapling to be accurate, the quads and trucks will just run over them.
It has to be more destructive to begin with and plant saplings on top.

Also, there was mention of having the forestry industry replant/regrow the area to a more "traditional standard" as it
was before they logged.
I agree also with that, as I hate seeing the area planted to maximize it for just re-harvesting of timber down the road.
That aint helping either, imo.
Sorry, went off track on my thread

agree with most on this thread. You won’t find many people saying we have better outdoor adventure and hunting opportunities with 600,000 km of resource roads compared to when we had 200,000 km of resource roads in this province. Most of us in our lifetime will see the number reach 1 million km of resource roads in bc unless our current joke of a forest practices code changes and govt forces big industry to clean up their act.
We are watching our fish and wildlife get sold out to resource profits with no accountability at all from forestry and oil/gas industry. Most of us use google earth I’m sure. Please take a good look at the infinite km of roads, spur roads, access trails seismic lines in BC. Then please consider the question- when is enough going to be enough? What price of unlimited access and habitat destruction are we willing to pay? We all understand the economic impact natural resources have on B.C. its huge. But we need to enforce resource road building, extraction, replanting, rehabilitate the land and completely deactivate a large percentage of these roads. Our fish and wildlife is at stake here, not our privilege to hunt. Guarantee we will leave a much better environment for our children and grand children to enjoy.
SSS you know I logged for many years. I’m proud of that part of my life. But I will be the very first to say I’m honestly sickened, embarrassed and disappointed with what I see happening on such a massive scale without anything being done to repair the environment and habitat the very animals we love depend on. Let’s please understand what’s at stake here and by doing something about it all outdoor activities will improve dramatically including our hunting.

[Jordan f.]

Is there much of a push for this from hunting orgs? bcwf, BHA, local rod n clubs, etc ?

Would be some good PR for the resident hunter, that's for sure.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Is there much of a push for this from hunting orgs? bcwf, BHA, local rod n clubs, etc ?

Would be some good PR for the resident hunter, that's for sure.

The best thing we can all do is engauge our MLAs on the subject.
The decision lies waaaay up the ladder from our game biologists

[Jordan f.]

The best thing we can all do is engauge our MLAs on the subject.
The decision lies waaaay up the ladder from our game biologists

True. But similarly to the BCWF's petition on better allocation of hunter raised funds, could they not do a petition for something like this?

But you are right. Everyone needs to raise their voice and contact their MLA's. Squeeky wheel gets the grease...

[Dannybuoy]

For the record I am not against managing access. Restrictions should be in place where they are required. Road right of way and habitat go hand in hand. Spraying to control plant growth is nonsense. Where road density surpasses a certain limit or impacts wildlife road closures may be required.

There has to be an accepted volume of road access that allows reasonable access for all. Seasonal, and altitude restrictions may also be effective.

I don't need to access the alpine to hunt. But that doesn't mean I still don't get brought to tears every time I get close. I am worried soon the only access I will get is if I pay for a helicopter ride to some ritzy lodge for the rich and famous. You cannot imagine the sense of freedom I experience to head out alone into my favorite valley and drive up my favorite side road negotiating some bad terrain and finally getting to my favorite spot so I can be alone with my thoughts and the most beautiful country any one has ever seen.
This Spring I will do exactly that, and it will take me an hour and a half from my driveway. I am not ready to give that up.
Right on ..... what is the justification for deactivating 100 + year old mining roads ?? The more I read from the gov bio's the less faith I have that they have a clue about what's going on ..... mule deer study ... Ha ha ha ... it's about the $$$

[303savage]

they take advantage of their traditional ways.
I'm trying to figure out what F.N. "traditional ways are" Can somebody explain them to me.

[j270wsm]

decided to delete my post

[Ourea]

Right on ..... what is the justification for deactivating 100 + year old mining roads ?? The more I read from the gov bio's the less faith I have that they have a clue about what's going on ..... mule deer study ... Ha ha ha ... it's about the $$$

I think your statement is ignorant, all due respect.
Read the science, the data is there.

It's not about the $$$, that's one asset game bios do not have and desperately want.

Is it game bios allowing aggressive resource extraction and over building of roads?
Is it game bios that write forest practice policies?
Is it game bios that don't make wildlife a priority in this province?
Is it game bios that allow unregulated harvest of fish and wildlife?

[Dannybuoy]

I think your statement is ignorant, all due respect.
Read the science, the data is there.

It's not about the $$$, that's one asset game bios do not have and desperately want.

Is it game bios allowing aggressive resource extraction and over building of roads?
Is it game bios that write forest practice policies?
Is it game bios that don't make wildlife a priority in this province?
Is it game bios that allow unregulated harvest of fish and wildlife?
First , you have your opinion , I have mine ....
data can be written and manipulated .... which it is . Almost every outdoorman/hunter/trapper (I say almost every because some on here are the exceptions)
know what the problems are ....meanwhile new jobs , consulting companies are lining up to fill their pockets. Not something you want to hear but most of the people I know in regions 8 & now 4 either don't care or think wildlife management is mismanaged . So you might not like what I posted but it is not ignorant.

[Ourea]

How do you fix it then.

[Ourea]

Knowing a fair amount of what goes on I wish I could share such a simplistic view as yours.

[Dannybuoy]

First , you have your opinion , I have mine ....
data can be written and manipulated .... which it is . Almost every outdoorman/hunter/trapper (I say almost every because some on here are the exceptions)
know what the problems are ....meanwhile new jobs , consulting companies are lining up to fill their pockets. Not something you want to hear but most of the people I know in regions 8 & now 4 either don't care or think wildlife management is mismanaged . So you might not like what I posted but it is not ignorant.
I didn't answer those 4 questions ..... the first 2 would be a No and they would definately have input into 3 & 4 and are failing

[Dannybuoy]

Knowing a fair amount of what goes on I wish I could share such a simplistic view as yours.
Every hear of KISS ..... Keep It Simple Stupid .

[wideopenthrottle]

:wink:level it all, pave it and paint it pink then we could all have wheelchair access everywhere when we get old:wink:

[Dannybuoy]

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.
On topic .... This . Only the elite can get to so many areas now ( either elite fit or elite wealthy) examples : Valhallas , Percells , the Mrs & I could never hike thru those areas but guy wth a chopper or able to hike with gear for days can .... Not a fan ,

[Stone Sheep Steve]

First , you have your opinion , I have mine ....
data can be written and manipulated .... which it is . Almost every outdoorman/hunter/trapper (I say almost every because some on here are the exceptions)
know what the problems are ....meanwhile new jobs , consulting companies are lining up to fill their pockets. Not something you want to hear but most of the people I know in regions 8 & now 4 either don't care or thin

k wildlife management is mismanaged . So you might not like what I posted but it is not ignorant.

In BC we rarely have enough money to actually manage wildlife. All we usually can do is manage hunters.
That’s the biggest issue.

[Ourea]

Every hear of KISS ..... Keep It Simple Stupid .

What would you do to positively change things other than "keep it simple stupid"

[Dannybuoy]

What would you do to positively change things other than "keep it simple stupid"
I only referenced KISS because you said I had a simplistic view .... sometimes that is what works .
I believe every area even within a region has a different reason for why wildlife is declining ... I could only comment on very small areas , that my extended family has hunted for over 100 years without change until the last decade . I am sure there there are hundreds of ranchers , hunters that can say the same about their areas ... what the study going to tell them ?

[HappyJack]

I'm trying to figure out what F.N. "traditional ways are" Can somebody explain them to me.

Traditional Ways: Having the freedom to stay within Laws created by whiteman that are designed to control the actions of the whiteman....or not. If your traditional way was to hunt deer in July, why would you change that to comply with laws that were not written to suppress you?

