More Legislation Coming for ORV

[rivet]

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/P...824/story.html

Haven't seen this posted yet so thought I would put it out there.

[tomcycle]

Copied from the link above and printed without permission

[line]





Province wants to rein in off-road yahoos


Tourism minister Kevin Krueger says government has had enough of those who run roughshod over wild public lands

By Larry Pynn, Vancouver Sun October 4, 2009

[i]

The province is close to adopting regulations that would help rein in off-road vehicle "yahoos" who thoughtlessly run roughshod over wild public lands at the expense of the environment.

"There is an appetite in our government to make some changes," Kevin Krueger, B.C.'s minister of tourism, culture and the arts, said in an interview Friday. "We are just trying to settle on the right place. We're not completely there yet."

Krueger said a package of initiatives under strong consideration include mandatory registration and display of a "highly visible plate" that can help to identify those "small percentage of riders" who consider destruction of the environment all in a day's fun.

"Every now and then there'll be a riparian [streamside] zone where people have chosen to mud-bog in with their machines and rip it up," he said.

"We have to be able to identify those just being yahoos."

Also under consideration are education and training provisions for new riders, a requirement for safety helmets when riding on public lands, and allowing enthusiasts to cross highways to access riding areas without obtaining special permits. The regulations could pass before spring 2010.

Krueger noted that more well-heeled baby boomers are legitimately turning to all-terrain vehicles known as quads to explore the wild as their "knees and hips start to trouble them." Groups such as ranchers and mineral exploration firms also use them as part of their businesses.

Recreation groups around B.C. are strongly supportive of Victoria tackling the problem.

Tasha Sargent, stewardship planner for the broad-based Coalition for Licensing and Registration of Off Road Vehicles, said "we are holding the government accountable" and hope that in the coming years the government can adopt even stronger regulatory measures.

A coalition report in December 2005 also recommended that money raised from mandatory registration be put in a trust fund for education and safety programs, trail development including maintenance and enhancement, enforcement, and conservation and stewardship.

The coalition also wants a clear list of infractions in legislation, adequate fines, and effective compliance and enforcement.

B.C. is known as the Wild West of off-road motorized recreation, the only jurisdiction in North America that does not have legislation for the use of off-road vehicles on public lands.

Dave Quinn, program manager with the East Kootenay environmental group Wildsight, said he's in "total support" of the long-overdue regulatory changes.

He said off-road enthusiasts are aggressively "muscling their way" into wild areas, even to the point of building their own illegal trail systems.

He pointed to the risks of erosion, noxious weed spread, and wildlife disturbance from unregulated off-road vehicles, adding a small percentage of offenders "must face some consequences for their destructive activities on public land."

Quinn said the province should also put up better signs and maps showing where off-road vehicles are allowed, and to become involved in building and maintaining trails.


Complaints have been raised around the province about unrestricted use of off-road vehicles, including in areas originally intended for non-motorized recreation such as the Kettle Valley rail route through southern B.C. and the Alexander Mackenzie trail through the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Last March, outdoor recreation groups criticized a $25-million federal commitment to "multi-purpose" recreational trail development in Canada.

Leon Lebrun, vice-president and southwest regional director for Trails BC, said multi-purpose trails are a proven failure and ultimately end in motorized off-road enthusiasts pushing out non-motorized enthusiasts who are seeking a tranquil experience with nature.

"There is a perception if we create multi-use trails, somehow that will solve everything, satisfy everyone. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It's not a win-win situation."

Jeremy McCall, executive director of the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., representing motorized and non-motorized groups, agreed trails must be developed to separate motorized from non-motorized enthusiasts for the benefit of both.

lpynn@vancouversun.com

Go to vancouversun.com for the latest local news updates

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

[old trials guy]

Who are the "yahoos"....otg

[joker650]

There wasa discussion segment on CBC radio today about "Changes coming to off road vehicle use" in BC.



I misse it due to work, anyone hear it?

