should they change rule for atvs

[rollover]

just wondering with gas prices so high i feel they should let you use your atv in leh areas as long as you stay on roads. what the feeling on this

[Gateholio]

I think that motorized vehicles should always stay on roads, and that we should look at why we have vehicle restrictions in some areas for hunters, and if they are valid reasons.

[Ron.C]

As an ATV owner and a hunter I say no way. Sure, allow ATV's anywhere where vehilces can legally transit FSR's to hunt, and that's it,

no special rules for ATV's regardless of the reason.

[BiG Boar]

I dont see the relationship between ATV's and high gas prices. ATV's dont use that much gas anyways. Not anywhere near like a truck.

[Fisher-Dude]

just wondering with gas prices so high i feel they should let you use your atv in leh areas as long as you stay on roads. what the feeling on this

You can already use your atv in most areas where there are LEH draws. The only place you can't are those with specific access restrictions that apply to all hunters, not just LEH holders. BCWF region 8 has proposed that all existing motorized access restrictions be reviewed to see if they are still valid for conservation concerns, and if there are any future restrictions enacted for conservation concerns, that they restrict ALL users (ie ranchers, joyriders, etc), not just hunters.

I don't favour any access restrictions that are not for either an environmental concern or a conservation concern. Restricting access just further kills off hunter numbers.

[6616]

We are also reviewing access management measures in Region 4 since some of the very old closures were put in place for reasons that are now redundant.

When discussing access management it is important to consider under which legislature the closures will be created.

MOE has two types of closures, Hunting Vehicular Access closures (HVAC) apply to hunters only but includes guide-outfitters and usually apply to a specific road or road system. Access Management Areas (AMA) apply to everyone and apply to a specific area which includes on and off road use. MOE closures are used to address conservation concerns.

Old MOF closures under Section 58 or 104 apply to all users and are usually specific to a given road.

To be aware of, are the new recreational closures under the Forest and Range Practices Act which apply to public recreation users but not commercial recreational users unless specific conditions are attached. Thus an area can be closed to resident hunters but not guide-outfitters. Special conditions can be created and it is important to do so when utilizing the new FRPA measures.

There are also seldom used access management measures under Mines Energy and Petroleum and Agriculture/Lands.

There is a Forestry Main in the East Kootenay that is closed under a VHAC, thus closed to hunters only. It is a very productive elk, sheep and goat hunting area and naturally the guide-outfitter in the area argues in favour of retaining the closure. The interesting thing is that there is a mine in the area as well and they also support retaining the closure for public safety reasons even thought the closure does not apply to fishermen, hikers, or any other users besides hunters. In my opinion this is mis-use of the HVAC measure since it is designed for conservation and not public safety and only applies to a small segement of the public users anyway. It is the wrong measure to use if public safety is a concern. MOE closures should only be utilized for reasons pretaining to wildlife. Just an example of what to watch for during these reviews of how the system can and is being be mis-used in some cases.

[6616]

just wondering with gas prices so high i feel they should let you use your atv in leh areas as long as you stay on roads. what the feeling on this

This has been discussed in the East Kootenay, especially in the case of goat hunting where the resident allocation is heavily under-utilized.

Also, vehicular access into a non-motorized area for game recovery purposes only has been discussed.

An issue like this should really be addressed by considering whether an area needs both LEH plus and an access closure to limit harvest. Is not one limiting measure good enough?

I do not favour compromising access management measures by allowing some hunters vehicular access and not others. Perhaps these areas do not need to be on LEH, or if they are, pehaps they do not require access management measures.

[palmer]

My personal opinion is that if its a road closure, then its feet only and nothing including horses. I also would like to see no exemptions.
This year in the flathead we saw the guide drive in and out of a road closure. We found out he had a permit to drive his clients in and out to the lodge ...30km...Rules should be for all.
If there are no needs for closures then take them out.,

Palmer

[6616]

My personal opinion is that if its a road closure, then its feet only and nothing including horses. I also would like to see no exemptions.
This year in the flathead we saw the guide drive in and out of a road closure. We found out he had a permit to drive his clients in and out to the lodge ...30km...Rules should be for all.
If there are no needs for closures then take them out.,

Palmer

I agree, those special permits for guides to drive into vehicular closured areas are pure BS, and there has been several over the last few years in the EK: Cross River, Corral Creek, Bryanton Creek, but I do not object to the few with horses being able to use these areas.