[Ourea]

I only referenced KISS because you said I had a simplistic view .... sometimes that is what works .
I believe every area even within a region has a different reason for why wildlife is declining ... I could only comment on very small areas , that my extended family has hunted for over 100 years without change until the last decade . I am sure there there are hundreds of ranchers , hunters that can say the same about their areas ... what the study going to tell them ?

Is it habitat fragmentation?
Resource extraction?
Is it rd density?
Is it predation?
If so, what percentage are cougars vs wolves vs bears vs coyotes.
Are there patterns as to where and when the bulk of predation happens?

[Bugle M In]

Road density is one of the biggest effects on wildlife populations. I was just talking to someone yesterday about road density around Kamloops. As a kid I could hike for hours at our cabin without coming across a road or cutblock. Now when I hike, i have to choose my route to avoid them. Island Idiot, you talk about how closing access would impact you when you couldn’t drive to your favourite place, well the roads have severely degraded my places and I was there before them. But that is a purely selfish view. We should rip roads out because we have too many and they are negatively affecting habitat. If we don’t have the habitat, we don’t have the animals (read the southern mulie population thread), which means hunting opportunity is reduced. Our lack of road management is a perfect example of Rape of the Commons used to teach land use planning 101.

The example around Kammy is the best stuff to give example too.(on my experience and knowing the area)
Time permitting, I will answer Island, shortly.(I have some visuals for us to all think about)

[HighCountryBC]

I believe every area even within a region has a different reason for why wildlife is declining ... I could only comment on very small areas , that my extended family has hunted for over 100 years without change until the last decade .

That sounds more like "I don't have the answer so I'll give a generalization" response.

Road density is a huge issue that affects wildlife movement, utilization of preferred habitat, predators etc. Region 8 has the highest road density in the province.

You also say consulting companies are lining their pockets - care to expand on that?

You need to have hard data to support future decisions, implement/expand seasons etc. Without it, government isn't likely to support recommendations.

[Jordan f.]

So I'm not putting words in someone's mouth..

Dannybuoy, do you think having a road density cap and replanting(reclaiming) trees on roads that are above said threshold, would have a

A) positive effect on BC's wildlife
B) negative effect on BC's wildlife
C) no effect on BC's wildlife

[Bugle M In]

For the record I am not against managing access. Restrictions should be in place where they are required. Road right of way and habitat go hand in hand. Spraying to control plant growth is nonsense. Where road density surpasses a certain limit or impacts wildlife road closures may be required.

There has to be an accepted volume of road access that allows reasonable access for all. Seasonal, and altitude restrictions may also be effective.

I don't need to access the alpine to hunt. But that doesn't mean I still don't get brought to tears every time I get close. I am worried soon the only access I will get is if I pay for a helicopter ride to some ritzy lodge for the rich and famous. You cannot imagine the sense of freedom I experience to head out alone into my favorite valley and drive up my favorite side road negotiating some bad terrain and finally getting to my favorite spot so I can be alone with my thoughts and the most beautiful country any one has ever seen.
This Spring I will do exactly that, and it will take me an hour and a half from my driveway. I am not ready to give that up.
I appreciate this post from you.
I too (ironic since I started the thread) don't want to see some roads gone either.
Agreed, most of us are not privileged enough to go on horse.
The EK is like my 2nd home, and nothing compares to it's beauty anywhere else on the planet, imo.
I would forgo the beauty between Miss January' thighs anytime to stand on top of a 2500m peak in the Rockies of the EK.
(yes, I am not quite right in the head at times)

I can visualize the roads you speak of.
Theres roads that run along the main rivers, then there are roads that off shoot from them and up a mtn, giving you some decent hunting opportunity and better still, some fantastic view.
Those aren't the roads I want to see gone either, if possible.
But, compared to 30 years ago, you go up that road into the mtn, and there is nothing but one long cut block, from rock face, down to creek and back up the other side to the other rock face.
And nothing but spur roads/slash roads going up every 500 yards it seems (it's that stuff that has to stop, and a lot of it
is due to what we have allowed the forestry industry to cut down)

I want you to visualize this scenario, where I hunt around kammy (and others can say the same in other parts of the province that they see).
My buddy drops me off on a main fsr. (this is an actual scenario!!)
I walk due west 1km.
Meanwhile, he drives 5km due north, then 1 km due west and then 5km due south, and picks me up again.
During his drive, he has passed no less then 8 roads shooting off elsewhere.
I, during my walk, pass no less then 4 roads shooting off.
The whole time I walk, I can see in any direction for at least 2 km, without hardly a tree to obscure my view.
(and the stands of trees that you do see in the distance, are only a 100 yards deep till the next opening!)
During that walk out in the open, there are slash roads all over.
Same goes for my buddy during his drive, he can see for 2-3 km in every direction and plent of skidder and slash roads as well.

Now imagine, a Moose moving across this area, 1 km to 2 km way from me or my partner.
It would take my partner all but a minute to figure out 8 different ways to approach that Moose!
To close distance to a shootable range.
I too have many options to get thru the area quick on foot!

That's the crap that has to stop.
Yes, the reason for this scenario is logging, but the roads are the by product.
And yes, the beetle kill has a lot to do with it lately, but this scenario was going on long before the beetle showed up in the area I am talking about.

So, even if you put in the regs that we cant use quads or even trucks, some still can.
Do you think Moose, Deer and Elk stand a chance in this type of terrain we have just created?
Do you not think in this case, there is "way too much access opportunity"?

I don't want to see everything torn up, not by a long shot.
But some areas just have way too much access to every square inch of that area.

[Island Idiots]

Thanks Bugle M In, You describe perfectly the area I hunt.
"There's roads that run along the main rivers, then there are roads that off shoot from them and up a mtn, giving you some decent hunting opportunity and better still, some fantastic view."


We can agree that road density needs to be addressed. The area you describe is overrun with roads. Reducing road access in areas that you describe would make sense to me and I could support that. We do need to address every area individually to make changes.
Some would have all access removed. I don't support that, and I am pretty aggressive when it comes to access for me. I need some FSR and side roads to allow me to gain access. I have never hunted Kamloops and from what I hear road density is off the charts and that is not cool. Closures need to be instituted in cases such as you describe.

[walks with deer]

hey there we go looks like we are all on the same page.

[Dannybuoy]

Thanks Bugle M In, You describe perfectly the area I hunt.
"There's roads that run along the main rivers, then there are roads that off shoot from them and up a mtn, giving you some decent hunting opportunity and better still, some fantastic view."


We can agree that road density needs to be addressed. The area you describe is overrun with roads. Reducing road access in areas that you describe would make sense to me and I could support that. We do need to address every area individually to make changes.
Some would have all access removed. I don't support that, and I am pretty aggressive when it comes to access for me. I need some FSR and side roads to allow me to gain access. I have never hunted Kamloops and from what I hear road density is off the charts and that is not cool. Closures need to be instituted in cases such as you describe.




Sounds about right to me as well , as I said lots of different scenarios , almost every valley is different . In respect to road density I haven't seen anything like described that they didn't obliterate alot of the spur roads .

[Dannybuoy]

So I'm not putting words in someone's mouth..

Dannybuoy, do you think having a road density cap and replanting(reclaiming) trees on roads that are above said threshold, would have a

A) positive effect on BC's wildlife
B) negative effect on BC's wildlife
C) no effect on BC's wildlife
A) from reading some of the other posts . Any areas I have seen aren't that bad .... and the tree's grow up and within 10 years or so that cutblock is a great hiding spot .

[303savage]

roads are a vital part of everyone enjoying the wilderness
I think that once there is road access to an area it is not wilderness any more.
I

[Bugle M In]

You cant compare the road density today compared to the 70's for instance.
There were lots of roads that have been around forever.
Those roads didn't equate to loss of wildlife back then.
If you look into the Game #'s, during that time some areas actually did see wildlife increase.
But, you look at how different the landscape is now, and yes, in part to beetle kill, but none the less, regardless of reasons,
the logging really got out of hand, and so did all the roads.