[Sparkle]

We had the same dose of PROPAGANDA in our local rag in Cranbrook tonight too "Local reaction to proposed ORV legislation largely positive".. I hate being called a Yahoo!

Otg's picture symbolizes the most powerful ammunition that we have. Somehow we have to make the point that that the criminal destruction of BC's forestlands can't be hidden, and can't be blamed on us....Because that's their plan...reduce the access, limit the range, hide the destruction and shift the blame to any weak citizen user group available.

I have to have a tag on my bike, and it's easy to sit back and say that other bikes should have one, and the quads should too...but this is not a game of "keeping track" it's about limiting access and making it more difficult and expensive to enjoy what we do, not a design to improve things. They're doing this because some of us are having fun....for free. Eventually bicycles should have tags too? Then maybe horses....and hiking sticks....Maybe the wilderness should become a forbidden zone, unless you pay up? After all, after the trees are gone...how do you make it pay?

I don't accept the government propaganda about "motorized" damage to the environment...I know first hand what the open range cattle people do with tree "thinning" and "ground scarifying" and underbrush burning range improvements. Thousands of hectares "improved" by cutting trees off waist high leaving the stubble unfit for anything. And I see every day the effect of herds of cattle on pristine mountain ponds and lakes. After a busy year of "open range" you can't get near those fly infested cesspools... It's enough to make you PUKE.

And logging?............. mile after mile of clearcut, haul-roads, landings and slash piles. Usually with landslides, sloughing stream banks and silted streams....Anytime I take a ride or climb a mountain or even zoom into BC with Google Earth I'm disgusted by the massive logging destruction in every direction. I spend time trying to find a camera angle that doesn't look like a bomb crater....Maybe it's time to show the world the ugly side.

All the motorcycles and all the quads in BC could never accomplish the magnitude of damage that officially sanctioned Crown Land users have done in just a few years. It isthe ordinary citizens of BCwho have been wronged, and lied to, and stolen from. It is us that should be enraged and on the attack, publicly demanding accountability for the real culprits. We have to become defenders and protectors, and spokesmen for what we are trying to protect, and we have to point the finger at who is really responsible.


Protecting the environment? BC is rapidly on it's way to becoming the worlds biggest gravel pit...and I refuse to accept any blame!



Sparkle

[sparklr]

Some very interesting viewpoints on the actual article and the responses so far. I know this is a touchy subject and probably many members have and use quads. I can completely agree with the Forestry issue and probably near all us bear witness to the the Forestry aftermath every time we head out in back country. I can't recall the number of times myself or other riders in the group have stopped to comment on this legalized destruction, the waste left behind and the lack of remedial action. Seeing as I am employed by one of the possible culprits, only somehow makes it worse for me. This is definitely a huge issue, yet almost independent of the ORV case.

Going back to the quad scenario, many have seen the aftermath of the so called "Yahoos". It is undeniably out there, and the environmental evidence is not unmistakable. For DS'rs to be lumped into the group may be unfair.

Is it a fee grabbing money making scenario? I don't believe that can be ascertained at this point. Is it reasonable? Depends on how it works and is administered. However with the government holding the reins I can only predict a major fiasco. Many of us are plated/insured and identifiable. The insured component is your medical and vehicle protection, unless you slam into an uninsured party. It makes sense to have vehicles using these areas carrying some form of insurance/permit and identifiable plate thus being accountable, not to just the environment but to the public. How many Quadder's do you think pass you in either direction might be legally impaired? I would hazard a guess that not many DS'rs attempt the same manouver. Perhaps I stray now. But reflect on your recourse or lack thereof should someone else cause your injury.

The part of fees maintaining trails of any form is the bigger problem. I don't prefer to be zoned to a specific riding area, and follow along some hiking/horse trails, akin to an amusement park for my adventure fix. Or perhaps we can create jobs by having DSBC approved trail builders and engineers to strategically plant obstacles equivalent to nature made phenomenoms such as downed trees and washouts etc. Don't forget artists and painters to paint murals of majestic scenery for your loop laps.