If MOE is willing to hand out these special permits it seems to go a long ways in showing that many of these closures are not really needed, after all, the guided non-residents have the best success rate of anyone out there!

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I agree, those special permits for guides to drive into vehicular closured areas are pure BS, and there has been several over the last few years in the EK: Cross River, Corral Creek, Bryanton Creek, but I do not object to the few with horses being able to use these areas.

If MOE is willing to hand out these special permits it seems to go a long ways in showing that many of these closures are not really needed, after all, the guided non-residents have the best success rate of anyone out there!

On a similar note the G/O is allowed to use a jetboat in the Tatshenshini River.

He's the only one since it was grandfathered in when it became a park.

Utter B.S.:mad:

SSS

[hunter1947]

Its a crock of shit ,them the other people having the rights to drive into closed areas restricted from motorized gas or electric units.

Thats one way the guides have got one over on all of us http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon9.gif http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon8.gif.

[Deaddog]

I agree the rules should all be the same, on the other hand it just makes me more determined to get into those areas and hunt, if that means using horses or hiking my a** off , so be it.

[steel_ram]

ATV to save on the cost of fuel? NO. If you can afford an ATV, you can afford gas.

[Fisher-Dude]

ATV to save on the cost of fuel? NO. If you can afford an ATV, you can afford gas.

Ass-backwards logic. I have a $70,000 diesel truck too, but the fuel bill still sucks. My ATV gets 30 mpg, so it's gonna get used more and more.

[steel_ram]

Ass-backwards logic. I have a $70,000 diesel truck too, but the fuel bill still sucks. My ATV gets 30 mpg, so it's gonna get used more and more.


Yes it is ass-backwards logic! I doubt with your current array of "Toys", the environment isn't your concern regarding fuel consumption. No tears shed here when the boy with the toys cries he can't afford gas. LOL.

[rollover]

i dont own a 70000 dollar truck and yes i use my atv for hunting cause i am a average joe who cant afford to hunt with a truck . i only use my atv to get to an area then i walk all the open areas so what i was talking about was for people on the lower end of the money scale who hunt for food and also the sport .the rules should be you can use an atv only on roads and not in the bush . thats what i was getting at

[Gun Dog]

Its a crock of shit ,them the other people having the rights to drive into closed areas restricted from motorized gas or electric units.

Thats one way the guides have got one over on all of us http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon9.gif http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon8.gif.So if a new park encompasses your house you are ok with being cut off? It's the same at Cathedral Provincial Park -- a private lodge (not in the park) surrounded by a park. Hollyburn Mountain (Cypress Provincial Park) had private cabins (and access) for years but I thing the province finally bought out the owners. An access road to the lodge is ok; driving all over the countryside isn't.

[hunter1947]

So if a new park encompasses your house you are ok with being cut off? It's the same at Cathedral Provincial Park -- a private lodge (not in the park) surrounded by a park. Hollyburn Mountain (Cypress Provincial Park) had private cabins (and access) for years but I thing the province finally bought out the owners. An access road to the lodge is ok; driving all over the countryside isn't.
I'm talking about where non of this takes place partner http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

I'm talking about guided areas that are leased buy the guide outfitters ,they take there equipment into these closed areas to there guide camp and keep out others not being able to enter with a motorized unit of any sort.

[sparky300winmag]

i think its an absolute crock ,that there are road closures for hunting purposes .Wether it be hunting or transporting of game .I see absolutly no logic in it.A vehicle can go in or out , but not if you are hunting?? They want to get hunter numbers up , but they close a road for vehicle access when used for hunting purposes.I don't get it.