I guess there could be some debate to as if the problem is actually road access or loss of mature growth canopy?
Either way, we don't need all those roads.
And those roads shouldn't just be restricted by a sign.
This is a thread on road access, but we all know how those roads got there, and we all have to appreciate the opportunities
it has/does and will give us.
But when is too much...to much.?
When is a cut block too big and too many in a given area?
How much "sightline" is too much?

Road Access is only a part of the issue.
To me, I think we need to re-evaluate how we harvest the natural resources as well and how we leave it when we are done.
I don't think we are as great a role model for the rest of the planet as we think we are!!
It is a factor to why wildlife is failing to come back.

It's only one part of the puzzle, but an important one.
You still have to have the proper habitat inside that.
Lots of pieces that need to get fixed, and we cant really wait.

[RobU]

I think that once there is road access to an area it is not wilderness any more.
I

You nailed it!!!! Why are we wanting and needing endless access to areas we couldn’t get to in the first place. Is our own personal comforts and desires so important that we’re willing to accept these resource strategies ??? Remember we are leaving this mess for future generations to deal with. Why??? Why can’t we be the generation that grew balls and put BC back on track? It’s a classic David vs Goliath story. And truthfully I want to be on David’s team. We will all benefit from this both now and more importantly down the road when we’re worm dirt.

[RobU]

Now just a thought but taking a stand on a very important issue such as this will allow us as hunters to form bonds and friendships with many Other individuals, organizations, associations and special interest groups in BC. These alliances are extremely important to the future of hunting as this issue goes way beyond us. Examples (all First Nations, other forward thinking conservation groups, all the watershed organizations plus many more) its not just about us. We should also see our “hunter image” dramatically improve as a result, and let’s face it folks....we could sure use a boost in that category as well. Something to think about anyways.

[Bugle M In]

Here is a good visual of the kammy/cache creek/scotty cr/Bonaparte area in 1984 (2nd pic will be a recent pic from google)
https://i.imgur.com/rLq7PAi.png
This pic is a more recent, and fyi, still not a fully current one, but you can see what has "really changed"
https://i.imgur.com/gyNAM9L.png

[RobU]

Crazy images. Really a good visual wake up call for all of us.

[Bugle M In]

Crazy images. Really a good visual wake up call for all of us.
yup, and the last image is 3 years old! plus there was a fire that burnt up much of what still looks treed in that image.
To boot, they are scheduled to log much of the last stuff near highways now which was winter range when snow got
too high on the main plateau!
So yes, more roads!

[HarryToolips]

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.
I agree that more, not all, but more, FSR's have to be deactivated..,it should lead to better hunting in the future...

[RobU]

I agree that more, not all, but more, FSR's have to be deactivated..,it should lead to better hunting in the future...

Correct. It will take years of red tape, bureaucracy, negotiations and re - writing a poorly made forest practices code. A fast action approach could be implemented to recognize critical zones throughout B.C. where rehabilitation and thorough deactivation will create positive results to our F&W. This matter will not be taken lightly by all resource companies as what we are wanting to ask of them is completely opposite of what they’ve been allowed to get away with for decades. I read a post here saying pressure to our political leaders and representatives is needed. Yes. They will need pressure from all angles on this one until they realize votes are at stake plus their juicy pay checks and retirement packages. Then they will come forward telling all of BC about “their” great idea to clean up our current resource management program. Haha

[whitlers]

Here is a good visual of the kammy/cache creek/scotty cr/Bonaparte area in 1984 (2nd pic will be a recent pic from google)
https://i.imgur.com/rLq7PAi.png
This pic is a more recent, and fyi, still not a fully current one, but you can see what has "really changed"
https://i.imgur.com/gyNAM9L.png


Wow that's crazy. I am quite familiar with the area and that puts it into perspective.

[RobU]

It does need to be mentioned that the pine beetle has payed a role in this mess in certain areas and aggressive harvesting has been the reaction to this little *******. However this being an access thread, all the roads remain.

[HarryToolips]

^^^I agree.....

[CAC]

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.

Yes! There has to be serious discussion and immediate action. Even, as Alberta has done, limit OHVs to specific trail systems. The problem isn't people walking or riding bicycles down an old FSR, but the 10 guys in tucks, quads or SxS every hr or two.

[Wild one]

A road density cap I agree would be a positive but old roads need to be more then deactivated but instead obliterated so atv and lifted trucks can’t use them. The present methods do nothing to slow even a guy with a chainsaw and a lifted truck. Even plant a little poplar( not that poplar needs help) in the old roads to add some mixed timber and it grows like a weed. The road density in some areas is insane but so is the sea of chocked together young pine

Kept within reason it would be a positive for wildlife and little impact on hunters. Reaching an agreement with the logging industry is one hurdle but that is likely only going to accomplish results on new spurs. Do to the density in some areas dealing with present spurs is an issue

This is still just a piece of the puzzle and even though it is important in some areas it is not an answer to all of BCs issues. There is many areas in decline that road density is not an issue

[willyqbc]

The problems described here seem to me to be more about the extent of the logging, rather than the road densities. Pre pine beetle there was much stricter limits on block sizes and how close together the blocks could be. There was MUCH more timber left between blocks, when the beetle came, those limits were loosened to the point of almost non-existant in an effort to contain the beetle and extract the resource before it became unmarketable. As we are coming out the other end of the beetle epidemic, as far as I know the old limits have not been re-instated. Back in the day, there were many of these spur roads that went on for miles, to get to 4 blocks at the back, or at least you only encountered a block every km or so.....now those same roads are solid cut block from start to finish, eliminating all cover for the critters.
As far as them de-activating the roads....sorry, by in large, its not gonna happen. After a block is logged, there is a 7-8 year window that the roads remain open so that the forestry departments can do their re-forestation work...planting, thinning, study etc until the block is deemed to be "free growing". at some point in those 7-8 years if they go back into a road and take another block...the clock resets and the road needs to be open for another 7-8 years. But maybe 8 years go by and no new blocks are done....BUT, what if there is a new block slated to be done 2 years later....they are not gonna destroy a road, just to have to rebuild it a couple years later.....just not gonna happen.
The amount of new logging however is going to be drastically reduced going forward as the annual allowable cut is being slashed drastically going forward, the numbers I have heard are that 8-10 sawmills will shut down in the next few years due to the cutbacks. Have allready seen it here in quesnel, with 2 mills down, and West Frasers "flagship" mill dropping a shift.
It may be that the problem will "correct" itself over the next couple decades as nature reclaims some of these old roads and blocks. time will tell I guess.
All of that doesn't even take into account the oil and gas industry, where roads need to remain open in perpetuity to allow the daily checks on all stations and access to the lines for as long as the pipeline is active.
So as I see it....theres a choice to be made.....jobs, and the health of the provincial economy....or habitat quality for wildlife. Granted, its a shitty choice to be made, but the reality is every road and cutblock represents someones job, and its all well and good to be idealistic about it...as long as its the other guy who loses his job.....different story when its you who can't keep a roof over your kids head.....that reality is really going to start hitting home in the lumber industry in the next ten years. So its all well and good to rail against industry....but at the end of the day,in the real world...would YOU willingly give up your livelyhood in the name of habitat? Thats the REAL choice here.........

JMO
Chris

[Island Idiots]

Thanks Willyqbc. You make complete sense. and thankfully those zealots who would keep me and my ORV out of the woods will not get their wish. Changes need to be made to somehow control road density and improve habitat. It would be great if the province set a side enough money to hire students to do habitat restoration using these very roads, and then if removing the roads is not doable, implement complete closures to everyone so wildlife can recover.
This would not have to be everywhere, but used to rehabilitate area by area so as to still provide ample opportunity for all to access the back country. Once the area has recovered it can be opened again.