[Dorky]

As sent to Larry Pynn with a cc to Kevin Krueger:

Larry,

I have a few comments on your recent article on off road enthusiasts aggressively "muscling their way" into wild areas. Most of us agree with the need to identify those who are actively destroying wilderness and grass land areas. We are 'out there' often and we see the results - it is painful and angers us to see this damage. I fully support enjoying the outdoors in a sustainable fashion and would personally report anyone I saw who was abusing the environment.

Of course, at the same time we feel the need to defend ourselves against those who would allow no mechanical vehicles into the forest. First off, where do you suppose 99% of the environmental damage comes from? Please see the attached photo for a hint. Having said that, most British Columbiansrecognize and accept the need for logging. In fact, most of the trails that the 'walkies' use are in fact old logging trails.

Maybe we as a province need to recognize access for off-road vehicles as well. Many of us would supportthe legislation if it was truly aimed at identifying those who cause environmental damage. The fear is a hidden agenda that will deny off-road use on crown lands.

Recent meetings and discussions surrounding the BC'Trails Strategy' were promising and many of us attended in the hope of coming to an agreement suitable for all on use of the trails. The draft document is available here - http://www.dualsportbc.com/photogallery/data/500/1TrailsStrat_2MB.pdf Unfortunately it no longer seems to be available on the government website. Actually, the entire trails strategy websitehttp://www.tsa.gov.bc.ca/sites_trails/Initiatives/Prov_Trails_Strategy/recreation_trails_ seems to be gone and most links lead to the default http://www.sitesandtrailsbc.ca/websitewhere there is no longer any reference to the trails strategy. Some references (http://www.bcrpa.bc.ca/recreation_parks/parks/TrailStrategyforBC.pdf.pdf) can still be found on third party websites.

The good parts of the Trails Strategywere aimed at supporting trail managementand equitable trail access for all in BC. The questionable parts included problems such as the inability to agree on what constituted a trail - obviously the Trans Canada Trail is atrail. Should it be restricted to walkies only? Whataboutthesections that are 50km from the nearest town where all yousee are ORVs, should this be restricted? What about that50 year old logging trail on crown land that is far fromhuman habitation- should that be restricted to non-motorized use only? You can see some of the problems here.

So what happened to this initiative? Searches for 'Trails Strategy' on the government website no longer result in any direct relevant hits - a year ago there were many, many pages of information. Perhaps the desire to find a solution for balanced access by all users has fallen on the rocks!

One group that considers themselves a key player is the Trails Society of BC ( http://trailsbc.ca/). Their mandate purportedly was to support trail infrastructure and equitable trail access by all. They receive funding from the government for exactly this purpose. However, they have recently formally withdrawn their membership in the Canadian Trails Federation. Trails BC indicated "We have taken this action because we do not believe that the CTF is fulfilling its mandate to represent the interests of non-motorized trail users in its dealings with the National Trails Coalition." http://www.trailsbc.ca/news.html

Now Kevin Krueger has an appetite to make some changes. Is this to be licensing only? Is this a tax grab? Is the intent to get all the nasty motorized vehicles off the trails?

Is the intent to get all the nasty trail bikes off the road too? Very recently ICBC has declared that it will no longer license "Restricted Use" motorcycles. http://www.cvse.ca/vehicle_saftey_and_standards/PDF/bulletins/090914_bulletin_5_motorcycles.pdf These motorcycles areprovided by major manufacturers andin most cases require only the addition ofbrake lights and a horn to meet BC vehicle standards. However, suddenly,with no advance notice, these vehicles can no longer be licensed. It scares me that anyone can build a'chopper' style motorcycle in their garage from home made parts and get it inspected and licensed in BC. However, BC will no longerdeign to inspect professionally manufactured off-road/on-road capable motorcycles.

Can you see why many of us are starting to get a little suspicious?

"Inspected and licensed off road motorcycles you say?" Yes, there are a large number of us who operate 'dual purpose' motorcycles which have BC motor vehicle license plates for operation on the road. One group (to which I belong) is Dualsport BC. Our mandate is to enjoy as much of this fabulous province as possible in an environmentally sustainable way. DSBC has around 3000 members who would like to know what is going on. What happened to the process where we had some input. Is the government acting unilateraly to restrict access to crown land (our land)?

Mr. Krueger's comment that "well-heeled baby boomers are legitimately turning to all-terrain vehicles known as quads to explore the wild as their "knees and hips start to trouble them" is missing the point. Off road vehicle sport participation is growing at a remarkable rate. ORV purchases have tripled over the last ten years and it's not just the well heeled baby boomers. This is a family sport where mom and dad and 2.2 kids can enjoy a day in the outdoors.

I wish Mr. Krueger would give us some more information on his intentions. Or will it be another surprise law that suits his personal beliefs. Larry, maybe you can help to bring more of this issue to light. I would be happy to provide some contacts who can provide a more detailed history of this issue if you are interested.

Thanks for your time,

Gordon Gillespie
Kamloops BC

[sparklr]

Damn fine letter, good work!!

[klrroo]

[bajaman]

You are the man..excellent letter.



Ride Rummed or stay home.

[2Trider]

Dig deep guy's real deep....find or I should say follow the money trail and the real intent will come to light.

Who's pushing the bill

Who's financing the push

Who stands to benefit if it goes through.

Blaming ORV's for wanton destruction is like blaming the cow for global warming....big picture people and logging, mining, ski resort, subdivisions,ranching all do more damage than we could ever hope to do in a life time...let alone what Mother nature can do...Mount St Helens anyone oh wait that is NATURAL

Follow the money and answers appear

Soon mandatory Insurance will appear for EACH vehicle (I'd prefer it on the person instead)

ICBC benefit yep it tis coming...or maybe private insurers are in lobbying this one??

And what good is a plate if there is NO ENFORCEMENT

As I see it they can not even enforce current laws

So what really will change

More rules/regs

more cost to us to prop up government coffers.

Fear the Liberal party as they will take away your rights bit by bit...all in the name of protecting you from you..of course

[tomcycle]

2Trider wrote:

Fear the Liberal party as they will take away your rights bit by bit.

You had me until the last line. I don't think this can be drawn with a political line at least I hope note

T

[2Trider]

Tom I only say fear the Liberals because of the crap they have pulled here in Ontario and it seems that the BC Liberals are copying the same agenda.....just give them time

This piece of legislation will be only one of who knows what else that will infringe on ones rights all in the name of the environment, safety or preconceived notion of protection....theRUM issue comes to mind here as one.

Also watch for corruption within...very prevalent in Ontario...some of which is hitting the fan now.

Give them time

Hang on for the ride...I would hope to be wrong BUT...................

[Farp]

The Liberal gov't is not much different from any other gov't in that they are all motivated by economics. It's just a matter of who's getting the money from whom. The reality is that those with economic/political clout get the money and those without it wind up paying the bills. Trying to fight this reality is a losing proposition. The good news is there is no need for us to fight it because we have a lot of economic clout and all we have to do is hook it up to political clout.

The ORV industry in this province is a multi-million dollar industry. We need to co-ordinate the efforts of the off road groups (such as DualSportBC et al) with the motorcycle and quad dealers in this province to make sure that any legislation to be enacted serves in our best interests. The dealers benefit because adverse legislation will certainly diminish their sales and we benefit by ensuring that off-roading as a sport will continue to thrive.

Incidentally, I'm uncomfortable with slagging the logging companies (as much as I agree with the slagging) because were it not for logging, and to a lesser extent mining, the vast majority of FSRs that we ride on would not exist. To enjoy the roads that the loggers built and then turn around and criticize them for raping the landscape is, IMHO, hypocritical. Yes, they should do a better job of cleaning up after themselves, but that costs money and the Americans with their softwood lumber lobby aren't exactly making it easy for Canadian loggers to stay in business. My point is I think we'd be better served to focus on the economic benifit that ORVs bring to this problem than to point fingers.