For those that think a road in an area removes its status as wilderness there are plenty of preserves and Parks to hike in.
Access roads aren't going anywhere they just need to be controlled.

[j270wsm]

In reference to predators......The roads are an extension of the massive super highways that we call cut blocks and until these cut blocks grow up and provide cover, it won't matter how many roads we deactivate.
For hunters......I feel its not the roads as much as the endless sight lines and loss of safe travel corridors. Modern optics allow us to glass km's and shoot 300-1000yds. Shooting long distance in cutblocks wouldn't be possible if forrestry practices mandated that all cut blocks have strips/pockets of timber every 150-200yds for travel corridors and to block endless sigh lines. That alone would help with hunters and predators.
For poachers......they are going to break the laws any way possible, but yes I agree that it could/would be harder for them if there were less roads to drive.
For FN.......less roads would reduce their harvest but so would not being allowed to hunt every where/any where, for anything and night hunting.......but those are traditional ways so, other than road reduction, we're screwed when it comes to FN.

[Wild one]

The problems described here seem to me to be more about the extent of the logging, rather than the road densities. Pre pine beetle there was much stricter limits on block sizes and how close together the blocks could be. There was MUCH more timber left between blocks, when the beetle came, those limits were loosened to the point of almost non-existant in an effort to contain the beetle and extract the resource before it became unmarketable. As we are coming out the other end of the beetle epidemic, as far as I know the old limits have not been re-instated. Back in the day, there were many of these spur roads that went on for miles, to get to 4 blocks at the back, or at least you only encountered a block every km or so.....now those same roads are solid cut block from start to finish, eliminating all cover for the critters.
As far as them de-activating the roads....sorry, by in large, its not gonna happen. After a block is logged, there is a 7-8 year window that the roads remain open so that the forestry departments can do their re-forestation work...planting, thinning, study etc until the block is deemed to be "free growing". at some point in those 7-8 years if they go back into a road and take another block...the clock resets and the road needs to be open for another 7-8 years. But maybe 8 years go by and no new blocks are done....BUT, what if there is a new block slated to be done 2 years later....they are not gonna destroy a road, just to have to rebuild it a couple years later.....just not gonna happen.
The amount of new logging however is going to be drastically reduced going forward as the annual allowable cut is being slashed drastically going forward, the numbers I have heard are that 8-10 sawmills will shut down in the next few years due to the cutbacks. Have allready seen it here in quesnel, with 2 mills down, and West Frasers "flagship" mill dropping a shift.
It may be that the problem will "correct" itself over the next couple decades as nature reclaims some of these old roads and blocks. time will tell I guess.
All of that doesn't even take into account the oil and gas industry, where roads need to remain open in perpetuity to allow the daily checks on all stations and access to the lines for as long as the pipeline is active.
So as I see it....theres a choice to be made.....jobs, and the health of the provincial economy....or habitat quality for wildlife. Granted, its a shitty choice to be made, but the reality is every road and cutblock represents someones job, and its all well and good to be idealistic about it...as long as its the other guy who loses his job.....different story when its you who can't keep a roof over your kids head.....that reality is really going to start hitting home in the lumber industry in the next ten years. So its all well and good to rail against industry....but at the end of the day,in the real world...would YOU willingly give up your livelyhood in the name of habitat? Thats the REAL choice here.........

JMO
Chris


Everything you say is correct and for that reason it would would not be a large scale change. There would be spurs that could qualify for being reclaimed without much resistance at some stage but likely not the number of roads people are hoping for

There will likely be an increase in roads salvaging burnt timber in areas as well

[boxhitch]

Hunters and trappers have a friend in Govt on the access issue in Mike Morris.
He gave a presentation a few years ago at the BCTA convention with several maps like Bugle's showing th increase in road density over time
Logging and road building have a great impact on more than just hunting in BC
Talking with him at the time he had some good ideas on how to approach the problem

[Bugle M In]

Lets not just blame roads here for access.
If all it takes is a road to "no longer make the area wild"???
Then what do we describe an area where no roads exists, so everyone takes a "Jet Boat"??
(or a Plane to Gain Access)
Does wild only mean a "National Park"???
(Seems to me there is a lot of human movement in them as well).

Yes, the majority of roads in the Province are from resource extraction.
And just because a sign goes up, does not stop "everyone" from accessing the area.
Yes, a lot of Roads will stay in place.
Yes Beetle has played a big role, but a lot started to happen before beetle.

So, how do we "really describe access".
Do sight lines belong in the discussion?, when you drive these roads and see endlessly in all directions.
Again, probably more of a Resource Extraction Topic, but a lot of byproduct comes from it.

I am still going to post a few more pics from Google Time Lapse from different parts of the province.
It's quite the eye opener.
Pick your favorite spot, and let time lapse roll.

[boxhitch]

"If all it takes is a road to "no longer make the area wild"???
Then what do we describe an area where no roads exists, so everyone takes a "Jet Boat"??
(or a Plane to Gain Access)
Does wild only mean a "National Park"???
(Seems to me there is a lot of human movement in them as well)."

How extreme do you want the definition to be?
Does true wilderness have any human footprint?
Muskwa Ketchika comes to mind, no industry, limited road access, but very active horse/atv/plane/boat traffic. Is it 'protected' enough?

[303savage]

There seems to be 2 types of ORV users. those that use ORVs to get some place in the bush and those that rip up the landscape for fun. when I lived on V.I. there was a road overgrown with alder trees up to about inch or so in diameter we use to walk up to hunt the hill above. we got there one afternoon and see somebody had drove up it but didn't come down. We had a pretty good idea what we would find. About half way down there was a 4x4 with the radiator push out from all the trees he push over driving up.

[RobU]

In reference to predators......The roads are an extension of the massive super highways that we call cut blocks and until these cut blocks grow up and provide cover, it won't matter how many roads we deactivate.
For hunters......I feel its not the roads as much as the endless sight lines and loss of safe travel corridors. Modern optics allow us to glass km's and shoot 300-1000yds. Shooting long distance in cutblocks wouldn't be possible if forrestry practices mandated that all cut blocks have strips/pockets of timber every 150-200yds for travel corridors and to block endless sigh lines. That alone would help with hunters and predators.
For poachers......they are going to break the laws any way possible, but yes I agree that it could/would be harder for them if there were less roads to drive.
For FN.......less roads would reduce their harvest but so would not being allowed to hunt every where/any where, for anything and night hunting.......but those are traditional ways so, other than road reduction, we're screwed when it comes to FN.


I believe you are right. Putting a sign on a resource road kindly asking everyone to keep out would be like putting a sign in a high school asking for no gum chewing and cellphone use. This has been interesting. I’m quite suprised by some showing their own personal access to backcountry has a higher priority than our F & W. someone mentioned jet boats and access. Yes rivers are just water roads.... so far the river doesn’t bring heavy industry capable of exucuting habitat loss.

[Bugle M In]

I believe you are right. Putting a sign on a resource road kindly asking everyone to keep out would be like putting a sign in a high school asking for no gum chewing and cellphone use. This has been interesting. I’m quite suprised by some showing their own personal access to backcountry has a higher priority than our F & W. someone mentioned jet boats and access. Yes rivers are just water roads.... so far the river doesn’t bring heavy industry capable of exucuting habitat loss.

That's my point.
From talking to a few folks now (looking for new areas to hunt), some areas are so full of jet boat traffic also.
From what it sounds like, there's more traffic on the rivers then on most of the roads I use to hunt in:shock:.
This isn't just taking a poke at ORV users.
Access comes in many forms, and everyone is using them, for all sorts of reasons.