I think the real motivation behind this criticism of ORVs comes from hikers, and Sierra club types who feel that any intrusion into the wilderness, other than on foot, should be banned. Well, I think that if we get together with the industry dealers that we'll have a lot more economic/political clout than they can muster and we'll win the fight hands down.

[old trials guy]

Farp wrote:

Incidentally, I'm uncomfortable with slagging the logging companies (as much as I agree with the slagging) because were it not for logging, and to a lesser extent mining, the vast majority of FSRs that we ride on would not exist.

Forest Service Roads are paid for by taxpayers and then we pay again to have them decommissioned so we can't use them.

I don't have any issue with loggers, what I have an issue withis agovernment that singles out recreational users as purveyors of mass environmental destruction when that goverment's policy allows 60 hector clearcuts as standard logging practise and with permission up to 100 hectare clearcuts.

otg

[DRuZer]

Probly the NDP would take this issue as a "working class" (ie. affordable hobby for the unionized class) and not f'd with it.

The Libs are gunnin for the yuppy (read: green) and that no other of their contingancy is affected - so just a coincidence that its happening under their watch (like the RUM issue).

I guess the only thing to do is demand to see the changes to the act/legislation in writing, to see who's behind this stoopidity - and hold his / her feet to the fire.

Feels like I just got off the toilet.....

[bigthumper]

old trials guy wrote:

Farp wrote:

Incidentally, I'm uncomfortable with slagging the logging companies (as much as I agree with the slagging) because were it not for logging, and to a lesser extent mining, the vast majority of FSRs that we ride on would not exist.

Forest Service Roads are paid for by taxpayers and then we pay again to have them decommissioned so we can't use them.

I don't have any issue with loggers, what I have an issue withis agovernment that singles out recreational users as purveyors of mass environmental destruction when that goverment's policy allows 60 hector clearcuts as standard logging practise and with permission up to 100 hectare clearcuts.

otg

Now if you really want to get into an angry trance, MANY of these logs are sent out of the country as raw log exports. The politics on many issues are so very difficult to understand.... And that all I'm going to say, or I'll really bust into a rant!!

[Farp]

This thread was inspired by a recent newspaper article which was critical of ORV users. The thread is titled "More Legislation Coming for ORV" and it was posted in the "Riding area closures What are We going to do about it?" forum. Ranting about clear-cuts and raw log exports (and I hate them as much as you do) serves no purpose and re-directs our focus away from the issue we should be dealing with.

I think this issue was created by environmentalists who are against any form of motorized recreational use of our forest lands. I think they've lobbied the gov't to take action which will restrict our use of the land, and I think their ultimate goal is to have us kicked out altogether. I think the gov't is listening to them because, to the best of my knowledge, we do not have an effective counter lobby.

An effective counter lobby would be made up of ORV user groups and industry reps. We need to tell the gov't that there are X many ORV users in the province and that the ORV industry employs Y many people in full time jobs and contributes Z millions of dollars annually to the provincial economy. I don't know what those numbers are but I am quite certain they are high enough to get the gov'ts attention and make them realize that ORV use should not be curtailed. We need to work with the gov't to ensure we have access to crown lands and if it means that we have to pay a new form of license fee to accomplish that then so be it.

[tomcycle]

Farp wrote:

We need to work with the gov't to ensure we have access to crown lands and if it means that we have to pay a new form of license fee to accomplish that then so be it.

I feel like a broke record sometimes

We already have an assosiation that works to protect our interests out there

The British Columbia Off-Road Motorcycle Association protects and advances the off-road motorcyclist's interests and rights to enjoy world-class trail networks in BC through representation to Provincial and Local governments, their agencies, Industry, and other recreational trail stakeholders.

Please take the time a surf the site

www.bcorma.com

We have tried the trail pass for the last year but to limited sucsess. Most riders seem to think all this happens by itself, it takes a lot of money. Remember all of the money for the trail pass go back into the off road motorcycle community I bet we wont be able to say that about govenment licencing fees



Tom

[old trials guy]

Like Tom says, join BCORMA today and support the strongest voice for motorcyclists in BC.