So, is the real issue access?, or is it much much more than that?
Here is some more pics of other areas to show the "transformation" from 1984 til 2016.
https://i.imgur.com/mgxQLD3.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/sLYyMZ3.jpg

[Bugle M In]

One more set, as one could go on and on showing these pics all over the province (and again, only up to 2016)
https://i.imgur.com/hwjtO9a.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/WBaw3NF.jpg

[Bugle M In]

Makes you wonder "what should we be discussing"??
Access is on created mostly by industry.
Access comes in many forms of transport.
Signs and even rules don't limit access.
And, even if access is removed, things like ski doo go right over open areas like this come winter.
Law abiding people will obey, but others feel the rules either don't apply or don't care.
Makes you wonder how we let some industries remove so much timber. without allowing other areas to fully re-generate
first?

Other question is, how much do you want to restrict and how.
Remember, the more you close off, the more we get lumped together elsewhere where it is open.
The more that happens, the more that area gets run over.

I brought this up to show that I see a lot of us pointing fingers at each other.
Blaming this group of hunters or that group for problems.

Look at the planet from the sky down.
And pictures are worth a thousand words.
And we wonder why game is missing, or, not coming back?
Is it just hunters?

[Wild one]

The miles of choked in regrown pine are not really noticeable either.

A lot of areas beetle kill plays a big roll in the harvest area. The stands of beetle that were too small to harvest create another issue when a good chunk blows down creating a tangle mess creating almost a 5ft+ deep tangled mess for the forest floor. You don’t see much for ungulates or sign of them in these areas. A little blow down is good but not to this level

When beetle kill is a high concentration it is worse then logging so clear some of these areas was/is beneficial. Unfortunately this creates more spurs and the way things are sprayed and replanted becomes another issue

[Wild one]

Double post

[Bugle M In]

I guess in a nutshell when it comes down to it, there are a bunch of issues resulting in our hunting looking so dismal.
Even just looking at an issue like "road access" has issues inside of issues.
Truth is, not 1 person nor 1 organization has the ability to fix them all.
I am glad that someone like Jesse is looking at MD and wildfire as one fix in the end.
I am glad that some see Access, in all it's forms as an issue.
The list goes on and on.
This is an effort that takes multiple people, multiple organizations and industry to fix it for the better.
Even some out trying to protect hunting and it's heritage.
Yet, there seems to be a real lack of involvement by many.
The issues are not just a sign here or a reg there to fix it.
It's going to take a lot of people to get involved.
It's going to take a lot of money and many "working together", not "against each other".
Hopefully the pictures helps to "open some eyes".
Because it seems from the lack of people entering the "raffle", many don't really get it, or really don't care ???

[Bugle M In]

The miles of choked in regrown pine are not really noticeable either.

A lot of areas beetle kill plays a big roll in the harvest area. The stands of beetle that were too small to harvest create another issue when a good chunk blows down creating a tangle mess creating almost a 5ft+ deep tangled mess for the forest floor. You don’t see much for ungulates or sign of them in these areas. A little blow down is good but not to this level

When beetle kill is a high concentration it is worse then logging so clear some of these areas was/is beneficial. Unfortunately this creates more spurs and the way things are sprayed and replanted becomes another issue

Yup, absolutely.
And nothing close to what the landscape looked like before we went in there to extract.
Turn the house upside down and wonder why the main occupants can no longer live in it!!???

[Bugle M In]

A request to have posted:
https://i.imgur.com/NZE0giL.jpg

[walks with deer]

wow yes agreed above

[RobU]

Yup, absolutely.
And nothing close to what the landscape looked like before we went in there to extract.
Turn the house upside down and wonder why the main occupants can no longer live in it!!???

This is so true. As hunters we need to take a good hard look at where we stand as we are swinging a double edged sword. We should all have to agree we need to be conservationists first and hunters second. If we stand by endless habitat loss and infinite road building to ensure our access then I firmly believe we’re on the wrong side of the fence. The best interest of our F&W should come first and foremost then I promise you we will see the benifits through our binoculars and fishing rods for years to come.

[RobU]

Sadly you are making this all about you. It’s way bigger than that. Please take a moment to really look hard and read the many reports and presentations being offered on the topic. As hunters we have to wake up to the fact BC is changing faster than anyone could possibly imagine. There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell there will be this sudden change in the way BC resources are managed. I assure you, as most do on this thread there will be plenty of access for all. Changes will take years and decades. Not one person on this thread has mentioned we should make up 5,000 signs and start closing roads. That would accomplish very little. Open your mind to the matter please and you will realize this. I’m not a rich man. If I want a hunting adventure away from it all I need to work extra, save extra then build the brownie points with wife. Then yes I can enjoy a trip to a remote location. But for local hunting around home I’m in the same boat as everyone else. And I really don’t like what I see from there. The images provided on this thread pretty much sum it up. Why on earth are you fighting for access to areas we didn’t have access to in the first place?

[RobU]

Above reply to island idiots page one.

[slowjo]

i'd like to see more undeveloped forests protected from any road development, as well as more road deactivation once industry has worked in an area.

[horshur]

i'd like to see more undeveloped forests protected from any road development, as well as more road deactivation once industry has worked in an area.

Where are these undeveloped forests?

[slowjo]

Where are these undeveloped forests?

they're at the end of the logging roads :)

[willyqbc]

If we stand by endless habitat loss and infinite road building to ensure our access then I firmly believe we’re on the wrong side of the fence. The best interest of our F&W should come first and foremost then I promise you we will see the benifits through our binoculars and fishing rods for years to come.

I'm gonna say it again.....that endless habitat loss and infinite road building equates to JOBS. As I said earlier, its a shitty choice to have to make....but it is the reality. There are tens of thousands of British Columbians who make their living off resource extraction. For the folks who don't work in industry, or maybe are retired, its much easier to want to put habitat first. I have been through a permanent mill closure...i was one of the lucky ones...as a tradesman, i had options....many, many others were not so lucky and were economically devastated.

Would I love to see a "best case scenario" where habitat is priority, and everyone still has their job....sure, of course I would.....but thats not realistic.

I'll say it again...its a shitty choice to have to make.... but for all on this thread, ask yourself....would YOU give up YOUR job in the name of habitat conservation?? Thats really what it comes down to

JMO
Chris

[Fella]

Gotta be a balance between jobs and habitat. There must be more efficient and less damaging ways to log...

[HarryToolips]

A road density cap I agree would be a positive but old roads need to be more then deactivated but instead obliterated so atv and lifted trucks can’t use them. The present methods do nothing to slow even a guy with a chainsaw and a lifted truck. Even plant a little poplar( not that poplar needs help) in the old roads to add some mixed timber and it grows like a weed. The road density in some areas is insane but so is the sea of chocked together young pine

Kept within reason it would be a positive for wildlife and little impact on hunters. Reaching an agreement with the logging industry is one hurdle but that is likely only going to accomplish results on new spurs. Do to the density in some areas dealing with present spurs is an issue

This is still just a piece of the puzzle and even though it is important in some areas it is not an answer to all of BCs issues. There is many areas in decline that road density is not an issue
I think the poplar is a very good idea...

[HarryToolips]

Thanks Willyqbc. You make complete sense. and thankfully those zealots who would keep me and my ORV out of the woods will not get their wish. Changes need to be made to somehow control road density and improve habitat. It would be great if the province set a side enough money to hire students to do habitat restoration using these very roads, and then if removing the roads is not doable, implement complete closures to everyone so wildlife can recover.
This would not have to be everywhere, but used to rehabilitate area by area so as to still provide ample opportunity for all to access the back country. Once the area has recovered it can be opened again.

For those that think a road in an area removes its status as wilderness there are plenty of preserves and Parks to hike in.
Access roads aren't going anywhere they just need to be controlled.
In many regions that aren't particularly steep like much of reg 8 and 3, there definitely needs to be more roads deactivated....not all, but more....anybody who thinks differently is truly ignorant of the situation...

[Timbow]

After witnessing 2 devastating fire seasons in the cariboo, I'm glad that industry hasn't started to deactivate roads

[RobU]

I'm gonna say it again.....that endless habitat loss and infinite road building equates to JOBS. As I said earlier, its a shitty choice to have to make....but it is the reality. There are tens of thousands of British Columbians who make their living off resource extraction. For the folks who don't work in industry, or maybe are retired, its much easier to want to put habitat first. I have been through a permanent mill closure...i was one of the lucky ones...as a tradesman, i had options....many, many others were not so lucky and were economically devastated.

Would I love to see a "best case scenario" where habitat is priority, and everyone still has their job....sure, of course I would.....but thats not realistic.

I'll say it again...its a shitty choice to have to make.... but for all on this thread, ask yourself....would YOU give up YOUR job in the name of habitat conservation?? Thats really what it comes down to

JMO
Chris

very valid points. There’s many ,many jobs performing 100% deactivation as well. For a long time. Not to argue economics with you because it’s an important factor. I for one can say there’s life after logging. As we debate this topic and present great ideas it should be known that as hunters we are way behind on this subject. There are many special interest groups out there doing much the same but they are ready to move past just casual discussions. David Suzuki was just doing a presentation in UBCO a few days ago and guess what he was talking about? Same thing we are. Now love or hate the guy one thing to know is that when he takes the time with all his leaf licker buddies to research and do a presentation, a whole lotta people listen. And rest assured they’re not worried about us being able to get to our favourite hunting spots. In particular we need to pay very close attention to Y2Y plus the negotiation and dialogues for the caribou from Columbia and Peace basins. All back country activities are at stake including our hunting.

[Bugle M In]

I'm gonna say it again.....that endless habitat loss and infinite road building equates to JOBS. As I said earlier, its a shitty choice to have to make....but it is the reality. There are tens of thousands of British Columbians who make their living off resource extraction. For the folks who don't work in industry, or maybe are retired, its much easier to want to put habitat first. I have been through a permanent mill closure...i was one of the lucky ones...as a tradesman, i had options....many, many others were not so lucky and were economically devastated.

Would I love to see a "best case scenario" where habitat is priority, and everyone still has their job....sure, of course I would.....but thats not realistic.

I'll say it again...its a shitty choice to have to make.... but for all on this thread, ask yourself....would YOU give up YOUR job in the name of habitat conservation?? Thats really what it comes down to

JMO
Chris

My point wasn't to take away from people making a living.
We all use the products that come from forestry.
And yes, jobs matter, especially politically, way above the environment when need be.

My point was to say "why are we just blaming ourselves" (some of us anyways).
There are so many things at play, that are creating the issues.
If you guys want, I could take pics of Kamloops in 1984 and now, to show the growth of a city.
Take Kelowna, do the same and all those vineyards.
It's just what it is.

The bigger point is:
"We are not a world leader when it comes to environment like we think we are".
Especially for a 1st world nation.
Yes, 3rd world countries don't care about dick, when people don't have 2 pennies to rub together.

But, how can we set the example of how the environment and jobs can work hand in hand when we are still doing things
the way we are??
We as hunter are just seeing what the end result is by the lack of game we are seeing in the forests.

A lot has to change.
Much of it is far and above beyond the "hunting realm".
Besides that, what's left to cut???
And, if fires continue, there wont be anything to cut in 10 years anyways.
Will have to wait for it to all grow back up.
We need to find other ways to harvest resources and create jobs to re-create what we took.
Otherwise there wont be any jobs, and no animals to hunt.

[willyqbc]

A very good first step would be to ban raw log exports.....last numbers I saw were 8-9 million cubic meters a year of raw logs heading off shore. Thats a lot of habitat and a lot of roads with no jobs coming from it beyond the logging jobs. And we've been exporting at these levels for a long time now.

[Pemby_mess]

A very good first step would be to ban raw log exports.....last numbers I saw were 8-9 million cubic meters a year of raw logs heading off shore. Thats a lot of habitat and a lot of roads with no jobs coming from it beyond the logging jobs. And we've been exporting at these levels for a long time now.

The type of logging mostly being talked about here, has shed many of its jobs already, in the form of feller-bunchers and other means of mechanization. Great for capital investors, not so good for local economies that used to depend on having at least a few dozen well paid fallers in each BC town. This process is only going to continue, and it's high time people in the west adjust their policies accordingly.

[Wild one]

The type of logging mostly being talked about here, has shed many of its jobs already, in the form of feller-bunchers and other means of mechanization. Great for capital investors, not so good for local economies that used to depend on having at least a few dozen well paid fallers in each BC town. This process is only going to continue, and it's high time people in the west adjust their policies accordingly.

Logging still provides a lot of jobs and with yearly income ranging from 60k-150k+ a year they are jobs that sustain a family on a single persons salary. These jobs are also what whole communities depend on. These are jobs that are often located in areas that can provide affordable living that is not possible in larger communities

There is multiple forms of logging and fallers are still used in some styles.

The number of jobs is not everything when it comes to the economy

[Wild one]

A very good first step would be to ban raw log exports.....last numbers I saw were 8-9 million cubic meters a year of raw logs heading off shore. Thats a lot of habitat and a lot of roads with no jobs coming from it beyond the logging jobs. And we've been exporting at these levels for a long time now.

This would be good do to the fact mill jobs help off set the logging job losses

[Bugle M In]

A very good first step would be to ban raw log exports.....last numbers I saw were 8-9 million cubic meters a year of raw logs heading off shore. Thats a lot of habitat and a lot of roads with no jobs coming from it beyond the logging jobs. And we've been exporting at these levels for a long time now.

Totally agree with that.
I just cant remember if this came about in part due to "Free Trade" agreement back in the day?
If so, then there probably is a stipulation that we have to export "X" amount of raw logs.
Either way, if we want to talk road access and what to do about it, it shows how complex the situation gets because the roads exist due to logging.
In other words, a simple problem suddenly becomes an issue with a multitude of facets with issues in themselves.
And road access, or maybe I should have just said "Access" is only one of many issues with game and not seeing it like before.

[willyqbc]

I just cant remember if this came about in part due to "Free Trade" agreement back in the day?

IIRC ....it was nothing to due with free trade. It came in, part and parcel with some other changes the industry was lobbying for. besides the increase in allowable raw exports, the other HUGE change that has also contributed to this situation was that back in the day, specific mills had their own quotas of logs. And those logs came from within that mills own geographic region. The west frasers and canfors of the world lobbied and got that changed to a company quota not tied to any specific mill. I believe prior to this change timber baskets in a certain region were not large enough to justify building "super mills", but once that restriction was lifted and logs could be sent wherever the companies wanted....the super mills, and thus higher demand for timber, soon followed.
The higher demand from the mills, coupled with the ability to truck wood in from wherever they wanted, and the onset of the pine beetle.....is why you see concentrations of logging like in your google earth images.

[Darksith]

Roads that are "active" push deer off of them. Its science based, studied fact. So if deer avoid a road by say 250m on each side, and don't feel comfortable within that space, how many "safe spaces" are left for deer? This is why roads need to be decativated, even if its a main FSR and its not going to be used by industry, then it needs to be deact'd. This changes migration routes, daily habits and its been proven via radio collaring. So yes roads that are not in use by industry need to be decommissioned if we truly care about habitat and healthy populations. You want access, you get it via active roads, your wants do not trump wildlife health. You don't need to be able to drive into every valley of this province. Its also bogus and the biologists don't agree with just hunters getting ATV restrictions, they wanted a complete restriction for everyone, but the politicians wouldn't allow it so they picked on the "quietest" group out there...us hunters.