Maybe I am a conspiracy fool but I don't think the environmentalists are to blame, they are just being played like the rest of us. We pose a threat as we have the ability to document the outcome of land management policies in BC and with the internet broadcasting that information is unstoppable.

otg

[hightoweratwork]

Hey Tom:

Do we have a contact for bcorma?

I did look at there site, and found alot about the States, not much about the Sun's Article. Dual sport BC should find out what they "Bcorma" want us to rally behind.



Shane

[hightoweratwork]

Here is a link for the local Paper in Maple Ridge:

http://www2.canada.com/mapleridgetim...2-93f53644225b

Copied from the link above and printed without permission



Support high for off-road rules

Amy Steele, The TimesPublished:Friday, October 09, 2009
The District of Maple Ridge and local environmentalists are hopeful proposed new regulations for off-road vehicle users will help protect Blue Mountain from further abuse.

The provincial government hasn't introduced any regulations yet but Kevin Kreuger, Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, told the Vancouver Sun that the government is considering mandatory registration and display of "highly visible" plates, as well as education and training for new riders and a requirement for people to wear helmets when riding on public land.

Mike Gildersleeve, a member of the Blue Mountain Kanaka Creek Conservation Group, is concerned about off-road vehicle use impacting the headwaters of Kanaka and Catherine creeks as well as endangered species such as coastal and red-legged frogs.



Blue Mountain extends from 264 Street east to Mission and from the northern point of Alouette Lake south to Dewdney Trunk Road.
"We're trying to establish some no-go areas, thinking let's err on the side of caution because the trails, we can see how they're really out of control," said Gildersleeve. "The trails aren't really working that well in terms of the environmental impact."

Gildersleeve is worried about increased sedimentation in watercourses due to off-road vehicles tearing through and disturbance of riparian areas.

"There's all kinds of streams and creeks in that area so the uncontrolled use of motorized vehicles whether it's the quads or motorbikes can have a big impact. We've seen it. They do," said Gildersleeve.

Gildersleeve doesn't believe new regulations would resolve the issue unless there was also provincial staff committed to enforcement.

"You need to have the ability to monitor that and there doesn't seem to be the available resources to provide the enforcement or to monitor," said Gildersleeve.

Jon Mutiger, who is a member of the Blue Mountain Motorcycle Club, supports the proposed regulations.

"I think it's pretty important you get something in place because right now B.C. is the only place in North America that doesn't have regulations (for off-road vehicles)," he said. "It's really wild west."

Mutiger said there are currently a lot of "rednecks or yahoos" who are "out for a thrill," don't wear helmets and "share a bike between a few drunk people."

He likes the idea of people being able to report a specific licence plate so that all off-road vehicle users aren't tarred by the actions of a few.

Mutiger said education and training would be good because right now a 13-year-old boy can drive something with major horsepower at high speed. He suspects he's in the minority for off-road vehicle users that would welcome new regulations.

He doesn't believe all off-road vehicle users should get the bad rap they do and points to work the British Columbia Off-Road Motorcycle Association (BCORMA) has done in Blue Mountain. He said BCORMA got funding to do a hydrological study that looked at impact on watercourses and they have gotten rid of trails that were too close to watercourses.

BCORMA has put up about 10 kilometres of wooden bridges to prevent damage to watercourses, he added.

"We're trying to do it right and we're all volunteers," he said, adding he knows there are groups that don't like off-road vehicle users and they try to address their concerns.

"We're not violators of the mountain but there are violators of the mountain."

Mike Murray, general manager of community development and parks and recreation for the District of Maple Ridge, agrees with Gildersleeve that there's been "a number of years of no management" on Blue Mountain.

"The Blue Mountain area has hundreds of trails people have established in a rather haphazard fashion," said Murray. "We're concerned about any environmental damage done by trails put through sensitive areas. We're also concerned about safety. There certainly have been some serious accidents up there."

Murray said the fact that the government is looking at new regulations is "very positive."