Its not the government that is dictating a lot of the so called management, its industry and capitalism. The biologists a lot of the time get hand tied, muzzled and gagged because wildlife is trumped by industry. We need to write letters to the politicians. Thats the only way we will win. The politician wants to get re elected, if they get 100 letters from angry hunters, that represents 1000 or 10,000 angry hunters and that puts fear into them. We need to show up at their offices and request meetings. That really tells them that my voters are angry. We need to do this more than the anti hunters, thats the only way we will win. 47 letters came in about the "predator hunt contests", do you think the politicians are just shrugging that off as 47 unhappy people or do you think they feel that as pressure and if they want to get that public paycheck after the next election they better pay attention to those 47 letters...think about it...
Draft a letter, share it here, copy and paste it and send it to your MLA...we need to unite on this tactic and actually do it rather than run 18 pages on a thread complaining and arguing with each other

[REMINGTON JIM]

A very good first step would be to ban raw log exports.....last numbers I saw were 8-9 million cubic meters a year of raw logs heading off shore. Thats a lot of habitat and a lot of roads with no jobs coming from it beyond the logging jobs. And we've been exporting at these levels for a long time now.

This should NEVER have Being DONE ! Remember all those HUGH Sitka Spruce tress Sold to Japan a bunch of Years Back ! RJ

[Walking Buffalo]

This should NEVER have Being DONE ! Remember all those HUGH Sitka Spruce tress Sold to Japan a bunch of Years Back ! RJ

The ones being stored at the bottom of the Sea of Japan....

While Japan stores them for use in 100 years, BC could have kept them banked alive and had a healthier ecosystem.

[Bugle M In]

Kind of getting off topic, but, all the logging creating all the access and some of this huge harvesting due to raw log export,
so I guess "it's part of the topic".
Just wanted to say that sadly, much of the lumber we can buy here is for the most part...crap.
The good stuff goes elsewhere.
I have talked more than a few contractors who cant look forward enough to retiring.
Big reason why...they are frustrated with the quality of lumber they are forced to work with.
(just an fyi)

[Walksalot]

This point may have already been brought up as I have not read all the postings. The problem with road deactivation is it, for the most part, blocks the pick up trucks. The atv and motor bike owners usually find a way around the deactivation site. I say that being an atv owner. As far as an elevation restriction for atv off road travel this , in my opinion, is useless as the mountain bike trails weave through the back country with reckless abandon on cleared out trails at all elevations.

[j270wsm]

Walksalot....your point of only keeping trucks out is why the roads have to be completely deactivated. Keep all motorized vehicles out. Down hill bike trails aren't an issue like logging roads. As said earlier in this thread....restrictions only keep the honest person out. Poachers don't care about rules and fn have their own rules.

[Island Idiots]

I would say that if your going to block access and deactivate roads, you have to restore the road back to forest or plant trees on them. For me the only sense in removing access roads is to remove ease of access for wolves so blocking access to an area that has been replanted and has a chance to return to its original or close to condition before logging, mining, extraction took place. Its all or nothing.
No sense in removing access if restoration hasn't taken place.

[Wild one]

I would say that if your going to block access and deactivate roads, you have to restore the road back to forest or plant trees on them. For me the only sense in removing access roads is to remove ease of access for wolves so blocking access to an area that has been replanted and has a chance to return to its original or close to condition before logging, mining, extraction took place. Its all or nothing.
No sense in removing access if restoration hasn't taken place.

I agree with this statement

[ACE]

On private property (TimberWaste-Island Timberlands) it would be foolish and expensive to de-activate or 'put-to-bed' roads. A lot of those roads will be used again in 40+ yrs. Sometimes road building costs equal the value of the second growth timber harvested. Building new road isn't cheap . . .

[Wild one]

On private property (TimberWaste-Island Timberlands) it would be foolish and expensive to de-activate or 'put-to-bed' roads. A lot of those roads will be used again in 40+ yrs. Sometimes road building costs equal the value of the second growth timber harvested. Building new road isn't cheap . . .

The island without a doubt comes with its own special problems. The truth is the issues are different throughout BC

[Island Idiots]

On private property (TimberWaste-Island Timberlands) it would be foolish and expensive to de-activate or 'put-to-bed' roads. A lot of those roads will be used again in 40+ yrs. Sometimes road building costs equal the value of the second growth timber harvested. Building new road isn't cheap . . .

You are correct. The current forest management plan is not working. Something has to change. Allowing harvesting in huge areas without setting aside untouched habitat has to change. The funding model has to change somehow to allow for stricter regulations on where you can harvest, how you can harvest, and when you can harvest, as well as required restorative regulations.
The forest industry has had too much deregulation. There has to be value added somehow to be able to support a forest practices act that has evolved, and still provides access and profits for the industry. We need industry, we just need to regulate it properly in coordination with proper wildlife / resource management.

Perhaps there is a way to use special plantings to over grow the roads without actually destroying them.

[NMO]

My right to access the bush is no different than anyone else's. I would use a road to get there, and no I would not leave that road. I would hunt as near as I can and enjoy the area just like anyone else. To remove access to the bush by disabling side roads would remove my ability to access the back woods. It would however, provide access to those that can hike in.
This is discriminatory. My access will be removed, but others will still have the ability to access where I cannot go.

If you really want to limit access, then do it to everyone. Deactivate the roads, and POST the area NO TRESSPASSING.
Then we can all hunt the area your closures left me in. You can walk up and down the main roads and I will drive my ORV.
I am sure the wildlife will recover quickly if we all make the same sacrifices in the name of wildlife.

IMO, Wildlife & Habitat should matter more than ANYONE's ability to access or use it. As others have mentioned, the negative impact of roads is well documented, throughout our province and others. I am all for enabling people to get out and enjoy the wilderness, but the protection of said wilderness should come first.

Phone any regional biologist and ask them about water tables and habitat health in relation to roads. Everything suffers. Look at the steelhead populations on Vancouver Island, in contrast with the logging industry. We've seen what happens, we know better, we just need to be better.

The long-standing wildfire suppression tactics have also proven to be the catalyst for the current state of summer fires. Fires are a necessary part of a healthy ecosystem, so arguing that roads need to be kept in place for that reason is a little off the mark -- with the exception perhaps of areas bordering housing/infrastructure.

[slowjo]

if you’re not convinced that roads are an issue, and the province requires more areas free of industry roads, watch this video, maybe it will help you understand.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VVY3gjr4oHs&feature=youtu.be

who are the real killers?

[Bugle M In]

Sadly, it isn't just road access when it comes to the environment and it's concerns.
Everyone, meaning government and industry like to talk about it as if they are concerned but the truth is, in the end,
industry always wins out.
It's like when there is talk about the "new management plan", and that "all parties/interests" will be involved in the discussions.
IT's all good on paper, but the truth is, special interests is just another word for "lobbyists" who are only there to make
sure they are not loosing out.
Which is true of all who are invited, industry worried about losing jobs, and FN wanting more of the land under their control and hunters wanting to make sure they have more to hunt.
Its just that some of those interest groups have lobbyist who carry cash to make sure they get what they want.
Truth is, we are not much better than anywhere else on the planet when it comes to taking care of the environment.
We just aren't doing it in a way that will make it better for future generations, or at least in a way that they can enjoy
things to the same capacity as previous generations.
I don't hold my breath thinking things will change anymore.
If things don't change, we hunters will be the first ones out of the scenario.
Industry will just slow down when there is nothing left for them to harvest as far as resources.
Seems like the only way to protect anything is to turn it into a Park.
They don't want to change unless they absolutely have to change.
And even if that happens, it will take several decades for things to come back.

I recently just watched a couple of documentaries, the plastic ocean and another on a river being poisoned in the States, and you would think that in the States, more would be done when things are found out, and thus rectified.
In the end, the industries lobbyists just manage to find a way for government to basically sweep it under the rug.

In the end, it really is left up to the individual to make the difference.
Something to think about.

[Seeker]

Sadly, it isn't just road access when it comes to the environment and it's concerns.
Everyone, meaning government and industry like to talk about it as if they are concerned but the truth is, in the end,
industry always wins out.
It's like when there is talk about the "new management plan", and that "all parties/interests" will be involved in the discussions.
IT's all good on paper, but the truth is, special interests is just another word for "lobbyists" who are only there to make
sure they are not loosing out.
Which is true of all who are invited, industry worried about losing jobs, and FN wanting more of the land under their control and hunters wanting to make sure they have more to hunt.
Its just that some of those interest groups have lobbyist who carry cash to make sure they get what they want.
Truth is, we are not much better than anywhere else on the planet when it comes to taking care of the environment.
We just aren't doing it in a way that will make it better for future generations, or at least in a way that they can enjoy
things to the same capacity as previous generations.
I don't hold my breath thinking things will change anymore.
If things don't change, we hunters will be the first ones out of the scenario.
Industry will just slow down when there is nothing left for them to harvest as far as resources.
Seems like the only way to protect anything is to turn it into a Park.
They don't want to change unless they absolutely have to change.
And even if that happens, it will take several decades for things to come back.

I recently just watched a couple of documentaries, the plastic ocean and another on a river being poisoned in the States, and you would think that in the States, more would be done when things are found out, and thus rectified.
In the end, the industries lobbyists just manage to find a way for government to basically sweep it under the rug.

In the end, it really is left up to the individual to make the difference.
Something to think about.

I fully agree and the more I have become involved in trying to correct the wrongs or bring awareness to the issues, the more disheartened I become. You only have to go as far as the provincial budget to realize NO ONE
in government, the very people who can change and make a difference, cares about wildlife or the environment. They will do a little thing here or there as lip service, but that is it. Even the pro environment NDP dedicates single percentage digits in their budget.......shameful. Don't get me started on the DFO..... but I keep trying simply because I feel we need to at least try. Its apparent not many others are willing to..... for those of you who do...kudos to you!

[RobU]

I fully agree and the more I have become involved in trying to correct the wrongs or bring awareness to the issues, the more disheartened I become. You only have to go as far as the provincial budget to realize NO ONE
in government, the very people who can change and make a difference, cares about wildlife or the environment. They will do a little thing here or there as lip service, but that is it. Even the pro environment NDP dedicates single percentage digits in their budget.......shameful. Don't get me started on the DFO..... but I keep trying simply because I feel we need to at least try. Its apparent not many others are willing to..... for those of you who do...kudos to you!

Very well said. We do need to call for change in big industry BC. And embrace it when it comes. Our F&W stand to gain the most. When F&W are doing well there’s plenty of opportunities for all of us. If things stay as they are now everything and everyone loses. Hopefully as hunters and fishermen we can gain enough voice to be heard and understood. We are behind on this subject as many other organizations are moving ahead on this.

[Walksalot]

As long as there is logging there will be access. As long as there are wild fires there will be access. Deactivating the roads only stops the motor vehicles. The atv owners, and I am an atv owner, will find ways around the deactivation site. How can we stop atv owners from clearing out access roads around deactivation sites when mountain bikers are allowed to construct bike trails with reckless abandon at all elevations? At one site off Arawana road a small excavator was brought in to construct a section of a mountain bike trail.
We can annihilate all the predators but without habitat the writing is on the wall for the demise of certain wildlife species. Let the wild fires do what they are meant to do in the grand sceme of things and that is to restore habitat. It is short term pain for long term gain. Protect the residential areas but let the wild fires burn burn out with no access created. Selectively log the areas with focus on protecting valuable animal habitat. Protect low elevation winter ranges. Sadly this will never happen as we a too focused on a strong bottom line for logging companies and timber mills and a strong economy.

[ACE]

The 'new age' foresters with all the letters behind their names and zero logging experience have deemed to take fire out of the equation. Un-burned slash, a few large piles of debris (it took diesel fuel/time) and dead replants because of heat. The slash stays like a moonscape for 3+ years, lots of dry fuel on the ground, no fireweed, no bugs, bees, birds, or bears . . .
If you don't have the RPF letters behind your name, the 40+ years of bushcraft and logging mean nothing . . .
Burn the slash, get that cut-block 'working' again . . .

[wideopenthrottle]

I fully agree and the more I have become involved in trying to correct the wrongs or bring awareness to the issues, the more disheartened I become. You only have to go as far as the provincial budget to realize NO ONE
in government, the very people who can change and make a difference, cares about wildlife or the environment. They will do a little thing here or there as lip service, but that is it. Even the pro environment NDP dedicates single percentage digits in their budget.......shameful. Don't get me started on the DFO..... but I keep trying simply because I feel we need to at least try. Its apparent not many others are willing to..... for those of you who do...kudos to you!

their idea of doing something for the environment is shipping lower mainland garbage to Cash creek

[Wild one]

The 'new age' foresters with all the letters behind their names and zero logging experience have deemed to take fire out of the equation. Un-burned slash, a few large piles of debris (it took diesel fuel/time) and dead replants because of heat. The slash stays like a moonscape for 3+ years, lots of dry fuel on the ground, no fireweed, no bugs, bees, birds, or bears . . .
If you don't have the RPF letters behind your name, the 40+ years of bushcraft and logging mean nothing . . .
Burn the slash, get that cut-block 'working' again . . .

These changes are another factor that is not helping

[Timbow]

The 'new age' foresters with all the letters behind their names and zero logging experience have deemed to take fire out of the equation. Un-burned slash, a few large piles of debris (it took diesel fuel/time) and dead replants because of heat. The slash stays like a moonscape for 3+ years, lots of dry fuel on the ground, no fireweed, no bugs, bees, birds, or bears . . .
If you don't have the RPF letters behind your name, the 40+ years of bushcraft and logging mean nothing . . .
Burn the slash, get that cut-block 'working' again . . .

It’s not that easy. Changes to the MoF public policy in 1988 eliminated the forest industry’s liability for prescribed burns. Any costs to suppress an escaped fire is on the company or person who started it.

[Bugle M In]

As long as there is logging there will be access. As long as there are wild fires there will be access. Deactivating the roads only stops the motor vehicles. The atv owners, and I am an atv owner, will find ways around the deactivation site. How can we stop atv owners from clearing out access roads around deactivation sites when mountain bikers are allowed to construct bike trails with reckless abandon at all elevations? At one site off Arawana road a small excavator was brought in to construct a section of a mountain bike trail.
We can annihilate all the predators but without habitat the writing is on the wall for the demise of certain wildlife species. Let the wild fires do what they are meant to do in the grand sceme of things and that is to restore habitat. It is short term pain for long term gain. Protect the residential areas but let the wild fires burn burn out with no access created. Selectively log the areas with focus on protecting valuable animal habitat. Protect low elevation winter ranges. Sadly this will never happen as we a too focused on a strong bottom line for logging companies and timber mills and a strong economy.

I remember hiking in with several guys to a lake one of them used to go to.
In the meantime, he hadn't realized so much logging happened from the opposite side that we hiked from at the lake.
We took over an hour to get there.
Once we got close we could hear a motor.
Turns out had we hiked from the "logged side", it would have taken less than 15 minutes.

BUT, what made it worse, was that an ATV guy cut a trail thru the remaining distance to bring a boat in!
(worst part was, the lake is so small, that he had to constantly keep the motor turn….he just did a big circle!...
it was just know for big fish, but it was basically a pond!)

So many times now I have seen ORV users just make their own trails!
I have seen them up in the kettle valley, in the alpine, where they knew they weren't supposed to be, and argued about
what defined the border of the closure.

And that's just ORV's and roads and non road issues.
Then you have all those "HELI TOURS" going on, especially in the EK.
Seems to be little regulation there.
Out goat hunting and then, hey look, half of Japan is up there with Camera's!!
Or just seeing them hover over peaks where Bighorn are.
Talk about "stressing out" the wildlife.