Murray is also pleased that there's currently an environmental assessment of the trail network on Blue Mountain being done.

Mike Peters, recreation officer with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Arts, which oversees recreation sites on Crown land, explained that the study is being done on behalf of the British Columbia Off-Road Motorcycle Association (BCORMA) because the group got funding from the federal government.

"It's quite an in-depth study that's being done," said Peters.

A forest technologist has been hired to do the work.

Peters credits BCORMA for "using their funds to make sure the environment is being protected and their trail network is sound."

Peters explained that in the 1980s the provincial government set aside 2,500 hectares of land on Blue Mountain for a recreation site that was largely used by snowmobiles.

It's now a multi-use area.

Peters is now reviewing "the future" of that recreation site.

"We're trying to look at the bigger picture. There is a track of land up there. What is the future for it and how do we manage recreation?"

However, Peters said there are also numerous trails on Blue Mountain outside the recreation site.

He said some of the trails were built 30 years ago and aren't properly built. Peters said after the government reviews the trail network it might be necessary to move some of the trails.

"It's a very complicated mountain," said Peters. "It just goes on and on, all of the complicated layers and it's going to take us a while to really figure out how the user groups can interact properly together and protect the environment."

ATVers, dirt bikers, equestrian users, hikers and snowmobilers all use the mountain. There are also woodlots on it and both the Kwantlen and Katzie claim it as traditional territory and it could feature in their land claims settlements.

Peters concedes that management of recreation on Crown land hasn't been strong over the years because there haven't been enough resources. It used to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests and Range but their mandate was largely to manage the forest resources not recreation, said Peters.

He said there have been about 1,000 kilometres of trails built without any legal authority in the Chilliwack district, which includes Maple Ridge.

"This Crown land recreation has been going on for a lot of years without a management body specifically mandated to deal with it," said Peters.

Peters said he's currently working with other ministries to try and deal with recreational use on Crown land. He has mapping information of existing trails and watercourses but what he doesn't have is mapping information about species at risk.

"We know they're there but we don't know where. We've never mapped them," said Peters. "That's information we're hoping to get eventually. That will go a long way to deciding what may or may not take place in those areas."

He said ultimately it won't be the provincial government that dictates land use on Blue Mountain. Decisions will be made after consultation with stakeholder groups.



Shane

[2Trider]

Farp wrote:

I think this issue was created by environmentalists who are against any form of motorized recreational use of our forest lands. I think they've lobbied the gov't to take action which will restrict our use of the land, and I think their ultimate goal is to have us kicked out altogether. I think the gov't is listening to them because, to the best of my knowledge, we do not have an effective counter lobby.

Well it hit the Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1321342/



And if you read the comments your SPOT on Farp

Nothing to do with anything but getting ORV's Banned from crown lands...one step at a time....follow the money trail.

Unless ORV groups unit as one and pay errr lobby the government it will be a road of closure for ORV's...especially in Southern BC andits populous regions.

I'm sure ICBC is chomping at this as well...great way to increase there revenue.



Enforcement will be interesting and how it will be done...since it ain't happenning much now by the comments in the article

[old trials guy]

We willbe telling our grandkids "I can remember the time you could ride a motorcycle on a trail" and they will stare at us in disbelief and reply "I thought you could only do that on a Playstation or XBox!"

otg

[Farp]

I went to the BCORMA web-site with the intention of signing up and doing what-ever I could to support this group. The web-site looks impressive but I could not find out how to sign up as a user/member. I then tried to buy a trail pass but had no luck with that either, so I decided to donate some money to the cause figuring it was the least I could do. But when I clicked on their Credit card/Paypal button a screen appeared advising me that I couldn't do that either. I tried to email them but was blocked from doing that by some kind of internet security cookie issue (WTF that is). So now I don't know what to think. It appears we have an advocate who cannot be reached by the rank and file that it represents. Jeez, ya think we might be in trouble??? OTG it looks like you're right about the grandchildren stories. If we can't co-ordinate our efforts and put up a united front we're going to lose.